Nov 8, 2016 - The lesser of two evils?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Click to expand...
Is this Esperanto?
Click to expand...

It is the favorite motto of ambulance chasing attorneys.
My advice to you is not to set yourself up to be cross-examined by our resident Alan Dershowitz Dr. Fun.
You nor I could never keep up with his Latin quotes.
Now, if he or others want to argue the subject in napuletano I would begin and end my argument with
"Non me ne frega un' cazzo di Trump perche e nu strunz".
 
There is however a more intellectual question implicitly skirted around here: Whether there is such thing as an objective reality? For example, if you observe gravity and I observe gravity are our individual "experiences" leading to a collective objective reality or a scientific truth, and can this objective reality or scientific truth be universal? While subjectivity is obviously a truism, it also falls into the postmodern trap of everything being subjective and hence relative, and so an objective way of finding a way if objective truth exists becomes meaningless ... if everything is subjective.
Click to expand...

All opinion - which can perhaps be defined as a synthesis of various facts - is subjective. That doesn't mean the facts didn't happen or that there's no truth or reality. Howard Zinn's People's History and and Lynne Cheney's America are based upon the same events, things that actually happened; one portrays America as - in Jim Comey's words - a great shining city on the hill and the other as a racist anti-egalitarian abomination. Unless you deny consciousness - and what's the point of that - the things they write about actually occurred and have their own truth, separate and apart from their representation in literature. That Stalin airbrushed Nikolai Yezhov out of a photograph doesn't mean that Yezhov wasn't there when the picture was taken.

Postmodernism as a political movement is merely leftist mumbo jumbo designed to deconstruct society, in the same way that Derrida and Baudrillard meant to deconstruct art and literature. If nothing means anything no thing is better than any other thing and therefore there's no danger in overthrowing the erstwhile venerated collection of wisdoms - religion, science, government, philosophy - that man has accumulated over the course if his history. And so we can all march forward to a leftist utopia of rice fields and group think. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I think it is perhaps possible to empirically and objectively test whether the policies of Trump are better, the same, or worse in comparison to Obama or Clinton based on the objectives of the policy interventions. Here my findings are that it is more possible to do so, and Trump is "objectively" better if one seeks greater growth, reduced inequality and even improved environs.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's possible to test whether one policy is more effective than another in producing a particular outcome, because it's possible to observe reality, to know things, to discover facts. Whether that outcome is "better" or "worse" is subjective. If Trump cuts taxes and that results in an increase in GDP that's not necessarily "better" to a leftist like Obama who thinks that the US has too much already and that slowing the rise of the oceans is more important than providing the comforts of the first world - like running water and electricity - to impoverished denizens of the third. Because and speaking of irony, to progressives progress is worse, not better.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and my trying to liken the objective-subjective debate to absolute-relative debate, in which for example the postmodernist proclaims morality is all relative and there is no absolute fundamental morality means as similar to your suggestion that nothing is anything so anything goes, is not quite what you are saying about objective-subjective.

In terms of testing policy, the policy objective has to be a prerequisite no matter how subjective, which can then be measured objectively. The stated global aim of open borders (by a famous socialist economist) is to level out global wages and not about more votes (which can be a by product). Meaning as labour moves into higher wage areas, this will pull wages down within sectors intially and across the economy of richet nations eventually. So a literal nirvana of equality is achieved globally where people with lower wages gain at the expense of the hard work by national economies that sent wages soaring, and pretty soon the whole global economy starts to slow down because the incentives to excel deplete. This is not my vision of an egalitarian society but here too it will be possible to objectively measure global welfare gains and losses, and determine whether open borders is a good thing objectively.
 
Overall its probably way fairer to wait till Trumps mid-term in Dec 2018 to determine how he performed against his objectives: % increase in growth in GDP (in particular industrial output) jobs created in key sectors, relative rise in income of the bottom 20% of population ncluding against inflation, number of terrorist attacks on American soil since his start (here Britain is going to lose horribly), education, health. And then compare to Obama's performance with of course the caveat that he inherited an aspect of the financial crises but note Trump inherited a serious mess left too...

Then we can eliminate some outrageous innuendos and forecasting...
 
If Trump fires Mueller ( according to newsmax he is thinking about it ) then I'm officially off the Trump bandwagon although abc just said he doesn't have the power to so I dont know what to believe
 
If Trump fires Mueller ( according to newsman he is thinking about it ) then I'm officially off the Trump bandwagon although abc just said he doesn't have the power to so I dont know what to believe
Click to expand...

I will believe Trump's action when I see it. Way too much media speculation.
 
He does have the power. And his team of sycophants including his lawyer and Sessions and Gingrich, are parsing the BS to attempt to justify it. The Million $ question is would Congress rebel and hold him accountable by either reappointing Mueller or initiating impeachment proceedings.
I doubt this Congress has the cojones to oppose Trump.
Our representative form of government is in deep trouble.
 
More non sense from the media.
Click to expand...

Fascinating to watch this with arm's length detachment in Canada. Many of the major media outlets have abandoned any commitment to objectivity in their reporting. It's open warfare.

I had to laugh watching CNN the other night when they talked about a battle between "Pro-Trump vs Mainstream media". Remarkably subtle way to discredit the other point of view.
 
Sessions just destroyed Sen Wyden
Click to expand...

Remember when the worst thing you could do was accuse someone of being a fellow traveler? Good times.

URL]
 
Dawned on me watching AG Sessions that there might be an active strategy by President Trump operatives of exhausting the public with unprovable charges that Republicans in Congress can dismiss as frivolous, before the emoluments clause investigations get underway and fall on the ears of a populace that is sick of investigations, even though guilt is self-evident.
 
Dawned on me watching AG Sessions that there might be an active strategy by President Trump operatives of exhausting the public with unprovable charges that Republicans in Congress can dismiss as frivolous, before the emoluments clause investigations get underway and fall on the ears of a populace that is sick of investigations, even though guilt is self-evident.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the republicans are driving this investigation, it's like one of those Russian nesting doll where you peel off the layers and in the end there's nothing there, except this time there's nothing there, to distract the rubes from the fact that there's nothing somewhere else.

Two questions, since you evidently attended all three years of law school: (1) what "present, emolument, office, or title" from which "King, Prince or foreign State" has Trump accepted and when did he accept it? (2) when President Jugears accepted $1.4 million dollars for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, an "emolument" - a word meaning "a salary, fee, or profit" - awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a committee appointed by the the Norwegian Parliament, a legislature of a "foreign state" - did that violate the emoluments clause, [strike]you ridiculous partisan hack[/strike] Dr Fuchsia, Esq.?

Careful, this might be a trick question.
 
Here is the moment that congressional oversight, pertaining to the President of the United States, died.

Rest assure, when (not if) republicans go after the next democratic president, this same made-up standard will be used.



I look forward to seeing the DOJ written policies. I'll wait patiently.
 
Dawned on me watching AG Sessions that there might be an active strategy by President Trump operatives of exhausting the public with unprovable charges that Republicans in Congress can dismiss as frivolous, before the emoluments clause investigations get underway and fall on the ears of a populace that is sick of investigations, even though guilt is self-evident.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the republicans are driving this investigation, it's like one of those Russian nesting doll where you peel off the layers and in the end there's nothing there, except this time there's nothing there, to distract the rubes from the fact that there's nothing somewhere else.

Two questions, since you evidently attended all three years of law school: (1) what "present, emolument, office, or title" from which "King, Prince or foreign State" has Trump accepted and when did he accept it? (2) when President Jugears accepted $1.4 million dollars for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, an "emolument" - a word meaning "a salary, fee, or profit" - awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a committee appointed by the the Norwegian Parliament, a legislature of a "foreign state" - did that violate the emoluments clause, [strike]you ridiculous partisan hack[/strike] Dr Fuchsia, Esq.?

I am Esq. free in title. Democrat for 55 years who believes his party is running on empty. Moeller's subpoenas will unearth the degree to which our President is victim of his baser nature, forgoing all except the opportunity to pocket an extra buck, which is how he keeps score. Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Careful, this might be a trick question.
Click to expand...
 
Here is the moment that congressional oversight, pertaining to the President of the United States, died.

Rest assure, when (not if) republicans go after the next democratic president, this same made-up standard will be used.



I look forward to seeing the DOJ written policies. I'll wait patiently.
Click to expand...
The thing is if you hate Trump you liked this. I personally think he made the Senator look like a tool because he didnt understand what executive privilege was
 
Here is the moment that congressional oversight, pertaining to the President of the United States, died.

Rest assure, when (not if) republicans go after the next democratic president, this same made-up standard will be used.



I look forward to seeing the DOJ written policies. I'll wait patiently.
Click to expand...
The thing is if you hate Trump you liked this. I personally think he made the Senator look like a tool because he didnt understand what executive privilege was
Click to expand...
And here is the main question. Was Sessions right in saying it's a long standing tradition to protect private conversations with the President as a member of the head of the justice dept etc.

My guess is he is a smart guy and it's true. If so he destroyed him too. If not then Sessions was lying.or misinterpreted it
 
I am Esq. free in title. Democrat for 55 years who believes his party is running on empty. Moeller's subpoenas will unearth the degree to which our President is victim of his baser nature, forgoing all except the opportunity to pocket an extra buck, which is how he keeps score. Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Click to expand...

That you avoided the questions posed is noted, although not surprising.

Sometimes - and no offense b/c I don't dislike you particularly - I can't believe how ridiculous you (the royal you) people are. Your assumption is that Trump calculated thusly: as a stupid greedy satyr who recognizes the importance of nothing other than dollars and pusses I can spend most of the few years I have remaining on the planet at the cost of a percentage of my fortune to against all odds gain the presidency, in order to recover a small amount of money and no puss greater than I would have accrued in the normal course of things, all the while under the watchful eye of the Washington Post, the US congress, and various genyiousses on the internet who are expert of the emoluments clause.

If Trump's that stupid he shouldn't be impeached, he should be hanged.

Here's another theory: you keep score on the basis of dollars and assume everyone else does as well. It's called projection. What's your PhD in again? Never mind that's rhetorical.
 
Here is the moment that congressional oversight, pertaining to the President of the United States, died.

Rest assure, when (not if) republicans go after the next democratic president, this same made-up standard will be used.



I look forward to seeing the DOJ written policies. I'll wait patiently.
Click to expand...
The thing is if you hate Trump you liked this. I personally think he made the Senator look like a tool because he didnt understand what executive privilege was
Click to expand...


I am a Trump hater, and I did not like this. I agree with the Senator Heinrich, unless Session is actually going to produce a DOJ policy. It just doesn't sit well with me that people can pick and choose what they answer. The Republicans agreed with me when it came to Eric Holder.

Personally, I highly doubt there was any collusion. At worst, perhaps people within the campaign knew Russia was involved while the hacking was taking place. However, to date, there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Here is what I think. I think the "fake" dossier is totally accurate. In other words, I think that Russia has some embarrassing personal and financial information on Trump. You have to admit, it is awfully peculiar that Trump can be recklessly harsh with our allies and is essentially never critical of Russia. You have to admit it is peculiar that he is literally the only official who cannot unequivocally agree that it was Russia that did the hacking. You have to admit that it is totally bizarre that while Republicans are participating in efforts to increase Russian sanctions due to their meddling in the election, Trump is considering undoing previously levied sanctions. I am trying to be fair and, yet, these peculiarities make me wonder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top