Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.  

I propose one additional bullet point:

• Background checks.

Its hard to believe that lower-level staff, or anyone who would have access to classified information, has to pass standard background checks to get clearance. But the President of the United States doesn't. As far as I know, there are no background checks on nominees. If someone who happened to compromised by a foreign power was elected POTUS, he/she has immediate access to everything, and is allowed to declassify and share whatever. Even in private meetings in the Oval Office with ambassadors from that foreign power.

What could go wrong?

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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...

Do these strike you as the musings of one of America's finest (top 10%) Presidents?

AP: You’ve talked a little bit about the way that you’ve brought some business skills into the office. Is there anything from your business background that just doesn’t translate into the presidency, that just simply is not applicable to this job?

TRUMP: Well in business, you don’t necessarily need heart, whereas here, almost everything affects people. So if you’re talking about health care — you have health care in business but you’re trying to just negotiate a good price on health care, et cetera, et cetera. You’re providing health. This is (unintelligible). Here, everything, pretty much everything you do in government, involves heart, whereas in business, most things don’t involve heart.

AP: What’s that switch been like for you?

TRUMP: In fact, in business you’re actually better off without it.

AP: What’s making that switch been like for you?

TRUMP: You have to love people. And if you love people, such a big responsibility. (unintelligible) You can take any single thing, including even taxes. I mean we’re going to be doing major tax reform. Here’s part of your story, it’s going to be a big (unintelligible). Everybody’s saying, “Oh, he’s delaying.” I’m not delaying anything. I’ll tell you the other thing is (unintelligible).

Quote

...many of his campaign pronouncements showed a profound lack of understanding of how the US government works.  This has handicapped his start.

His lack of understanding is just one of many (unintelligible) handicaps Trump must overcome to reverse (unintelligible) downward spiral. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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.

 

 

A diplomatic mistake and a minor financial scandal the President probably had no knowledge of provide the basis for judging Carter and Obama the worst Presidents ever? You can find these kinds of boilerplate incidents on any president.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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.

Guaranteeing rights is the road to tyranny?

I think you are naive in believing repealing the Fugitive Slave Act and replacing it with a freedom across the border act would have helped. One of the grievances the Confederacy blatantly gave for secession was the failure of other states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which incidentally puts the lie to the Civil War being about State's Rights argument. A true state's rights advocate would not want the federal government dictating what states have to do with fugitive slaves.

Destroying the tyranny of slavery is worth stomping on state's rights.

Woodrow Wilson was an anti-immigrant nut. I give him some kudos for forming the League of Nations which did a lot of good overseas (ended legal slavery in many parts of the world) but do not consider him to be a good President.

[thesometimesaint]

16 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%.

Trump's company is not a publicly held company. It is owned and controlled by one man. He can hire and fire anyone at any time for any reason, and only he is accountable.

What do you propose Carter should have done? Overthrow the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi like we did the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Name one disaster Obama directed. It was Republicans who claimed the first black President we've ever had ended all racism in the US. A little over 100 days in and your hero Trump is under investigation for collusion with the Russians.

[longview]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

hatred of Obama comes down to conspiracy theories, his name/ethnicity, and of course his political party. 

Talk about a bald-faced denial of "controversies" that raged throughout 8 years of the Obama trainwreck.  The following is a mere sampling of what went on:

"Scandal after scandal, coupled with an ongoing contempt for the law and the Constitution, demonstrated by high-level officials and the president himself, point to one deeply troubling conclusion: the Obama administration may be the most corrupt administration ever inflicted on the American public. And while the mainstream media have done a remarkable job deflecting much of that reality, even they cannot keep up with the avalanche of disturbing revelations that arise, seemingly on a daily basis.

We begin with yet another report about the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, courtesy of Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few remaining reporters who follows a story wherever it goes. Last Wednesday, three more F&F weapons turned up at crime scenes in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and as many as 300 Mexican nationals, including teens at a birthday party, were slaughtered by those weapons. Yet the ensuing investigation was first thwarted by Eric Holder's refusal to turn over critical documents to congressional investigators, earning him a contempt of Congress citation. It was followed by President Obama invoking executive privilege to prevent the same.

Holder's duplicity regarding Fast and Furious is hardly an anomaly. On March 1, 2011, Holder told Congress that "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case were made by career attorneys in the department." It was subsequently revealed that an Obama appointee, Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, overruled a unanimous decision by DOJ attorneys who favored prosecuting NBPP members seen on videotape attempting to intimidate voters outside a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.

Obama's IRS targeted conservative “social welfare” nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status under section 501c4 of the Internal Revenue Code. Evidence establishes that hundreds of groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement were bullied and intimidated from engaging in constitutionally protected political activism.

With Benghazi, "[a] deliberate effort to mislead the voters was launched," Barone writes. "Clinton, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and the president himself talked about a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video — even though no evidence of that came from Benghazi."

The CIA's talking points on Benghazi were manipulated by the White House and the Department of State and Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was wheeled out to peddle the lies on television.

"This attempt to mislead the electorate worked," Barone concludes. "It seems a stretch to say that it determined the outcome of the election. But it certainly helped the Obama campaign."

Former IRS mandarin Lois Lerner orchestrated an unprecedented crackdown on Tea Party and conservative groups and then attempted to scapegoat those nonprofits, blaming them for the harsh treatment they received at her instigation, according to a damning report released yesterday by congressional investigators.

The report came out six days after Lerner appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under subpoena and for a second time refused to testify about IRS targeting of right-of-center 501c4 nonprofit advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. (The full report is available in PDF form at the committee's website.) At the March 5 hearing, which was a continuation of a hearing started last year, Lerner again opted to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For an army of ethically compromised defenders in politics and the media, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is being framed as little more than a political attack aimed solely at derailing her presidential candidacy. Yet while each new revelation makes it harder to dismiss Hillary and Bill's seemingly endless effort to monetize the Clinton Foundation by virtually any means possible, most of it is beside the point. What’s not beside the point is the reality that Hillary Clinton is a walking, talking national security disaster.

At least four of those emails contain subject lines with the word “Sid,” presumably referring to Clinton hatchet man Sidney Blumenthal, whose own AOL account was breached in 2013 by the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer. That hack also revealed Clinton’s @clintonemail.com email address. The website’s source warns that if the 32,000 emails enter the public domain, "not only is Hillary finished as a potential Presidential nominee, she could put our country’s national security at risk.”

She already has, and the National Review's Stanley Kurtz reveals the unassailable logic behind that assertion. Even if Clinton was extraordinarily lucky, and the Russians and Chinese haven’t accessed some or all of her emails, it is nonetheless incumbent on the nation’s entire security community to behave as if they did. "Doesn’t that mean that we are now making massive changes to the sources and methods of our intelligence?” Kurtz asks. "Are we now withdrawing valuable agents? Are we trying to replace methods that cannot be easily replicated? Are we now forced to rebuild a good deal of our intelligence capabilities from the ground up? Are we not suffering tremendous intelligence damage right now, regardless of what foreign intelligence services did or did not manage to snatch from Hillary’s server—simply because we are forced to assume that they got it all?”

Yet arrogant as ever, Hillary completely dismisses the possibility her emails were hacked, insisting in March her private system "was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” 

Not only do we have the most lawless administration (Obama's) in American history at this moment in time, but we have the most gutless opposition a party (establishment elites of GOP) in power has ever had. The only way we can get to the bottom of these scandals is if the next midterms replace the current Republican leadership with those who understand what’s at stake and who are willing to fight the bastards in both parties, tooth and nail. No more phony leadership."

[thesometimesaint]

We have 2 million reasons why McConnell is dirty.

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, longview said:

Talk about a bald-faced denial of "controversies" that raged throughout 8 years of the Obama trainwreck.  The following is a mere sampling of what went on:

"Scandal after scandal, coupled with an ongoing contempt for the law and the Constitution, demonstrated by high-level officials and the president himself, point to one deeply troubling conclusion: the Obama administration may be the most corrupt administration ever inflicted on the American public. And while the mainstream media have done a remarkable job deflecting much of that reality, even they cannot keep up with the avalanche of disturbing revelations that arise, seemingly on a daily basis.

We begin with yet another report about the Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, courtesy of Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few remaining reporters who follows a story wherever it goes. Last Wednesday, three more F&F weapons turned up at crime scenes in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and as many as 300 Mexican nationals, including teens at a birthday party, were slaughtered by those weapons. Yet the ensuing investigation was first thwarted by Eric Holder's refusal to turn over critical documents to congressional investigators, earning him a contempt of Congress citation. It was followed by President Obama invoking executive privilege to prevent the same.

Holder's duplicity regarding Fast and Furious is hardly an anomaly. On March 1, 2011, Holder told Congress that "decisions made in the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case were made by career attorneys in the department." It was subsequently revealed that an Obama appointee, Associate A.G. Thomas Perrelli, overruled a unanimous decision by DOJ attorneys who favored prosecuting NBPP members seen on videotape attempting to intimidate voters outside a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.

Obama's IRS targeted conservative “social welfare” nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status under section 501c4 of the Internal Revenue Code. Evidence establishes that hundreds of groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement were bullied and intimidated from engaging in constitutionally protected political activism.

With Benghazi, "[a] deliberate effort to mislead the voters was launched," Barone writes. "Clinton, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and the president himself talked about a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video — even though no evidence of that came from Benghazi."

The CIA's talking points on Benghazi were manipulated by the White House and the Department of State and Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was wheeled out to peddle the lies on television.

"This attempt to mislead the electorate worked," Barone concludes. "It seems a stretch to say that it determined the outcome of the election. But it certainly helped the Obama campaign."

Former IRS mandarin Lois Lerner orchestrated an unprecedented crackdown on Tea Party and conservative groups and then attempted to scapegoat those nonprofits, blaming them for the harsh treatment they received at her instigation, according to a damning report released yesterday by congressional investigators.

The report came out six days after Lerner appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee under subpoena and for a second time refused to testify about IRS targeting of right-of-center 501c4 nonprofit advocacy groups during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. (The full report is available in PDF form at the committee's website.) At the March 5 hearing, which was a continuation of a hearing started last year, Lerner again opted to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

For an army of ethically compromised defenders in politics and the media, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is being framed as little more than a political attack aimed solely at derailing her presidential candidacy. Yet while each new revelation makes it harder to dismiss Hillary and Bill's seemingly endless effort to monetize the Clinton Foundation by virtually any means possible, most of it is beside the point. What’s not beside the point is the reality that Hillary Clinton is a walking, talking national security disaster.

At least four of those emails contain subject lines with the word “Sid,” presumably referring to Clinton hatchet man Sidney Blumenthal, whose own AOL account was breached in 2013 by the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer. That hack also revealed Clinton’s @clintonemail.com email address. The website’s source warns that if the 32,000 emails enter the public domain, "not only is Hillary finished as a potential Presidential nominee, she could put our country’s national security at risk.”

She already has, and the National Review's Stanley Kurtz reveals the unassailable logic behind that assertion. Even if Clinton was extraordinarily lucky, and the Russians and Chinese haven’t accessed some or all of her emails, it is nonetheless incumbent on the nation’s entire security community to behave as if they did. "Doesn’t that mean that we are now making massive changes to the sources and methods of our intelligence?” Kurtz asks. "Are we now withdrawing valuable agents? Are we trying to replace methods that cannot be easily replicated? Are we now forced to rebuild a good deal of our intelligence capabilities from the ground up? Are we not suffering tremendous intelligence damage right now, regardless of what foreign intelligence services did or did not manage to snatch from Hillary’s server—simply because we are forced to assume that they got it all?”

Yet arrogant as ever, Hillary completely dismisses the possibility her emails were hacked, insisting in March her private system "was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” 

Not only do we have the most lawless administration (Obama's) in American history at this moment in time, but we have the most gutless opposition a party (establishment elites of GOP) in power has ever had. The only way we can get to the bottom of these scandals is if the next midterms replace the current Republican leadership with those who understand what’s at stake and who are willing to fight the bastards in both parties, tooth and nail. No more phony leadership."

This is what is known as "alternative facts." A total fantasy. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/04/barack_obama_s_clean_scandal_free_presidency_the_president_s_legacy_is_a.html

Look at executive branch criminal convictions under Obama vs his predecessors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

 

Also, Clinton's emails again? Seriously? 

 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A diplomatic mistake and a minor financial scandal the President probably had no knowledge of provide the basis for judging Carter and Obama the worst Presidents ever? You can find these kinds of boilerplate incidents on any president.

That "diplomatic mistake" created one of the world's largest sponsors of terrorism. That "financial scandal" targeted political organizations for political purposes and the head of that scandal is living well on a tax payer funded pension. Where was Obamas leadership when he did learn about it? (Probably from watching the news which it seemed he always learned about scandals in his administration). Who was fired for never letting him know about it?

While I agree with longview that Obama and carter are among the worse, if not the worst, presidents ever, my main purpose was to counteract your posts attacking past presidents as worse than these two. That's all.

 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Guaranteeing rights is the road to tyranny?

I think you are naive in believing repealing the Fugitive Slave Act and replacing it with a freedom across the border act would have helped. One of the grievances the Confederacy blatantly gave for secession was the failure of other states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which incidentally puts the lie to the Civil War being about State's Rights argument. A true state's rights advocate would not want the federal government dictating what states have to do with fugitive slaves.

Destroying the tyranny of slavery is worth stomping on state's rights.

Woodrow Wilson was an anti-immigrant nut. I give him some kudos for forming the League of Nations which did a lot of good overseas (ended legal slavery in many parts of the world) but do not consider him to be a good President.

"Guaranteeing rights is the road to tyranny?" - Yes. The Constitution, as originally written, did not guarantee any liberty to anyone. Instead, it guaranteed the people what the *federal government* would NOT do in order to protect individual freedom. If you as a citizen want state-sponsored guarantees of freedom, in other words, want to have government to guarantee rights, you were 100% free to get your state to do so.

"One of the grievances the Confederacy blatantly gave for secession was the failure of other states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which incidentally puts the lie to the Civil War being about State's Rights argument."

Correct but the chronology for which I provided my support to you was post Civil War. The Civil War settled the idea of whether or not states may succeed. Additionally, although not one of Lincoln's original intent, it also pronounced all slaves free. In times of war a President may do such a thing. The moral dilemma was what to do after the war. Ultimately the morally correct answer was to ensure slaves remained free. My proposal would do that. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to do process which was a backdoor activists used today to legalized gay marriage. The political consequence of that is that you voice, nor mine matter. Likewise, neither do pro gay marriage advocates' voice matter; but they just so happen to agree with the decision of the courts. It's law so shut up and obey. Wasn't your concern with longview that he was a danger to democracies? How is that democratic? My proposal would have minimal impact on states' rights and thus the most potent place you have a voice in. It would not be used to usher in the desire of political activists thus preserving our Republic origins.

"Destroying the tyranny of slavery is worth stomping on state's rights." - That is not democratic; that's tyrannical. being adamant in opposing slavery is worth it, not stomping on rights of others just to ensure your ideal.

"Woodrow Wilson was an anti-immigrant nut. I give him some kudos for forming the League of Nations which did a lot of good overseas (ended legal slavery in many parts of the world) but do not consider him to be a good President." - Was he a racist?

My contention with Wilson is that he actively regressed the United States' progress on race. That is a huge bad to deal with; arguably more damaging than anything President Jackson did.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 I give him some kudos for forming the League of Nations which did a lot of good overseas (ended legal slavery in many parts of the world) but do not consider him to be a good President.

Wasn't the League of Nations pretty much impotent and did virtually nothing to actually end slavery in the world?

[Rajah Manchou]

13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

While I agree with longview that Obama and carter are among the worse, if not the worst, presidents ever, my main purpose was to counteract your posts attacking past presidents as worse than these two. That's all.

Come on, anyone who says Obama or Carter were worse than Nixon have lost all credibility.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/new-evidence-indicates-nixon-himself-tried-sabotage-vietnam-war-peace-talks

That was an intentional diplomatic move to prolong a useless war for self-serving political purposes that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. You can combine all the mistakes of Carter and Obama and they wouldn't come close to that one outrageous intentional act by Nixon.

[Darren10]

Oh, OK ,several middle Eastern countries officially emancipated slaves and the League of Nations played an influential part in that. That was good.

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Come on, anyone who says Obama or Carter were worse than Nixon have lost all credibility.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-03/new-evidence-indicates-nixon-himself-tried-sabotage-vietnam-war-peace-talks

That was an intentional diplomatic move to prolong a useless war for self-serving political purposes that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. You can combine all the mistakes of Carter and Obama and they wouldn't come close to that one outrageous intentional act by Nixon.

The Vietnam War started needlessly indeed, but,  unfortunately, it ended needlessly with a self declared defeat for the US. Under Carter and Obama, radical Islam gained and very significant strength.

[thesometimesaint]

Darren 10:

The Bill of Rights is the initial guarantee of our most basic rights. The Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment make them binding on all the States.

You might find this helpful.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

The whole Vietnam enterprise was an American disaster. With Nixon committing treason against the US by convincing South Vietnam to walk away from the peace conference.

Carter tried unsuccessfully to rescue our hostages, all the while Reagan promised Iran arms to keep them. Eisenhower created so called "Radical Islam" with the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. It is amazing how our oil got under their sand.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

That "diplomatic mistake" created one of the world's largest sponsors of terrorism. That "financial scandal" targeted political organizations for political purposes and the head of that scandal is living well on a tax payer funded pension. Where was Obamas leadership when he did learn about it? (Probably from watching the news which it seemed he always learned about scandals in his administration). Who was fired for never letting him know about it?

While I agree with longview that Obama and carter are among the worse, if not the worst, presidents ever, my main purpose was to counteract your posts attacking past presidents as worse than these two. That's all.

 

Mountains out of molehills for my opponents. Molehills out of my mountains for my partisan allies.

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Wasn't the League of Nations pretty much impotent and did virtually nothing to actually end slavery in the world?

No.

45 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Oh, OK ,several middle Eastern countries officially emancipated slaves and the League of Nations played an influential part in that. That was good.

Yeah, the good the League did is overshadowed by its more obvious failures. Its inability to stop Japan in China, Mussolini in Ethiopia, the Soviet Union in Finland, and of course Germany in Poland.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

"Guaranteeing rights is the road to tyranny?" - Yes. The Constitution, as originally written, did not guarantee any liberty to anyone. Instead, it guaranteed the people what the *federal government* would NOT do in order to protect individual freedom. If you as a citizen want state-sponsored guarantees of freedom, in other words, want to have government to guarantee rights, you were 100% free to get your state to do so.

"One of the grievances the Confederacy blatantly gave for secession was the failure of other states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act which incidentally puts the lie to the Civil War being about State's Rights argument."

Correct but the chronology for which I provided my support to you was post Civil War. The Civil War settled the idea of whether or not states may succeed. Additionally, although not one of Lincoln's original intent, it also pronounced all slaves free. In times of war a President may do such a thing. The moral dilemma was what to do after the war. Ultimately the morally correct answer was to ensure slaves remained free. My proposal would do that. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to do process which was a backdoor activists used today to legalized gay marriage. The political consequence of that is that you voice, nor mine matter. Likewise, neither do pro gay marriage advocates' voice matter; but they just so happen to agree with the decision of the courts. It's law so shut up and obey. Wasn't your concern with longview that he was a danger to democracies? How is that democratic? My proposal would have minimal impact on states' rights and thus the most potent place you have a voice in. It would not be used to usher in the desire of political activists thus preserving our Republic origins.

"Destroying the tyranny of slavery is worth stomping on state's rights." - That is not democratic; that's tyrannical. being adamant in opposing slavery is worth it, not stomping on rights of others just to ensure your ideal.

"Woodrow Wilson was an anti-immigrant nut. I give him some kudos for forming the League of Nations which did a lot of good overseas (ended legal slavery in many parts of the world) but do not consider him to be a good President." - Was he a racist?

My contention with Wilson is that he actively regressed the United States' progress on race. That is a huge bad to deal with; arguably more damaging than anything President Jackson did.

Basic inalienable rights should not be subject to democratic review. Blaming the battle with Jim Crow laws as the cause for legal gay marriage is an insult to the people suffering under those unjust and barbaric laws.

I disagree with the gay marriage ruling but I would rather have gay marriage and legal protections for racial equality rather then neither.

[Rajah Manchou]

43 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The Vietnam War started needlessly indeed, but,  unfortunately, it ended needlessly with a self declared defeat for the US. The Vietnam War started needlessly indeed, but,  unfortunately, it ended needlessly with a self declared defeat for the US. Under Carter and Obama, radical Islam gained and very significant strength.

I must admit, Obama did really screw up when he failed to respond adequately to Hurricane Katrina. That alone puts him in the bottom 10%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html

And then he had to go and found ISIS.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/

So maybe you're right, Obama will always be one of the very worst in the minds of people who don't care about facts.

[longview]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

What do you propose Carter should have done? Overthrow the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi like we did the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Continue the support of Iran by previous administrations.  No, Carter did NOT need to overthrow the Shah.

I do not have enough information about the CIA operation against Mosaddegh.  I have tried to glean details from the internet but I will keep looking.  My impression:  it was instigated by establishment elites back in the day (they were called the Eastern Establishment, the beginnings of Globalist movement).

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Name one disaster Obama directed. It was Republicans who claimed the first black President we've ever had ended all racism in the US.

See my post immediately after yours.   "Operation Fast and Furious" by Holder and supported by Obama.  Persecution of conservative foundations by Lois Lerner of the IRS and also soft pedaled by Obama.

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

A little over 100 days in and your hero Trump is under investigation for collusion with the Russians.

The Russian connection is patently ridiculous on its face.  There is NO there/there.  It is TRUE that Hillary's email was hacked (on an illegal private server through which she actually conducted official business with Obama).  But who hacked or leaked it?  Most likely a source within the DNC campaign.  Even if the Russians did obtain those emails, it was not enough to change people's opinion by itself.  There was a whole raft of major issues condemning Hillary.

Hillary has a deeper and far more dangerous Russian connection of HER own!  She made a "crony" agreement with the Russians to sell US uranium to them.  They in turn sold the uranium to the Iranians for their "not so secret" nuclear project.  Hillary was able to garner 20% of the proceeds into her Clinton Foundation.

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

We have 2 million reasons why McConnell is dirty.

I could not agree more.  Boehner and McConnell and other GOP "elites" are deeply into cronyism "hand and glove" WITH the Democrats.  Some people call it the "Uniparty" . . . they pretend to be opponents but are actually enriching each other.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Also, Clinton's emails again? Seriously? 

Absolutely.  It proves how completely CORRUPT Obama, Hillary and their cronies were (and continue to be).

[Darren10]

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Darren 10:

The Bill of Rights is the initial guarantee of our most basic rights. The Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment make them binding on all the States.

You might find this helpful.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

The whole Vietnam enterprise was an American disaster. With Nixon committing treason against the US by convincing South Vietnam to walk away from the peace conference.

Carter tried unsuccessfully to rescue our hostages, all the while Reagan promised Iran arms to keep them. Eisenhower created so called "Radical Islam" with the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. It is amazing how our oil got under their sand.

"The Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment make them binding on all the States."

Exactly. That makes it anti-democratic. If one's concern is that Democracy, the rule of the majority, is in jeopardy, then making a federal law binding on all no matter what is not democratic. It does follow a Republic but not federalism which is the type of Republic the United States was founded.

"With Nixon committing treason against the US by convincing South Vietnam to walk away from the peace conference."

Treasonous was the united States not backing its promises made to South Vietnam.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Antiwar-Movement-End-the-Vietnam-War

"Carter tried unsuccessfully to rescue our hostages, all the while Reagan promised Iran arms to keep them. "

Debatable on Reagan negotiating the deal. My recollection is that he knew little to nothing of the Iran-Contra arms deal. Oliver North took the primary fall for it.

As for Carter, his was an overall appeasement approach. That never works with tyrants.

"Eisenhower created so called "Radical Islam" with the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. It is amazing how our oil got under their sand."

 

[Darren10]

34 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I must admit, Obama did really screw up when he failed to respond adequately to Hurricane Katrina. That alone puts him in the bottom 10%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html

And then he had to go and found ISIS.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/

So maybe you're right, Obama will always be one of the very worst in the minds of people who don't care about facts.

Rajah;

Oh, please. The irony of your concluding statement is that you are the one leaving the facts to propagandize your point of view. I did not say Obama founded ISIS. I defy those who do, even Republicans, but Obama no doubt had a very significant influence, due to his international policy, in the rise of power for ISIS. Likewise, Carter's foreign policy had a huge influence in the raise of the Ayatollah in Iran.

[Darren10]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Mountains out of molehills for my opponents. Molehills out of my mountains for my partisan allies.

Life is like a roller coaster., baybeh.  

[Darren10]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, the good the League did is overshadowed by its more obvious failures. Its inability to stop Japan in China, Mussolini in Ethiopia, the Soviet Union in Finland, and of course Germany in Poland.

Which was its main purpose.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Do these strike you as the musings of one of America's finest (top 10%) Presidents?

AP: You’ve talked a little bit about the way that you’ve brought some business skills into the office. Is there anything from your business background that just doesn’t translate into the presidency, that just simply is not applicable to this job?

TRUMP: Well in business, you don’t necessarily need heart, whereas here, almost everything affects people. So if you’re talking about health care — you have health care in business but you’re trying to just negotiate a good price on health care, et cetera, et cetera. You’re providing health. This is (unintelligible). Here, everything, pretty much everything you do in government, involves heart, whereas in business, most things don’t involve heart.

AP: What’s that switch been like for you?

TRUMP: In fact, in business you’re actually better off without it.

AP: What’s making that switch been like for you?

TRUMP: You have to love people. And if you love people, such a big responsibility. (unintelligible) You can take any single thing, including even taxes. I mean we’re going to be doing major tax reform. Here’s part of your story, it’s going to be a big (unintelligible). Everybody’s saying, “Oh, he’s delaying.” I’m not delaying anything. I’ll tell you the other thing is (unintelligible).

His lack of understanding is just one of many (unintelligible) handicaps Trump must overcome to reverse (unintelligible) downward spiral. 

All that being said, and unintelligible to boot, I have some hope that his administration will prove effective in the end.

Some people on the right were convinced Obama was going to (and even wanted to) destroy the country -- but he didn't, not by a long shot.  Trump is conceivably less capable than Obama, so the fear that he will mess everything up (surely the left's biggest fear) is not well-founded.  The country's resilient enough, I think.

And as for unscripted musings, Obama was perfectly capable of being unintelligible, too.