Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Wow, interesting thread.

And this is what the country got because they didn't elect Romney.  Anyone here who supported Obama in 2012 wish we could have Romney NOW?

Obama was a better option than Romney. But Romney would have been a million times better than Trump. 

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is not derangement if it is true. Trump's war on political correctness so far involves whining about people saying mean things. Most of them true.

Thank the Lord that MSM no longer controls the "narrative" . . . Trump can tweet and facebook and attend ralies . . .

[thesometimesaint]

Government by Tweet. What could possibly go wrong?

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Wow, interesting thread.

And this is what the country got because they didn't elect Romney.  Anyone here who supported Obama in 2012 wish we could have Romney NOW?

That sure is a roundabout way of blaming democrats for the Republican Party's nomination of a total wreck of a candidate in 2016.

[Rajah Manchou]

28 minutes ago, longview said:

Thank the Lord that MSM no longer controls the "narrative" . . . Trump can tweet and facebook and attend ralies . . .

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Government by Tweet. What could possibly go wrong?

Narratives through rallies. What could possibly go wrong?

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Narratives through rallies. What could possibly go wrong?

True also. Politicians campaign in poetry, and govern in prose.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Thank the Lord that MSM no longer controls the "narrative" . . . Trump can tweet and facebook and attend ralies . . .

...And use them to shout stupid slogans and tell blatant falsehoods. The best indictment for Trump's mental state is to read full transcripts of interviews. He can't keep his train of thought straight or understand questions. His handlers have to keep correcting him on which version of the alternative facts he should be communicating. 

[The Nehor]

And now Michael Flynn is trying to get out of releasing his document by citing the Fifth Amendment. Pretty sure that is not how it works but the crises just keep coming.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

That sure is a roundabout way of blaming democrats for the Republican Party's nomination of a total wreck of a candidate in 2016.

Not what I intended to say.  

I'm blaming the country for not electing the best candidate in 2012 -- which I happen to believe was Romney.  My opinion, and I freely admit that others who don't believe this are entitled to that opinion.  I'd rather not argue the point because it's politics and besides, the anti-Romneyites here can't be convinced otherwise, so I'm just chiming in with my opinion.

And what about that total wreck of a Democrat candidate in 2016?  I'm saying we got both wrecks because we chose wrongly in 2012.  With Romney as President, in 2016 there would have no Trump, and probably no Hillary, either.  Or maybe there would have been Hillary, but I'm betting she would lost to incumbent Romney.

That's all I'm saying.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Obama was a better option than Romney. But Romney would have been a million times better than Trump. 

We can agree massively on your second sentence.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I didn't vote for Obama in 2012. But he was//is better than Romney.

I'm tempted to ask your standard for "better", but we've bumped heads before on this, so there's no point in going into it again.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I go further back. We should have gotten Perot in '92 to get over the whole 'businessmen make great presidents' fallacy for a generation or two. We can also blame the last populist president Reagan for being successful and setting a precedent. We should have realized that populist presidents still need to be minimally competent before we elect them. 

That's for sure.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And now Michael Flynn is trying to get out of releasing his document by citing the Fifth Amendment. Pretty sure that is not how it works but the crises just keep coming.

What is it about the 5th amendment you don't like?  

He's clearly got a serious ethics problem, and is probably criminally guilty of something.  Hence he wishes to not give his prosecutors the means to convict him.  Even murderers can take the 5th.

The alternative to the 5th Amendment is forced confessions and torture.  Want to go back on that Amendment?  Even the innocent will plead guilty just to stop the pain.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not what I intended to say.  

I'm blaming the country for not electing the best candidate in 2012 -- which I happen to believe was Romney.  My opinion, and I freely admit that others who don't believe this are entitled to that opinion.  I'd rather not argue the point because it's politics and besides, the anti-Romneyites here can't be convinced otherwise, so I'm just chiming in with my opinion.

And what about that total wreck of a Democrat candidate in 2016?  I'm saying we got both wrecks because we chose wrongly in 2012.  With Romney as President, in 2016 there would have no Trump, and probably no Hillary, either.  Or maybe there would have been Hillary, but I'm betting she would lost to incumbent Romney.

That's all I'm saying.

To be fair, I wasn't anti-romney in 2012. I just didn't agree with him as much politically. It was a choice between two competent people so I chose the one who I agreed with more. I may have a solid bias but I actually don't get super heated about it unless there's something really really wrong.

There's something really, really wrong right now. And the problem comes in orange.

I honestly do not see how the problems with Clinton are even in the same hemisphere as Trump.  I have heard everybody's reasoning as to how they're somehow equivalent....I just think it's super super strained. The things that Clinton parallels the strongest with Trump in are still pale shadows in similarities. Which is also what I meant by my (only slight) hyperbole about Obama's dog.

I honestly wonder if Romney would have actually become the republican nominee. I think half of the problem was of how wide a net they spread out on the Republican party.  There were a couple of competent and viable candidates out of their, what, 16 people. Particularly Bush and Kasich. And several others that were ehh....but not AHHH!!!. The problem is that the people who would vote for a saner candidate were stretched out over too many choices and the angrier, disenfranchised (less educated, and slightly racist/bigoted) voters were more unified in their leanings. It was a game of numbers and odds more than it was a game of viability....and by the time they wised up it was way too late.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 23, 2017 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What is it about the 5th amendment you don't like?  

He's clearly got a serious ethics problem, and is probably criminally guilty of something.  Hence he wishes to not give his prosecutors the means to convict him.  Even murderers can take the 5th.

The alternative to the 5th Amendment is forced confessions and torture.  Want to go back on that Amendment?  Even the innocent will plead guilty just to stop the pain.

I am a firm supporter of the 5th Amendment and believe in it quite strongly.

I am not convinced that it covers this subpoena for documents. In fact the Supreme Court has ruled that you can refuse to provide documents as ordered by a court only if the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in some way or if the defendant is forced to identify the documents themselves (a number of tests apply here). If the court or Congress knows the documents exist (and they clearly do) there is no Fifth Amendment protection as you are not in any way testifying or providing information at that point. They know the documents exist. The request clearly shows they know the documents they are requesting exist. Flynn can refuse to testify but he does not have much of a case to refuse to provide the requested documents.

Plus as Donald Trump has said:

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?"

Now, I disagree with Trump's comments and believe the Fifth is a critical help to both the guilty but even more especially to the innocent. Still I am guessing Trump will do a 180 now (or more likely forget he ever said anything on the subject) and not follow through on what he said and encourage Flynn to surrender the documents.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What is it about the 5th amendment you don't like?  

He's clearly got a serious ethics problem, and is probably criminally guilty of something.  Hence he wishes to not give his prosecutors the means to convict him.  Even murderers can take the 5th.

The alternative to the 5th Amendment is forced confessions and torture.  Want to go back on that Amendment?  Even the innocent will plead guilty just to stop the pain.

Mr. Flynn has every right to plead the 5th Amendment. What is interesting is his claims about the 5th Amendment he made during the campaign.

SEE (CNN)Months before it was reported that fired former national security adviser Michael Flynn would invoke his Fifth Amendment protections rather than comply with a congressional subpoena, at least two top White House aides, President Donald Trump and Flynn himself all suggested that doing so was on par with an admission of guilt.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

We can agree massively on your second sentence.

Good enough for me

[Stargazer]

On 5/22/2017 at 9:48 AM, The Nehor said:

I go further back. We should have gotten Perot in '92 to get over the whole 'businessmen make great presidents' fallacy for a generation or two. We can also blame the last populist president Reagan for being successful and setting a precedent. We should have realized that populist presidents still need to be minimally competent before we elect them. 

From time to time I've thought that there might be a need in the US for something at least somewhat similar to what the ancient Romans called the cursus honorum, namely the requirement that to hold a higher office one needed to hold a lower office first.  Of course, this was during the Republic and not the Empire -- there's a difference between them obviously.  

But wouldn't it be somewhat useful to know that a person who is running for President has served successfully in a significant political office at a lower level?  

I'm thinking of setting pre-requisites for being elected to the office of President requires, such as having served honorably in any one of the following:

• as a US Senator for at least one term,
• state governor for at least one term,
• US Representative for at least two terms,
• mayor of a major city with at least 500,000 population for at least one term,
• or in the military having
  • successfully commanded a unit or installation normally commanded by at least a full colonel in the Army or Marine Corps,
  • or a ship normally commanded by a commander or shore installation normally commanded by a captain in the Navy.  

And for the military I'm talking about someone who commanded rather than administered -- being in charge of all the clerks on base would not qualify.

The reason I am not including being a CEO of a major corporation is simply because the government is not a business.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course it is possible for someone to serve in any of those positions and be a completely incompetent boob, but nevertheless there'd be SOME indication of their leadership style and capabilities.

Pretty much every single US President that has ever served qualifies under these rules, except for one.  And you know who that is!

Edited May 23, 2017 by Stargazer

[longview]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The reason I am not including being a CEO of a major corporation is simply because the government is not a business.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't be silly.   Both require strong abilities for organization.  Both require recruiting for great talent in support positions.  Both require having good assessment of qualities in people.

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Pretty much every single US President that has ever served qualifies under these rules, except for one.  And you know who that is!

Carter was a pioneer in the development and use of nuclear subs.  And later became governor of Georgia.  But he was horrible as president.  His biggest "crime" was allowing Iran to destabilize and become an  awful terrorist state.

Obama's eight years has been nothing but one disaster after another.  He was supposed to be a unifier but chose to exacerbate race situation.

Those two are THE worst presidents in US history.  I fully expect Trump to easily be in the top 10%.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From time to time I've thought that there might be a need in the US for something at least somewhat similar to what the ancient Romans called the cursus honorum, namely the requirement that to hold a higher office one needed to hold a lower office first.  Of course, this was during the Republic and not the Empire -- there's a difference between them obviously.  

But wouldn't it be somewhat useful to know that a person who is running for President has served successfully in a significant political office at a lower level?  

I'm thinking of setting pre-requisites for being elected to the office of President requires, such as having served honorably in any one of the following:

• as a US Senator for at least one term,
• state governor for at least one term,
• US Representative for at least two terms,
• mayor of a major city with at least 500,000 population for at least one term,
• or in the military having
  • successfully commanded a unit or installation normally commanded by at least a full colonel in the Army or Marine Corps,
  • or a ship normally commanded by a commander or shore installation normally commanded by a captain in the Navy.  

And for the military I'm talking about someone who commanded rather than administered -- being in charge of all the clerks on base would not qualify.

The reason I am not including being a CEO of a major corporation is simply because the government is not a business.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course it is possible for someone to serve in any of those positions and be a completely incompetent boob, but nevertheless there'd be SOME indication of their leadership style and capabilities.

Pretty much every single US President that has ever served qualifies under these rules, except for one.  And you know who that is!

Not sure if I would use the cursus honorum as a model considering that climbing the ranks was mostly done through liberal applications of money to buy your way up the ladder. I am not sure military command would prepare a person for political office unless it was at a pretty high level. Military discipline and political wrangling are not the same. General and Admirals play in both arenas (for better or worse).

4 hours ago, longview said:

Don't be silly.   Both require strong abilities for organization.  Both require recruiting for great talent in support positions.  Both require having good assessment of qualities in people.

No, they are very different. Corporate positions generally do not have much of a check on their power. Trump has only been a CEO answerable to a board once and he vanished with his salary while his investors lost almost everything. In businesses where he was not just leasing his name he was the sole owner and had no checks on his authority. He does not seem to understand that he does not have the ability to hire and fire at will. His business dealings with others were almost always from a position of strength and he regularly acted like a bully. He used litigation and the threat of litigation to get his way hoping his opponents would not have the time and money to fight him. They often didn't.

He should be learning some hard lessons now but he seems unable to.

4 hours ago, longview said:

Carter was a pioneer in the development and use of nuclear subs.  And later became governor of Georgia.  But he was horrible as president.  His biggest "crime" was allowing Iran to destabilize and become an  awful terrorist state.

Obama's eight years has been nothing but one disaster after another.  He was supposed to be a unifier but chose to exacerbate race situation.

Carter was possibly the most moral man to ever hold the office of the President. Unlike most presidents he did not even seem to lie strategically. He didn't have the political instincts to navigate his agenda while in power.

Obama was too idealistic. Morons who believe we live in a post-racial society hated him for bringing the topic up. Xenophobes and racists (including Trump) spewed hate at him over non-existent conspiracies and attacks on his heritage.

His roast of Trump over that idiocy led to one of the funniest moments in presidential history:

Sadly many still suspect that Obama's humiliation of Trump led to him running for President. If so, this is both the best and worst thing Obama did as President.

4 hours ago, longview said:

Those two are THE worst presidents in US history.

What the hell??????

Worse then Nixon's Watergate scandal that weakened trust in government?

Worse then John Adam's thin-skinned attempt to implement sedition laws against anyone making unsubstantiated remarks about a government official? (Sounds like Trump huh?) Or his Alien and Sedition Acts that probably brought down the Federalist Party?

Worse then Buchanan's adamantly pro-slavery Presidency?

Worse then "trail of tears" Jackson's violent expulsion of native Americans in defiance of existing treaties agreed to by the US government?

"This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men." - Andrew Johnson, ardent racist and opponent of the 14th Amendment

You sir are quite insane if you think Carter and Obama were the worst Presidents ever.

4 hours ago, longview said:

I fully expect Trump to easily be in the top 10%.

If you can read this interview and think Trump is even mentally all there that is impressive:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-interview-full-transcript

If you can read that interview and think he will be counted as one of the great Presidents then people like you are the reason democracies fail.

[Darren10]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not sure if I would use the cursus honorum as a model considering that climbing the ranks was mostly done through liberal applications of money to buy your way up the ladder. I am not sure military command would prepare a person for political office unless it was at a pretty high level. Military discipline and political wrangling are not the same. General and Admirals play in both arenas (for better or worse).

No, they are very different. Corporate positions generally do not have much of a check on their power. Trump has only been a CEO answerable to a board once and he vanished with his salary while his investors lost almost everything. In businesses where he was not just leasing his name he was the sole owner and had no checks on his authority. He does not seem to understand that he does not have the ability to hire and fire at will. His business dealings with others were almost always from a position of strength and he regularly acted like a bully. He used litigation and the threat of litigation to get his way hoping his opponents would not have the time and money to fight him. They often didn't.

He should be learning some hard lessons now but he seems unable to.

Carter was possibly the most moral man to ever hold the office of the President. Unlike most presidents he did not even seem to lie strategically. He didn't have the political instincts to navigate his agenda while in power.

Obama was too idealistic. Morons who believe we live in a post-racial society hated him for bringing the topic up. Xenophobes and racists (including Trump) spewed hate at him over non-existent conspiracies and attacks on his heritage.

His roast of Trump over that idiocy led to one of the funniest moments in presidential history:

Sadly many still suspect that Obama's humiliation of Trump led to him running for President. If so, this is both the best and worst thing Obama did as President.

What the hell??????

Worse then Nixon's Watergate scandal that weakened trust in government?

Worse then John Adam's thin-skinned attempt to implement sedition laws against anyone making unsubstantiated remarks about a government official? (Sounds like Trump huh?) Or his Alien and Sedition Acts that probably brought down the Federalist Party?

Worse then Buchanan's adamantly pro-slavery Presidency?

Worse then "trail of tears" Jackson's violent expulsion of native Americans in defiance of existing treaties agreed to by the US government?

"This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men." - Andrew Johnson, ardent racist and opponent of the 14th Amendment

You sir are quite insane if you think Carter and Obama were the worst Presidents ever.

If you can read this interview and think Trump is even mentally all there that is impressive:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-interview-full-transcript

If you can read that interview and think he will be counted as one of the great Presidents then people like you are the reason democracies fail.

You tell 'em, The Nehor. He's insane.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-ayatollah-khomeini-suckered-jimmy-carter/

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-ayatollah-khomeini-suckered-jimmy-carter/ - Nobody accountable so far.

http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/Obama-IRS-scandal-Lerner/2014/07/01/id/580203/ - President Nixon should have received a nice bonus to boot.

Longview's truly insane.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

...

Carter was possibly the most moral man to ever hold the office of the President. Unlike most presidents he did not even seem to lie strategically. He didn't have the political instincts to navigate his agenda while in power.

Obama was too idealistic. Morons who believe we live in a post-racial society hated him for bringing the topic up. Xenophobes and racists (including Trump) spewed hate at him over non-existent conspiracies and attacks on his heritage.

...

Worse then Buchanan's adamantly pro-slavery Presidency?

Worse then "trail of tears" Jackson's violent expulsion of native Americans in defiance of existing treaties agreed to by the US government?

"This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men." - Andrew Johnson, ardent racist and opponent of the 14th Amendment

...

If you can read that interview and think he will be counted as one of the great Presidents then people like you are the reason democracies fail.

While Andrew Jackson deserves his shots for his racism, I'd say the single most racist President in US history was Woodrow Wilson. And while Jackson had weaknesses and fallacies, racism one of them, a grave one, his racism did not hinder the US as did Wilson's. Wilson actively regressed race relations in the US whereas Jackson sought to preserve a mainstream line of thought regarding the white man and the United States of America. While wrong, it was not a regressive position Jackson had.

As for the 14th Amendment, while I ardently support Lincoln for abolishing slavery despite, like Lincoln, I have a deeply-held belief in the virtue of the 10th Amendment. Like Lincoln, I too would have been daunted between the moral correctness of abolishing slavery and preserving the last written Amendment of the Bill of Rights; and despite my firm opposition to slavery, I too would have opposed the 14th Amendment as drafted. Instead of guaranteeing rights, a path I see as a guaranteed direction towards tyranny, I would have instead supported federal law freeing any slave which crossed state lines. This would be a federal law, perfectly constitutional, perfectly non threatening to states' rights. As a citizen I would fight like hell to end slavery in slave states but not see the federal government as its savior.

Just my thoughts.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Darren10

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Don't be silly.   Both require strong abilities for organization.  Both require recruiting for great talent in support positions.  Both require having good assessment of qualities in people.

Not being silly.  Being practical.  Trump doesn't understand government.  He understands making a profit and how to make deals ("The Art of the Deal").  Over time he may learn how to be a government leader, but he didn't start out that way, and many of his campaign pronouncements showed a profound lack of understanding of how the US government works.  This has handicapped his start.  I'm not saying that a corporate CEO cannot learn the art of governance, just that we should expect that a President know something about working in government -- not merely knowing how to bribe government officials.  I think that the lady (whose name slips my mind) who headed HP who was running probably would have made a good President.  

5 hours ago, longview said:

Carter was a pioneer in the development and use of nuclear subs.  And later became governor of Georgia.  But he was horrible as president.  His biggest "crime" was allowing Iran to destabilize and become an  awful terrorist state.

Obama's eight years has been nothing but one disaster after another.  He was supposed to be a unifier but chose to exacerbate race situation.

Those two are THE worst presidents in US history.  I fully expect Trump to easily be in the top 10%.

I didn't say that the mentioned qualifications would guarantee a person would make a good President.  I said it would reduce the probability of getting a boob into office.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From time to time I've thought that there might be a need in the US for something at least somewhat similar to what the ancient Romans called the cursus honorum, namely the requirement that to hold a higher office one needed to hold a lower office first.  Of course, this was during the Republic and not the Empire -- there's a difference between them obviously.  

But wouldn't it be somewhat useful to know that a person who is running for President has served successfully in a significant political office at a lower level?  

I'm thinking of setting pre-requisites for being elected to the office of President requires, such as having served honorably in any one of the following:

• as a US Senator for at least one term,
• state governor for at least one term,
• US Representative for at least two terms,
• mayor of a major city with at least 500,000 population for at least one term,
• or in the military having
  • successfully commanded a unit or installation normally commanded by at least a full colonel in the Army or Marine Corps,
  • or a ship normally commanded by a commander or shore installation normally commanded by a captain in the Navy.  

And for the military I'm talking about someone who commanded rather than administered -- being in charge of all the clerks on base would not qualify.

The reason I am not including being a CEO of a major corporation is simply because the government is not a business.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course it is possible for someone to serve in any of those positions and be a completely incompetent boob, but nevertheless there'd be SOME indication of their leadership style and capabilities.

Pretty much every single US President that has ever served qualifies under these rules, except for one.  And you know who that is!

Generally good ideas. Of course Trump was never even the CEO of a major corporation. He's essentially the owner of numerous large family businesses. He's never been accountable to an independent board of directors as far as I know. His "leadership" experience is basically telling people what to do and they do it. Also swindling, going bankrupt over and over again, and laundering Russian money through casinos and real estate deals.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Don't be silly.   Both require strong abilities for organization.  Both require recruiting for great talent in support positions.  Both require having good assessment of qualities in people.

Carter was a pioneer in the development and use of nuclear subs.  And later became governor of Georgia.  But he was horrible as president.  His biggest "crime" was allowing Iran to destabilize and become an  awful terrorist state.

Obama's eight years has been nothing but one disaster after another.  He was supposed to be a unifier but chose to exacerbate race situation.

Those two are THE worst presidents in US history.  I fully expect Trump to easily be in the top 10%.

Obama ran one of the cleanest, most competent administrations in recent history. I didn't agree with everything he did, but as far as I can tell GOP hatred of Obama comes down to conspiracy theories, his name/ethnicity, and of course his political party. 

I can't imagine what fantasy world you're living in thinking that Trump will be in the top 10. Trump will go down as a traitor and the worst (short-lived) president in US history. Benedict Arnold may finally rest easy in his grave because the name Donald Trump will be the new term for a traitor.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Gray