What will last of Trump?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

By the way, some posters have such extreme hatred for Trump that they are completely blinded by that hate.

I don't know how some even get out of bed in the morning or are in prison from a psychotic break.

[*Nately120*]

(07-18-2018, 11:27 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: By the way, some posters have such extreme hatred for Trump that they are completely blinded by that hate.

I don't know how some even get out of bed in the morning or are in prison from a psychotic break.

People are upset that we elected Trump in the same way a father is upset his teen daughter insists on dating the town d-bag.  You can't protest, because that will just make the bond that much stronger.  You just wait it out, try to stay sane, and hope she wises up before she gets knocked up.

[Benton]

(07-18-2018, 11:27 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: By the way, some posters have such extreme hatred for Trump that they are completely blinded by that hate.

I don't know how some even get out of bed in the morning or are in prison from a psychotic break.

Or could it be they just like American presidents to have American interests?

[*bfine32*]

(07-19-2018, 12:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Or could it be they just like American presidents to have American interests?

It's all so confusing. Is he an extreme Nationalist this week or unAmerican? 

[*Nately120*]

(07-19-2018, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's all so confusing. Is he an extreme Nationalist this week or unAmerican? 

I was under the impression Trump's nationalism is completely hollow and used not to better or serve the country, but to place himself on a pedestal and criticize others.  It's fake-ass patriotism, so his nationalism can certainly be unamerican as hell.  Ah, but I do pick on the poor guy unfairly.

[hollodero]

(07-19-2018, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's all so confusing. Is he an extreme Nationalist this week or unAmerican? 

I'd say he behaved unamerican in Helsinki, while he usually managed to score with the more extreme nationalists by using quite nationalistic catchphrases. In the end, one might argue he does both things out of purely self-serving motivations.

Note, I do not say that, I just answer the question with a hypothetical as to how one might see it. 
I will say this though, I'm surprised how quickly the focus shifted back from "Trump did something outrageous" to "the more important issue is the outrageous behaviour of the Trump critics". The USA makes me so sad lately.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 08:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The same kinds of checks that exist with a Dem President and a Dem Senate.  They vet you, they question you, they have hearings and then they confirm you. It’s the presidents choice, and the senate should just make sure the nominee is qualified and sane. And yes I was against the Republicans holding up Obama’s last pick.

Your first two sentences indicate how the process works in the abstract. The last indicates how it actually works in these partisan times--not necessarily the same as with a dem president and a dem Senate.

The president gets to nominate candidates. The actual choice is shared between the two branches, since the Senate confirms. I would argue the Senate should/has always been concerned with more than qualification and sanity.  Court balance and how a nominee's judicial philosophy will effect that are also a traditional consideration.  Previously, an ideologue might be sane and qualified, but face bipartisan rejection.

So I am suggesting that checks which operated in the past to hinder selection of a judge far out of the mainstream may not be in play any more.

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's all so confusing. Is he an extreme Nationalist this week or unAmerican? 

Trump's critics address Trump's contradictory actions.


Then you address the Trump critics as if they were the source of confusion, not he.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 11:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: People are upset that we elected Trump in the same way a father is upset his teen daughter insists on dating the town d-bag.  You can't protest, because that will just make the bond that much stronger.  You just wait it out, try to stay sane, and hope she wises up before she gets knocked up.

Is it that father is really concerned about his daughter, or does he just hate d-bags?

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 06:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It depends on how Trump's supporters view our allies.  Maybe I don't give them enough credit, but I could see them watching Trump distance himself from them as a good thing.  They're super liberal socialists who are weak on terror, so Trump shouldn't get along with them right?

Right. I think Trump supporters definitely view Europe that way.  How many NATO members have died for the US in Afghanistan because we, not they, were attacked? 435 British, 89 French, 55 Germans. Not that many, really. ( ) Our nearest "foe," Canada, has only lost 125. Big deal for the countries who were not attacked and the families of the fallen, maybe. But we could easily cover those losses ourselves. So they need us but we don't need them. Let NATO/EU freeloaders protect themselves.  How can that hurt America?

Outside the Trump base, to our allies, and to adversaries like Putin, US-European alliances and treaties look like a force multiplier for all parties--economic as well as military.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 03:38 AM)Dill Wrote: Your first two sentences indicate how the process works in the abstract. The last indicates how it actually works in these partisan times--not necessarily the same as with a dem president and a dem Senate.

The president gets to nominate candidates. The actual choice is shared between the two branches, since the Senate confirms. I would argue the Senate should/has always been concerned with more than qualification and sanity.  Court balance and how a nominee's judicial philosophy will effect that are also a traditional consideration.  Previously, an ideologue might be sane and qualified, but face bipartisan rejection.

So I am suggesting that checks which operated in the past to hinder selection of a judge far out of the mainstream may not be in play any more.

I said Republican Senate and Republican President are the same as Democrat President and Democrat Senate and you took an example of Democrat President and Republican Senate and said not the same. Zero no votes from Democrats on Kagan and Sotomayor

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 05:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well there's your checks and balances.  Of course they will rubber stamp him barring him showing to be a loon.  Just like the dems rubber stamped Obama's picks and Bush's picks were rubber stamped.  etc etc

Were any of those others under FBI investigation?  Did they have a history of making crappy picks for people for every other position?

Even the GOP should be against rubber stamping anything this loon does...but they want votes for power to make money for themselves.  That's it.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 08:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Were any of those others under FBI investigation?  Did they have a history of making crappy picks for people for every other position?

Even the GOP should be against rubber stamping anything this loon does...but they want votes for power to make money for themselves.  That's it.

If there's something batty about the guy we will learn.  Otherwise the party of the President will vote for him.  When's the last time they didn't, and in full force?  Of the Democrat nominated justices on the court there has been one no vote by a Democrat, and that was Ben Nelson.  Thomas I think had a couple of no votes by Republicans.  

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 07:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I said Republican Senate and Republican President are the same as Democrat President and Democrat Senate and you took an example of Democrat President and Republican Senate and said not the same. Zero no votes from Democrats on Kagan and Sotomayor

Sorry about the confusion.  My point, in part, was that today's hyper partisanship affects the way things are supposed to work in theory.

Zero no votes for Kagan and Sotomayor from Dems?

Zero votes at all for Merrick Garland--yes or no, Republican or Democrat.

Further, I am concerned that the Federalist Society has been so openly involved in creating Trump's list of nominees. We have a president who knows nothing of this process publicly delegating his responsibility to a narrow, special interest.  We need more than "checks in theory" now. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/how_the_federalist_society_became_the_de_facto_selector_of_republican_supreme.html

Fine and well to talk about past votes, when presidents knew the nominee HAD to have broad support; times have changed.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 11:15 AM)Dill Wrote: Sorry about the confusion.  My point, in part, was that today's hyper partisanship affects the way things are supposed to work in theory.

Zero no votes for Kagan and Sotomayor from Dems?

Zero votes at all for Merrick Garland--yes or no, Republican or Democrat.

Further, I am concerned that the Federalist Society has been so openly involved in creating Trump's list of nominees. We have a president who knows nothing of this process being "guided" by a narrow, special interest.  We need more than checks in theory.

I agree 100% on Garland, and would be perfectly fine with the Dems replying in kind if they take the Senate.  From what I understand they have a shot at holding this up through the seating of a new Senate.  

I haven't paid a whole lot of attention, but are there specific things that would make you think Kavanaugh is not qualified?  I imagine there are plenty of things you would disagree with, but that's a different discussion. Let's remember that NOW said Souter would end women's rights, the NAACP started a letter writing campaign against him, and Kennedy and Kerry voted against him, likening him to Bork.

[Bengalzona]

Offered as a public service for you guys (you'll thank me later):

https://www.wikihow.com/Speak-Russian

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 11:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I agree 100% on Garland, and would be perfectly fine with the Dems replying in kind if they take the Senate.  From what I understand they have a shot at holding this up through the seating of a new Senate.  

I haven't paid a whole lot of attention, but are there specific things that would make you think Kavanaugh is not qualified?  I imagine there are plenty of things you would disagree with, but that's a different discussion.  Let's remember that NOW said Souter would end women's rights, the NAACP started a letter writing campaign against him, and Kennedy and Kerry voted against him, likening him to Bork.

Funny you should mention Souter. That pick has intensified the vetting process like no single even int the past 100 years. Neither side wants a repeat.

And remember, I am saying a nomination to the Supreme Court is about more than just "qualification." There is a matter of balance on the courts. If the Federalist Society has provided Trump a list of "approved" candidates, that suggests to me he will not consider R v Wade settled law. It means that when future Citizen's United type cases come before the court, he will secure the moneyed interest.

In previous generations, balance among the parties insured that successful nominees could not be too far out of the mainstream. That check appears to be gone now.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 12:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Funny you should mention Souter. That pick has intensified the vetting process like no single even int the past 100 years. Neither side wants a repeat.

And remember, I am saying a nomination to the Supreme Court is about more than just "qualification." There is a matter of balance on the courts. If the Federalist Society has provided Trump a list of "approved" candidates, that suggests to me he will not consider R v Wade settled law. It means that when future Citizen's United type cases come before the court, he will secure the moneyed interest.

In previous generations, balance among the parties insured that successful nominees could not be too far out of the mainstream. That check appears to be gone now.

Why wouldn't the Democrats want a Souter repeat?  Or do you mean they don't want their own Souter?

I don't believe in trying to predict how someone will vote when on the bench.  Considering Roe V Wade or any case settled law should not be a requirement.  The Supreme Court has reversed itself before, and we shouldn't hand pick special cases that are off limits.  That being said,  Roe has been around 45 years, and none of the crazies seems to have managed to overturn it despite all the dire predictions.

And you'll forgive if i'm not convinced that a 7-2 liberal lean on the court would bother you.

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 01:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why wouldn't the Democrats want a Souter repeat?  Or do you mean they don't want their own Souter?

I don't believe in trying to predict how someone will vote when on the bench.  Considering Roe V Wade or any case settled law should not be a requirement.  The Supreme Court has reversed itself before, and we shouldn't hand pick special cases that are off limits.  That being said,  Roe has been around 45 years, and none of the crazies seems to have managed to overturn it despite all the dire predictions.

And you'll forgive if i'm not convinced that a 7-2 liberal lean on the court would bother you.

Each side wants the other side to nominate a Souter, neither wants to nominate one.

Determining judicial philosophy isn't so far from predicting how someone will vote. And NO ONE is going to nominate someone or vote for him/her without considering both philosophy and past rulings by that person--even if no one can really predict/control what an individual will do once nominated.

My concern here is that the Federalist Society has put together a list of nominees with the goal of, among other things, undoing R v Wade. So a special interest group will be assuming a responsibility for nomination which the president has abdicated.  It is probably in his power to so abdicate the responsibility, but again that is the problem with giving this type of person that kind of power.

Also, the reference to "settled law" is not about picking cases to be off limits. It is about respect for precedent and resisting special interests.

Let's just say that a 5-4 liberal lean would not bother me. And yes, quite a lot could go wrong with a 7-2 liberal court. I have lots of great ideas about what should be law, but some would produce great resistance and problems if enacted, and so, great as they are, are unrealistic. Resistance and accountability are important to crafting workable laws. It's not clear a 7-2 court would have that. Further, a court which appears to represent a party de-legitimizes a branch of government. I take checks and balances seriously.

[*bfine32*]

(07-19-2018, 03:43 AM)Dill Wrote: Trump's critics address Trump's contradictory actions.


Then you address the Trump critics as if they were the source of confusion, not he.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the knee-jerk reaction to label him in a derogatory as soon as he completes each act instead of looking at the overall picture. You didn't answer the question. Which is he:

Nationalist?

Traitor?

Nazi?

Bigot?