Analytics

Monday, July 25, 2016

Miscellany: 7/25/16

Quote of the Day
So great has been the endurance, so incredible the achievement, 
that, as long as the sun keeps a set course in heaven, 
it would be foolish to despair of the human race.
Ernest L. Woodward

Tweet of the Day
Lemonade Economics



 Sanders Supporters Feeling the Burn On WikiLeaks on DNC Siding With Clinton



Are Leftists More "Compassionate" Than Conservatives?




Facebook Corner

A follow-up on a niece's thread of an article posing whether Catholics in good faith could vote for Trump. I r espond to her friend's comment:

 Although great arguments against him, most of these arguments are exactly what the oposing party stands for. And really, bring up a Strip club? Go to Europe, although the Catholic Church may not want it's sheep to go for that kind of profession, it has embraced choices for far longer, than the existence of our beloved country. I don't believe that any religious entity should try to influence it's members in any political issues.
You do realize Donald Trump was a registered Democrat for 2001-2009, donated/supported Clinton and Obama. He initially left the GOP around 1999-2000 to run for President on Ross Perot's Reform Psrty ticket (he eventually withdrew and Pat Buchanan got the nomination). Trump rejoined the GOP in 2009 and then left again around 2011, only to rejoin a few weeks later. So the man of "principle" has changed parties like some people change underwear, and Donald Trump has heavily contributed to the mostly Democratic establishment in NY. It isn't a coincidence that Democratic ideas have found their way into his candidacy and platform.

 No, the Catholic Church does NOT endorse political parites or candidates, although the Church has tacitly supported the social programs of the Dems and the pro-life/social conservatism of the GOP. I think black churches have been far more political in that sense, although a couple of priests in the past did run for Congress as Dems. (John Paul II put an end to that.) The question posed by the article was not a Catholic endorsement in this fall's election, but whether individual Catholics, based on Church guidance in faith and morals, could vote for Trump in good conscience. This is a decision that any Catholic can only make for himself or herself; that's why I said to Claire that she has a right to her own vote, but for me, the answer is a compelling no.

 Let me give one simple example to make my point. Trump, until he decided to run for POTUS as a Republican, supported partial-birth abortion, which is particularly gruesome. Let's be clear--the reason Trump is running as a Republican is because he thought he had an easier path to nomination. That's true for a number of politicians, like the late Specter and former NYC Mayor Bloomberg. At any rate, Trump at 69-70 all of a sudden decides he's "pro-life" on abortion. And he decided, as a "law and order" guy that he wanted to prosecute women who have had abortions--a position that is not advocated by anyone in the pro-life movement. This blew up in Trump's face, and he quickly backed off. But this is a perflect example of how paper-thin his judgment and principles are; I think it's all seat of the pants on his part, and that makes him especially dangerous. Clinton is a principled, hard-working leftist, not my preference, but I know where she stands. Trump will throw his stated positions under the bus if and when they get in the path of his desire for power and glory.
(separate comment)
The point of talking about how Trump decided to open a strip club in one of his casinos was more about demonstrating the hypocrisy of his social conservatism. In fact, in his own autobiography, Trump brags about his adulterous conquests, although he doesn't name names. Of course, Trump until recently owned and operated the Miss Universe pageant, which also objectifies women and famously also said if his daughter wasn't related, he would be attracted to her, which may be the grossest thing I've ever heard a father say about his daughter. He has also criticized the figures of flat-chested women. This is something you might expect from a teenage boy, not a 70-year-old grandfather.
The key thing to remember is whoever becomes president gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice on day one. We already know that Hillary will appoint a pro choice, pro gay marriage, anti gun hardcore liberal to the court. We also know that Hillary will push all of those items as president. Trump on the other hand already released his list of Supreme Court nominees and they were all very pro life, pro gun, and very conservative. We may not know exactly what all Trump would do, but we do know what Clinton will do.
 Hell no. This is a particularly disingenuous response. First of all, Trump can't be trusted, period, on anything, never mind SCOTUS. If you thought SCOTUS was a legitimate issue, you should have supported a conservative, not Trump. It's not just his notorious flip-flops on abortion. He sided against Apple in the notorious FBI attempt to conscript Apple to create a form of operating system letting it break into any iPhone. He has talked about sanctioning companies with international operations. He supports eminent domain, rejects due process for individual rights, he has talked about policies against the Geneva Convention. He wants religious restrictions on immigration. He believes in expanding the powers of the Prersidency. If you think he's going to name a conservative jurist, you are gullible beyond belief.

 I think Trump's gimmick is manipulative, and he's trying to fearmonger conservatives on SCOTUS. His "list" is pure bullshit; once he's elected, he'll pick whoever he wants; do you think you get your vote back? Remember, he talked at one point of picking his sister, who is a very liberal judge. We have no control over SCOTUS beyond constitutional amendments, and some very liberal justices were nominated by Republicans. Remember, if the GOP has a majority in the Senate, they can vote down Clinton's choices or even filibuster them. So like Obama, Clinton cannot appoint a radical leftist, period.
 He would want to get re-elected. He would get challenged for nomination in 2020 if he appointed a liberal judge. With Trump we likely get a pretty conservative justice. With Clinton we get a liberal judge. Maybe a more moderate liberal but still a liberal. Clinton will also do many executive orders just like Obama. With Clinton we get a full fledge liberal. With Trump we may not get a conservative, but we likely at least get a moderate republican/independent. It's one or the other.
None of this amounts to a serious counterpoint to what I've already said. Once a justice is approved, he or she has a lifetime appointment. Ford nominated Stevens, Bush nominated Souter, as they "evolved" to a liberal perspective. We probably wouldn't know in just 3 years. If you think that you can primary a sitting President, you're in a state of denial. Reagan tried to do it to Ford, Kennedy to Carter, Buchanan to Bush. It's almost impossible to defeat an incumbent. In recent history, only Reagan has done it. The fact is, talk is cheap, and Presidents are notorious for breaking promises.
SCOTUS is NOT a legitimate issue. Obama has had 2 choices (3 if we count Scalia, but that may not ever get a floor vote) over 2 terms. Trump's mental instability, impulsiveness, irrationality, unprincipled, incompetent behavior is simply disqualifying period. He will likely drive the global economy into depression. He is NOT a conservative. He's a thin-skinned authoritarian. Clinton, as bad as she is, is much better than Trump on any criterion.

Clinton shared classified material with a private server. The Cli ton Foundation has received millions of dollars from communist countries some of which support genocide and terrorism. You think she is going to be tough on those countries? Why did they give her money? All sorts of people close to the Clinton's over the years have shown up dead mysteriously. Hillary is not much better by a long shot. You are the only person I have seen act like the Supreme Court means nothing. The Supreme Court is a really big deal. Try telling all the unborn babies who have been slaughtered that the Supreme Court means nothing.
Several things. First, my original comments said that I didn't support Trump or Clinton; you're making shit up. I do know that Trump is a far greater risk to liberty and our Constitution than Clinton. Clinton is a leftist, but a known risk operating with known parameters. Trump is an unprincipled demagogue who is radically anti-immigrant and anti-trade which is against decades-long GOP policy. I can cite literally dozens of incidents where Trump has pledged to violate existing laws or Constitutional protections. Trump is NOT a conservative; I've pointed out earlier that he has literally changed party registration 4 timees between 1999 and 2011. He is a political whore and people like you are easily duped and being used.

I can go point by point through your bullshit but I don't suffer fools glady. The first problem you have is that whereas I thought her use of private email server was troublesome, it did NOT violate US law. Moat of the emails in question had sensitive information classified ex post facto, which is a judgment call. There's no or little evidence that Clinton shared sensitive information with unauthorized personnel. Moreover, the same charges are relevant to Powell and Rice under Bush. Moreover, government email systems have also been subject to hacks. There are issues here including federal records compliance, but for the most part this is much ado about nothing.

I've already responded to the SCOTUS argument, which is little more than a desperate attempt by a liberal Trump to fearmonger conservative voters, and it's all bullshit for reasons I've already given. I mean this is a guy who claims to not be politically correct, but he specifically added Q to LGBT which is about as politically correct as you can get with the gay community. I stand by what I say; both parties will have more than enough Senators to block overly political choices. If you think the Dems will let Trump appoint a really conservative judge, you're out of your mind. I mean, Obama wanted to filibuster Alito.

 Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson (with Rockwell and Jermaine Jackson), "Someone Watching Me"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,