Politics over Religion at MD&D

[Guest]

You see racism everywhere. Claiming emotional detachment is disingenuous. Nobody here is a Vulcan. We all live too close to the issues, no matter where we live in the US.

Uh, OK. I see racism everywhere, and we all live too close to the issues no matter where we live in the US. Do you not see the contradiction here?

So, YOU explain "the issue"; without cutsie resorting to textual flourishes that press into ad hominem, if that is possible.

I did. Go back and reread the earlier post. See if you can figure it out. I used plain English.

To me the issue in politics today that dominates isn't racism at all: it is an imbalance of Fed power over States power, which manifests more and more as socialism and fascism (flip sides of the same coin).

So, why is that the issue to you? Where is the urgent problem in states' rights? You want some states to outlaw gay marriage? Fail to get healthcare to their residents? What exactly do you think is frustrating the states?

Obama is a racist of the first order, who said: “I think there are some particular groups that historically have been underrepresented—like Latinos and Asian-Americans—that represent a larger and larger portion of the population. And so for them to be able to see folks in robes that look like them is going to be important. When I came into office, I think there was one openly gay judge who had been appointed. We’ve appointed ten.”

Is gay a race in your mind? Are you worried that there won't be enough white people out there in the world doing things? Do you feel that white people are oppressed and they need someone to stick up for them? If so, why?

Just to let you know, all of the quote above reads like standard racist nonsense.

To deliberately look for a racial mix in the judiciary is propagating racism. It isn't even worthy of the appellation "reverse racism". He just did something worse than what was happening before, during "your" asseted golden age of white privilege of the 60s. He pushed for change instead of letting changes occur in what has been the fairest and most open to opportunity political system in the world. No where near ideal, but still the best: if we could keep the leftie-liberal-socialists out of it. There is nothing good about LLS ideology, not one damn thing. The conflict of DEM and GOP has formed the cutting edge of that ideological war, until recently, when the political machines formed a complicit status quo because they are alike. The voters have tried a different tack. Probably too late.

Dude, if there are qualified people of color who are not being nominated to fill these positions, then it is not racist to nominate them. If you want to see racist, look at the jokers that Trump nominated whose only qualifications seem to be their white color and male gender. Then look at Sonia Sotomayor and tell me she *isn't* qualified. It is a telltale sign of racism when someone calls the addressing of racial inequities racism. What it reveals is a deep anxiety that maybe someday white people won't be dominant.

You see an encroaching under the surface issue that only now has been exposed. Actually, what you see is a very small number of White racists who have gotten vocal lately. There is no huge, growing issue with racism.

It is already huge. The KKK and other such groups are only the tip of the iceberg. It does not need to grow any further. What is worrying is the extent to which Trump has courted white supremacists to their delight. They know when someone is whistling in their direction, and they have been rejoicing lately.

[_Kishkumen]

You are calling Neil Gorsuch unqualified?

Do you know the difference between a Supreme Court justice and a judge? Which word did I actually use?

When reform is needed the process might get called something like "draining the swamp". And career heads will roll. That the entrenched dominant party resists the interloper is not a surprise: blame his failure to do more on them! They tried for over a hear to kill him off.

OK, so you have bought into the "Deep State" paranoia. Gotcha. Then you think that the people who are voluntarily choosing to quit are heads that are rolling because Trump is "draining the swamp." Uh, no. Career civil servants of both parties are leaving the government in droves because Trump and his administration are running things so poorly. The State Department is in shambles. The swamp has occupied the key positions in these departments and agencies because Trump has put it in there, not taken it out.

His personality, which you cannot refrain from bringing up as some kind of proof of his unfitness, is immaterial vis-a-vis his agenda or his ability. It is only germane when talking about whether he is his own worst enemy. That will affect his ability to get things done, but has nothing to do with "ability" to perceive what ought to be done

The thing is, Ed, his personality is a key aspect of his unfitness. Let me ask you, if you had lived in the time of Nero, and watched him burn Christians in his garden party, would you think it unfair to point to his irresponsibility, paranoia, and fixation on relative trivialities as disqualifying qualities? When a leader's personality possesses a certain level of instability, it does affect how well they do the job. We are well past the point of asking whether DJT's defective personality does negatively impact his job. The answer is clearly yes.

I accept that you see his confrontations that way. I see a two-part dynamic at work: Trump the thin-skinned reactionary; and The Donald the President. So he muddies the waters by Tweeting responses to make himself feel good. But he does not scorn law or lawmakers. He holds them accountable and expects them to follow through if they agree to work with him.

Do you know what the rule of law is?

Trump came into office as a businessman. He has numerous Russian connections. Now those connections have turned political as well. That is the "risk" of electing a billionaire who loves the "art of the deal". That is always his first love and motivation. Winning. The voters,
knowing this about him, hope(d) that the deals he wants to make are good for America.

So far, we have yet to see him make any advantageous deals for America. He gave away Jerusalem to Israel without getting anything in return, to cite but one example. He walks into meetings with the Russians kissing Putin's ass and declining to extract any promises from Putin to change anything. Trump: "Putin told me he didn't meddle in our election and I believe it." Derp.

There was and is no "Russian collusion": only communication between friends and rivals. Like Hillary's emails, this will go nowhere. But the shoe on the other foot is always funny to watch as a game being played by opposed parties.

There is an ongoing investigation, Ed. Some of Trump's people have pled guilty to committing crimes. Flynn flipped on Trump and is cooperating with the investigation. Trump is so scared that he is on the edge of firing Mueller. I don't know the extent of wrongdoing--no one but Mueller, his team, and Trump and his people do--but none of that looks good for Trump. For you to say that there was no "Russian collusion" is completely daft. None of us know yet.

I know nothing about Mueller. What the so-called conservative Medía has to say about "shady" sides to his career and character have not struck home with me; mainly because I don't trust any of the sources that you mentioned above, least of all Breitbart. Fox is the least egregiously biased, but that's because it drifts both ways, though not as a source of solid journalism, but rather because Fox's conservative ranks are infiltrated by liberals, so there is a lack of consistency in biased (sic) reporting.[/b]

Infiltrated by liberals? Are you crapping me? Good grief. Paranoid nonsense.

[_Res Ipsa]

Frankly, your statement that liberal=leftist=socialist should disqualify your political views from any serious consideration. That kind of ignorance is inexcusable, and is a significant source of our current problems.

Is that so? Then I am open to edumakayshun. Fire away.

If you are going to assert that this kind of conflation of words/terms is only to be avoided by a University Level Education, then you might as well throw in the towel and walk away. The majority of voters in the US are sadly lacking.

I see this as a very facile conflation. LLS are far more overlapping than distinct from one another: popular understanding of those words will sway the real world reactionaries, not some literal/classical definition of them; and then, we also have nuances and more than one definition of the words to contend with.

LLS are allies in every way but name only. Their goals are alike and methodology as well. Who has tended to burn and bust up things and perform actual violence? Not the cons-righties-capitalists. You get one example of a White Nut who drove his car into a bunch of counter protesters. Before that you have dozens of incidents across the country in downtown business districts and on campuses. The losers can't lose maturely and vote next time; they have to "protest", which according to the "rules for radicals" playbook means attack, disrupt, destroy, threaten bodily harm and even kill.

If the LLS methods are taken up by the radical alt-right, why should that be a surprise? Sides in a war always end up resembling each other, even taking up each other's "weapon systems".

The mass of DEMs and GOPs and Indies are peaceful, law abiding and will work fine together through their representatives. But they have to get representatives who work to represent, not push their thrice-be-poxed political machine careers!

I was of two minds when I read this response. The first was: "I'm not your goddam tutor. You are sitting in front of a screen that gives you unprecedented access to information and you want me to spend my time spoon feeding you information any responsible citizen should have educated himself on. It's your responsibility, not mine, to educate yourself on basic civics and politics. Go edemakate yourself. Or is even the concept of actually learning stuff just too elitist for you? "

The second is: I'm very likely wasting my time, but here goes.

Modern American Liberals, like Modern American Conservatives, are capitalists. That is, they generally believe in the private ownership of the means of production. They believe that capitalism is the economic engine with the best chance to create the most income and wealth for its citizens. Modern American Liberals, like Modern American Conservatives, are committed to the concept of individual liberties as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Modern American Conservatives, like Modern American Conservatives, are committed to the U.S. Constitution's system of representative democracy, separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and checks and balances to prevent consolidation of power in a single branch.

Now, conservative and liberals are not single boxes that everyone must fit into. It represents a spectrum of opinion. In the U.S., that includes the extent and nature of government regulation of private property and commercial activity, the degree to which some functions of society are better performed by the government than by private organizations, which individual rights are more important than or should take precedence over others, where the lines should be drawn when assigning power to the three branches of government, and how and under what conditions checks and balances can operate. But those disagreements are all bounded by the general commitments to capitalism, individual rights, and the form of government created in the U.S. constitution.

Socialism generally rejects private ownership of the means of production in favor of government ownership of the means of production. Socialism would advocate not just regulation of private ownership, but actual government ownership. Barak Obama is not a socialist. He advocates regulated capitalism, but not wholesale government ownership of industry. Socialism can be combined with all sorts of forms of government. One could be a socialist but advocate a democratic form of government. Or a totalitarian form of government. Or a form of government where industrialists also run the government. All a socialist is is someone who advocates the government owning the means of production.

Now, you can also create a spectrum that puts pure capitalism on one end of the spectrum and pure socialism on the other. In between you can have all sorts of what are commonly called mixed economies. The United States has never been a purely capitalist economy -- certain functions have always been socialized. Economically, the biggest one today is probably the military. It is possible for the government to draw up a set of specs for what it wants in a military and have private companies bid for the contracts. I get my water from a government entity, my electricity from a government entity, but my natural gas from a private company. There is an ongoing negotiation between Modern American Liberals and Conservatives over which functions should be provided by the government. But arguing that, say, prisons should be one of the relatively few services owned and operated by the government doesn't make one a socialist. A socialist generally favors government ownership, while a capitalist generally favors private ownership.

Leftist is a pretty ill-defined, sloppy term. As a liberal, I generally think of leftists as people who advocate the overthrow of capitalism and/or the U.S. form of government, often through popular revolution as opposed to the democratic process. That includes a whole smattering of groups, not all of which get along with each other. For example, I would include most Marxist/Communist groups. I would also include a specific flavor of anarchist that rejects all government and private ownership of property, specifically adopting violence as a tactic. I'd also generally include anti-fascist groups, at least to the extent they identify the current government as fascist. While Liberals do believe in the right of peaceful protest (otherwise known as the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly), they don't advocate violent overthrow of our form of government or capitalism.

Over the past couple of decades, I've seen what I think is a deliberate tactic by certain right-wing politicians and media to demonize "liberals" by intentionally confusing the terms liberal, socialist and leftist. I know you've said you don't rely on right-wing media, but it's pretty clear that whoever and wherever you get your information from has adopted that tactic. It has led to such silliness as the ACA being labeled as "socialism," when it was actually created and promoted by a conservative think tank. The ACA is nothing more than regulated capitalism. The government didn't nationalize the medial industry (See, England) or even the health insurance industry (See Canada). It simply regulated the private market.

Finally, as far as violence goes, your claim that the right is simply copying the left is as silly as your similar claim upthread with regard to obstructionism. The political streams at both ends of the right/left spectrum have always advocated and employed violence. Violence has nothing to do with conversation or liberal -- it has to do with extremism.

[_Kishkumen]

But Res Ipsa, the conservative pundits have taught us that liberals are socialists! Surely they wouldn’t lie about that!

[_Res Ipsa]

But Res Ipsa, the conservative pundits have taught us that liberals are socialists! Surely they wouldn’t lie about that!

Hannity's honor?

[_Uncle Ed]

Do you know the difference between a Supreme Court justice and a judge? Which word did I actually use?

Missed that. And I leaped to the association that the the Supreme Court is made up almost entirely of career judges.

OK, so you have bought into the "Deep State" paranoia. Gotcha.

One person's alarm is another's "paranoia". There is nothing paranoid about seeing how complex, impenetrable, lacking in transparency and entrenched the "Mandarin class" of permanent bureaucrats are already. Many of them were appointed because they suited the agenda of Obama. And before him the status quo appointed likewise: as I said, it hasn't mattered for a long time which party from the political machine is "in power", since they mostly operate the same way. So the bulk of the voters (speaking of the "whole Union"
and not a few huge metro areas) have all gotten "paranoid" and reacted accordingly.

... The swamp has occupied the key positions in these departments and agencies because Trump has put it in there, not taken it out.

What an interesting world view: Trump sure has worked fast to make people quit, and replaced them with his creatures. Must have been happening in secret, because I have heard nothing about the transformation of the Fed yet.

The thing is, Ed, his personality is a key aspect of his unfitness. Let me ask you, if you had lived in the time of Nero, and watched him burn Christians in his garden party, would you think it unfair to point to his irresponsibility, paranoia, and fixation on relative trivialities as disqualifying qualities?

Hyperbolic and distant comparison, where there is literally NO comparison to be made?
Why did you do this?

When a leader's personality possesses a certain level of instability, it does affect how well they do the job. We are well past the point of asking whether DJT's defective personality does negatively impact his job. The answer is clearly yes.

"Instability" is at this point a subjective judgment. Yes, he's nutty in personal ways. So was Edison, extremely, and many brilliant minds we revere for their contributions to the changes we are grateful for. Lincoln can be shown to have been "unstable". Jackson, without doubt. Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy (without a doubt). We are all "unstable". That's what a cabinet is for, counselors, expert advisers. A President does not "rule", he leads by making informed decisions. I do not see The Donald as "unstable" in a dangerous sense. All such assertions are Medía creations.

Do you know what the rule of law is?

I think so.

So far, we have yet to see him make any advantageous deals for America. He gave away Jerusalem to Israel without getting anything in return, to cite but one example.

He "gave away" Jerusalem? LOL. That's a very funny way of admitting that he admitted a fact that earlier Presidents would not. He didn''t "give away" anything, since Jerusalem was not his/ours to give: he started something.

He walks into meetings with the Russians kissing Putin's ass and declining to extract any promises from Putin to change anything. Trump: "Putin told me he didn't meddle in our election and I believe it." Derp.

So publicly stating a belief is being a *derp*. Putin is a *derp* for thanking the US for warning Russia about a threat. The Donald is a *derp* for candidly admitting that China, Russia and the US are rivals.

There is an ongoing investigation, Ed. Some of Trump's people have pled guilty to committing crimes. Flynn flipped on Trump and is cooperating with the investigation. Trump is so scared that he is on the edge of firing Mueller.

He said he wasn't considering firing Mueller.

I don't know the extent of wrongdoing--no one but Mueller, his team, and Trump and his people do--but none of that looks good for Trump.

He doesn't seem very worried about any of this.

For you to say that there was no "Russian collusion" is completely daft. None of us know yet.

I gave my opinion. "Collusion" is a malleable term as used lately; opponents want it to mean impeachable or even criminal; and the President obviously holds a different level of interaction than that as his definition of "collusion". Analogous to "I did not have sex with that woman", which is an okay definition if sexual intercourse is the definition of "having sex". But others do disagree

Infiltrated by liberals? Are you ____ me? Good grief. Paranoid nonsense.

Fox News hires liberals, even socialists even lefties. "Infiltrated" was a loaded word. Let me change it to "shared by liberals".

[_Uncle Ed]

I was of two minds when I read this response. The first was: "I'm not your goddam tutor. You are sitting in front of a screen that gives you unprecedented access to information and you want me to spend my time spoon feeding you information any responsible citizen should have educated himself on. It's your responsibility, not mine, to educate yourself on basic civics and politics. Go edemakate yourself. Or is even the concept of actually learning stuff just too elitist for you? "

The second is: I'm very likely wasting my time, but here goes.

I appreciate knowing your mind on this. That is all I was asking for. To retreat with your warm fuzzies of superiority (your first response) would have benefitted no one at all.

Modern American Liberals, like Modern American Conservatives, are capitalists.

WERE, capitalists. In the "good old days" of US expanding economy. Anymore, not so much. I think that your definition is outdated. But I am uneducated as to when the term "liberal capitalist" dumped the word "capitalist". Now the combination is almost oxymoronic.
And worse, it is used to obfuscate an agenda of nationalising the economy, which is fascism breeding as pretended "government controlled capitalism".

That is, they generally believe in the private ownership of the means of production.

I note your use of the word "generally" and seize upon it to assert that generally proponents of "pure capitalism" or "government controlled capitalism" will use the word "generally" in an inverse proportion, believing the opposition to be far more numerous than they make themselves out to be.

They believe that capitalism is the economic engine with the best chance to create the most income and wealth for its citizens. Modern American Liberals, like Modern American Conservatives, are committed to the concept of individual liberties as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Modern American [Liberals], like Modern American Conservatives, are committed to the U.S. Constitution's system of representative democracy, separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and checks and balances to prevent consolidation of power in a single branch.

Except that the the Supreme Court (and the Fed judiciary) is used increasingly to do end runs on the Constitution by interpreting the law according to a stacked liberal-socialist-leftie agenda. Lip service paid to the three branches is replaced by "phone and a pen" rulership. It takes sitting on the lame duck to block his Supreme Court nominee, which would have tipped the "balance" in favor of that LLS agenda

Now, conservative and liberals are not single boxes that everyone must fit into. It represents a spectrum of opinion. In the U.S., that includes the extent and nature of government regulation of private property and commercial activity, the degree to which some functions of society are better performed by the government than by private organizations, which individual rights are more important than or should take precedence over others, where the lines should be drawn when assigning power to the three branches of government, and how and under what conditions checks and balances can operate. But those disagreements are all bounded by the general commitments to capitalism, individual rights, and the form of government created in the U.S. constitution.

This would all work fine, IF Liberals were not acting like Socialists so much of the time.

Socialism generally rejects private ownership of the means of production in favor of government ownership of the means of production.

"Ownership" is fascism: "control" is socialism remaining in the hands "of the people", a fuzzy feeling term of citizen "corporate" ownership that never exists in the real world. But then, socialism and fascism are flipsides of the same coin, differing only in name/semantics/rhetorical application. Propaganda, accepted definitions, determine to what degree the words have been co-opted/corrupted. Anymore these days, the Medía (heavily LLS) deliberately twists the use of these words to propagandize and confuse the truth of what is going on.

Socialism would advocate not just regulation of private ownership, but actual government ownership. Barak Obama is not a socialist. He advocates regulated capitalism, but not wholesale government ownership of industry.

No. He's worse, a fascist. A fascist can hide behind the Gov't "regulating" things. But the Gov't takes ownership through the deep state corruption of the legalities, hiding behind a facade of "nothing has changed"; when the legal reality is that the Gov't OWNS things that were once privately owned. I FEAR this is the reality. I am waking up late in life to the danger of the LLS agenda to topple this republic and turn it into an empire of elites and plebs. I am no expert with esoteric insight and facts. Such people are more rare than animal species on the verge of extinction. But it does no harm to be suspicious and let our elected representatives know of our FEARS. If they are conversant with and share our FEARS, they will be on the lookout too for how to ID and dismantle the deep state, and return us to a more transparent, simple Constitutional Gov't as it was intended.

Socialism can be combined with all sorts of forms of government.

Agreed. But always with control in mind. Always more and more and more control.

One could be a socialist but advocate a democratic form of government.

The more the words "democratic" and "socialist" appear in the name of a government or nation, the less individual freedom its people have.

Or a totalitarian form of government. Or a form of government where industrialists also run the government. All a socialist is is someone who advocates the government owning the means of production.

"All"? That says a lot! Simply turning over "ownership" of the means of production means seizing control over how owners can use their property. The slippery slope of Gov't control is very difficult to reverse. And the end result is fascism.

Now, you can also create a spectrum that puts pure capitalism on one end of the spectrum and pure socialism on the other. In between you can have all sorts of what are commonly called mixed economies. The United States has never been a purely capitalist economy -- certain functions have always been socialized. Economically, the biggest one today is probably the military. It is possible for the government to draw up a set of specs for what it wants in a military and have private companies bid for the contracts. I get my water from a government entity, my electricity from a government entity, but my natural gas from a private company. There is an ongoing negotiation between Modern American Liberals and Conservatives over which functions should be provided by the government. But arguing that, say, prisons should be one of the relatively few services owned and operated by the government doesn't make one a socialist. A socialist generally favors government ownership, while a capitalist generally favors private ownership.

This process begins when the Gov't begins to regulate private enterprise. This is tolerated because "Megahuge" corporations and monopolies are vilified as "robber barons", preying on their poor workers. Child labor and virtual slavery to "the system" and other inequities are seen as crimes. And so much of it is. But the sellout is to Gov't to fix everything and right quickly. By empowering the Gov't to go after the "robber barons" (uber rich capitalists), the Gov't makes itself into a target: they invite being bought off to look the other way when regulations are violated. By succumbing to bribery, all under the table buy offs, Gov't officials make themselves vulnerable to prosecution: and thus a hidden government is created: the uber rich capitalists have bought the Gov't in fact if not legally. This self-interest, this corruption of the visible government, creates a climate of secrecy that is passed down to the elected replacements at the Fed level. There is the visible working of the Fed; and there is the bribed, bought and paid for secret government of the uber rich, the elite, who have their cronies in the Fed who do their bidding. If something starts to come to the light of day, a "sacrificial scapegoat" is created to draw off public scrutiny. You get enough of these corrupt elected officials, and the unelected bureaucracy that does their work for them, and the rot goes so deep that it can never be exposed and eradicated.

That, I believe, is pretty much where we are: fascism growing apace under the facade of "Gov't-controlled capitalism".

Leftist is a pretty ill-defined, sloppy term. As a liberal, I generally think of leftists as people who advocate the overthrow of capitalism and/or the U.S. form of government, often through popular revolution as opposed to the democratic process. That includes a whole smattering of groups, not all of which get along with each other. For example, I would include most Marxist/Communist groups. I would also include a specific flavor of anarchist that rejects all government and private ownership of property, specifically adopting violence as a tactic. I'd also generally include anti-fascist groups, at least to the extent they identify the current government as fascist.

That's good: "anti-fascists" are pots calling kettles black. They are, however, a distraction the Medía uses, or is given, by the actual fascists behind the visible Gov't. They are used to disrupt and off-balance anyone who is trying to fight the hidden government's control.

While Liberals do believe in the right of peaceful protest (otherwise known as the Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly), they don't advocate violent overthrow of our form of government or capitalism.

Except where Liberals have been duped and are protesting the Medía created "enemy".

Over the past couple of decades, I've seen what I think is a deliberate tactic by certain right-wing politicians and media to demonize "liberals" by intentionally confusing the terms liberal, socialist and leftist.

And that's deliberate, because the violent groups are ready "clickbait" fodder, in the self-interest of the Neewz business: they fall for the stories that will get them clicks because that is the new, growing revenue of Net Medía.

The blame is on both lib and con sides, for believing a Medía creation and the control of the same. Meanwhile, the hidden government entities, who have bought influence and immunity in the visible Gov't, laugh up their sleeves.

I know you've said you don't rely on right-wing media, but it's pretty clear that whoever and wherever you get your information from has adopted that tactic.

The "right wing" media is a puny force compared to the LLS Medía. And so those who voted The Donald into office believe. They stopped offering the pollsters of the LLS Medía their true opinions long before the election, which is why the polls got it wrong right up to the final hour.

It has led to such silliness as the ACA being labeled as "socialism," when it was actually created and promoted by a conservative think tank. The ACA is nothing more than regulated capitalism. The government didn't nationalize the medial industry (See, England) or even the health insurance industry (See Canada). It simply regulated the private market.

You say "nothing more than", when it is apparently far more complex than that: since the political machine and the entrenched parties making it up are alike complicite in defrauding the American people through control via the deep state, i.e. the hidden government of bribery, buyouts and threats, all the while transforming America into a fascist/socialist "utopia". They really believe that it can be done: that a happy workforce of plebs, content with their material existence, will continue to believe the lies that they live under a "Constitution" that hasn't perished from the earth.

Finally, as far as violence goes, your claim that the right is simply copying the left is as silly as your similar claim upthread with regard to obstructionism. The political streams at both ends of the right/left spectrum have always advocated and employed violence. Violence has nothing to do with conversation or liberal -- it has to do with extremism.

Yes, the extremists at both ends advocate violence, because they are the very same people, choosing to take on one guise or the other as perceived utility dictates. Both extreme ends are out to topple the status quo and fill the vacuum with their own creatures.

Today, we see a relatively puny "alt-right" section in competition with the much larger, older LLS groups. And the agitators of the "alt-right" are manipulated by the same Medía creations as the LLS: the uber right elites who have been buying protection and immunity from the corruptible elements in the Fed that are supposed to be controlling them, but are instead permitting them: because a government that sets out to control makes itself into a target for those they seek to control.

What is the answer? LLS don't like the answer, and neither do "alt-right" (who are pretend conservatives): but true Conservatives know what it is. And the answer is hard to live with: A Gov't verging on legalized anarchy, with just enough laws in place to punish the people "who don't play well with others". That's it. The Constitution goes only a little further than that in its original intent: determining that there really is such a thing as "the common good" or "welfare", which the States and the Fed must work out; which one will be responsible for what. Sidewalks and streets must be continuous; utilities must reach every resident without exploitation; free travel and recognition of individual rights must be protected; national defense, on the state level until required by the Nation as a whole, must be guaranteed. And so on. But from that basic framework we have departed, and complicated the Gov't until it is barely recognizable. Getting back to the original intent is the Libertarian's dream and mandate. But even Libertarians argue about what constitutes "the common good/welfare".

[_Kishkumen]

One person's alarm is another's "paranoia". There is nothing paranoid about seeing how complex, impenetrable, lacking in transparency and entrenched the "Mandarin class" of permanent bureaucrats are already. Many of them were appointed because they suited the agenda of Obama. And before him the status quo appointed likewise: as I said, it hasn't mattered for a long time which party from the political machine is "in power", since they mostly operate the same way. So the bulk of the voters (speaking of the "whole Union"
and not a few huge metro areas) have all gotten "paranoid" and reacted accordingly.

How much do you actually know about this stuff? Have you worked for the federal government in DC? I can tell you this, many of the people who are leaving were probably not hired during the Obama era. If they are really experienced, they have been there for decades. So, this idea about "many" people having an Obama agenda is pure Fox propaganda. It is utter tripe.

I grew up in DC. My dad worked for the DOE and the CIA. He worked for Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. He is not registered with any political party, his ideas are probably far to the right of yours, and he voted for Trump. Not once, in all of my conversations with him, did he EVER express continuing allegiance to a single administration either during or after its tenure. Nor did he ever indicate that this was a problem among his peers in his own or other agencies and departments.

Please, please, please stop peddling conspiracy theories. And yes, this Deep State stuff is complete garbage. I lived in DC for a long time, and many of my family and friends have worked for the government. When you talk about a "Mandrarin class" with an Obama agenda, you are spouting utter BS, and it makes you sound like a lunatic.

Hyperbolic and distant comparison, where there is literally NO comparison to be made?
Why did you do this?

Because I am a Roman historian, and I actually happen to know quite a bit about Nero beyond the popular view. There actually is a comparison to be made, when we are talking about personality and psychology. The basic point, which evidently went over your head, it that the personality and psychology of leaders do make a difference. That is true whether we are talking about ancient Rome or modern America. We would be better off if Nixon were resurrected and carted in to replace Trump than we are with Trump, and Nixon had his personality and psychological problems. They were, however, not coupled with the same degree of incompetence and ignorance that hamper Trump.

"Instability" is at this point a subjective judgment. Yes, he's nutty in personal ways. So was Edison, extremely, and many brilliant minds we revere for their contributions to the changes we are grateful for. Lincoln can be shown to have been "unstable". Jackson, without doubt. Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy (without a doubt). We are all "unstable". That's what a cabinet is for, counselors, expert advisers. A President does not "rule", he leads by making informed decisions. I do not see The Donald as "unstable" in a dangerous sense. All such assertions are Medía creations.

The instability of Trump is manifest. His cabinet has been a revolving door throughout his first year in office. Many of the initiatives he has attempted were misconceived and poorly executed. He doesn't take the time to familiarize himself with the legislative initiatives he should be shepherding along through the legislative process, largely because he lacks the attentions span requisite to learn what proposed legislation is even about. His emotional reactions to challenges and perceived slights have been childish and uncontrolled. The idea that the people working in the federal government need to be loyal to him personally is a dangerously authoritarian point of view.

We can go on and on, here.

I think so.

So you say, but then you include the idea of "being nice to lawmakers" among the qualities of a person who respects the rule of law. "Being nice to lawmakers" is not what respecting the rule of law is about.

He "gave away" Jerusalem? LOL. That's a very funny way of admitting that he admitted a fact that earlier Presidents would not. He didn''t "give away" anything, since Jerusalem was not his/ours to give: he started something.

All you are showing me here is that you did not understand the 1995 legislation. The reason the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed easily is that it essentially punted the decision back to the president, who traditionally as the key broker of the Middle East peace process had every reason to exercise extreme caution in following through on the ostensible promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem. The president's role in this was a big part of his bargaining power. Trump did give that power away without extracting any promises from other concerned parties.

Use your brain. If someone holds the unique power to decide something that other parties are deeply concerned about, that is a crucial negotiating tool. It is power that could be wisely used to extract compromises and concessions from both sides of a disagreement. Trump gave that power away, and he didn't get anything in return.

He is much more incompetent at brokering deals than Obama. The guy is an empty suit.

So publicly stating a belief is being a *derp*. Putin is a *derp* for thanking the US for warning Russia about a threat.

I told you that he is an idiot for concluding, against the determination of most of the intelligence community, that Russia did not hack the US elections (they did), and stating this publicly. He is an even bigger idiot, and this is a much more serious problem, for doing nothing to prevent the Russians from hacking our elections in the future. His tech savvy seems to begin and end with his Twitter app.

He said he wasn't considering firing Mueller.

I don't know the extent of wrongdoing--no one but Mueller, his team, and Trump and his people do--but none of that looks good for Trump.

He doesn't seem very worried about any of this.

That's not true at all. If it were true, the kooky conspiracy media on the Right would not be planting the idea that there should be a cleansing of the government of people who are not loyal to Trump. You would not have one of Trump's transition team lawyers peddling this idea about illicitly acquired emails. Trump's people are laying the groundwork to try to take out Mueller.

[_Symmachus]

I suspect Uncle Ed is a phony. If his views are not a product of far-right conspiracy news sites (which he denies), then he is seriously unhinged. In either case, it should be clear by now that he hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about. It's not just that his theories are unmoored from facts; it's that, even if they were true, they don't even explain the reality he imagines himself to inhabit. His claim about Obama's appointments to the judiciary are just pure lunacy. Not only were there just a handful of controversies but in fact most of his 330 or so appointments were approved with huge margins, unanimously, or with a voice vote. How could did this fascist/socialist/liberal co-opt the conservative Republican caucus for 300+ appointments!? They must be fascist/socialist/liberals too!

[_Res Ipsa]

I suspect Uncle Ed is a phony. If his views are not a product of far-right conspiracy news sites (which he denies), then he is seriously unhinged. In either case, it should be clear by now that he hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about. It's not just that his theories are unmoored from facts; it's that, even if they were true, they don't even explain the reality he imagines himself to inhabit. His claim about Obama's appointments to the judiciary are just pure lunacy. Not only were there just a handful of controversies but in fact most of his 330 or so appointments were approved with huge margins, unanimously, or with a voice vote. How could did this fascist/socialist/liberal co-opt the conservative Republican caucus for 300+ appointments!? They must be fascist/socialist/liberals too!

Just shows the amazing power of the sinister deep state. Amirite?