Thank you 😊That’s amazing that you were a staff member. My friend was a Senate page.
I agree white house is starting to sound like a star wars movie I think to much coription in white house an we then people don't get the changes we want look at climate problems
an my comments are for night drot
@WhiteShoulder Thank you - and small world. Most of my work was on the House side, though I did serve for a time as Press Secretary for the Helsinki Commission which was co-chaired by then Senator Brownback. (Who later became Governor of Kansas.) Anyhow, I served as the Legislative Director for three different House Members and as both LD and Press Secretary for another House Member. I did get to know a few of the pages - good kids.
@pizzalovershouse Sorry, I don't quite follow what you wrote. If you could clarify I would be happy to reply if I can.
just saying I like to see white house office clean of all it's corruption an get back to what the constitution is meant to for all let's get it back to no 1 gets away with miss using power
an was meant for night dry this an last comment
@pizzalovershouse The presumption that the White House, by which I assume you mean the Presidency is rife with corruption does not really bear scrutiny. That is the popular prejudice of a populist age.In truth, by any global standards, the United States government as a whole is remarkably free of corruption. At least as far as any institution created by and run by imperfect beings is going to be corruption free. In that sense, pining for some Golden Age when all was pure and pristine is neither realistic nor apt to be very useful.President Trump, of whom I repeat I am no fan, certainly skirts the edge, but much of that is born of the fact that the head of a business has far wider scope for imposing his will on his company than does the President on the big, huge sprawling government. Especially a government so structured. as the American government is, with separated powers and checks and balances and all the other mechanisms designed to frustrate action.It is one of the illusions of populists that if only the common man could get a businessman in charge of the government it would run smoothly and the will of the people would at last gain expression. The populists forgetting that the larger the government is and the more complicated things the public wants government to do, the less public opinion must matter and the greater the chances for corruption.There was no golden age of pristine government, a wary eye need always be kept - think Washington's line about "eternal vigilance" - there are always trade-offs and by any standard of human affairs, American government is honest and clean. That will have to suffice.
@night- what do you think of the idea that what this really boils down to, is part of the next campaign for the office? Isn’t this really the attempt to keep a Trump in a state of never ending chaos and to label him as being unfit for reelection? Even though they make fools of themselves, they apparently assume it’s doesn’t matter, if it convinces voters to not vote republican. It seems to have some merit, in the big picture... you agree?🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
@Girther10 Sure, we are in populist times. Disrespect for established institutions and shrill accusations are just part of the background noise.That said, Mr. Trump is his own worst enemy and there is much here that could have been avoided if he attached his mouth to his brain and measured his words and actions. However, he is as disrespectful of established norms and procedures as his critics - and so we are where we are.That said, it is not clear that the Democrats benefit from such a strategy. First, though less so right now, it has tended to divide them. Secondly, the party of government is not apt to benefits when politics and government are assumed to be rife with corruption and incompetence.So while there is some merit to the investigation and while it is equally true that some of this is pure politics - the two are NOT mutually incompatible - it is not at all clear that this all redounds to the benefit of the Democrats. In any case the real blame lay elsewhere.The public, in its consummate populist self-satisfaction makes reasoned governance all the more difficult. As Chesterton said, "A diffuse distrust and an indiscriminate suspicion are the chief characteristics of a semi-barbarous people."About what you see in these exciting times.
Wow!!! You know G. K. Chesterton?
Ha! Yes, I am - as my girlfriend will attest, eyes rolling - I am a veritable cornucopia of quotes. Chesterton, Disraeli, Lincoln, Hamilton, Churchill, Aristotle, and on and on and on, world without end.Call it a weakness.
Awesome!Do you know Lord Acton's famous quote? Without looking it up?
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Is that the one you mean?
Yes!!Wow :-). You are good. Way better than me.
nite drot what I mean is that the white house spend money but yet cutting things that hurt people doesn't help the country like the wall foolish plan people just make tunnels or find other ways to get through it's just we need to See more money fixing problems like guns an other problems that make people believe America is going in wrong direction
@pizzalovershouse Well, your argument conduces to little more than saying, in effect, "What I disagree with is government waste. What I agree with is money well spent." That hardly bares intellectual scrutiny.While I am not a fan of Mr. Trump, the fact is that he won an election with a campaign that promised a certain policy agenda. You may disagree with that agenda, but it gives Mr. Trump momentum for respect when he seeks to implement that agenda, subject of course to the agreement of a majority of both Houses of Congress.'You may not like the wall, and may debate its merits, but it cannot be called "waste" insofar as the President put that policy before the public and the public - by voting for him - backed it. The public may be mistaken on the merits in your view, but democracy is not an assurance of perfection. Rather only that the public - within broad parameters and subject to the rule of law - has a right to have what it voted for.In this, then, your formulation does not bear scrutiny.
I wasn't cutting your views down my main concern in next ten years will be what food will be left with climate change average temps will be in 100s in many areas that use to be cool an if we loose much. of our food worse who choose who eats or dies
@pizzalovershouse Please believe me, I did not take it that you were attacking my positions, I merely meant to point out the logical implication of your approach to these questions. (In fact, on the "wall," for example, I am largely indifferent. It is a tool like any other. Useful where appropriately used and not where not and I find the preoccupation with it by both sides to be disproportionate.)It may be that I am misunderstanding you. I don't mean to offend, but your writing is not especially clear and I find myself struggling to decode your meaning.As to the climate change issue you raised - and I am not sure why you did - I offer my response to this question. Why doesn’t such a large population in the US not accept climate change? ↗ My answer is under my "Nightdrot" nom de guerre.What I would say is that you are taking much for granted and there is a wee bit of hyperbole in your remarks.
@night- at the risk of being seen as piling on, I, too, struggle with @pizzalovershouse nearly every time he opines. So you are not alone with that. I, for one, find these kinds of replies from gag members frustrating, and hard to try to engage in a meaningful way. Kudos to you for trying...👊🏼
@Girther10 Well thank you. Kind as always. All can add is that he is a good soul. Always polite and - gosh knows - the master of the quirky question. So I don't mind making the effort just so long as he does not mind that we may have to go a few rounds before I fully grasp what he is trying to get across.It is the ones who are rude and insulting but yet seem scarcely able to string words together who get on my nerves. Them I could do without.That all said, thanks for your kind comment.
nite drot in my opion were wasting money an time on impeachment cuz it's going to fail let's put it towards helping get more important things taken care in office
@pizzalovershouse That is a perfectly acceptable position to take and justifiable and as I wrote here - Do you support Trump being impeached? ↗ - I more or less agree with you. Although having said that, the financial costs of impeachment are minimal. Though the costs in time are more substantial. To make a cost argument is not the most analytically rigorous case to make.
yep have a good 1
@pizzalovershouse You as well.
@night- I didn’t see anything in your narrative that mentions the importance of the media in all this. Today, cnn and nbc are ecstatic at their newfound chance to impeach. They are saying lots of things that are just false, similiar to the two years of false reporting, exaggerations, and lying by omission, we just suffered through. Has there ever been such a corrupt media as this? These “journalists” are having a great impact on public perception which is even more important going forward.
@Girther10 Media plays a part but I have dealt with the question of media bias elsewhere and in another context.See also: Has the mainstream media yet again, taken a massive hit on their integrity? The story of Trump being a spy and the misreported Covington students? ↗It also being noteworthy that given that, in general, the media are not well respected by the public, it is an open question to just how influential they generally are. Certainly, if power is defined as the ability to achieve intended effects, then the Presidency of Mr. Trump disproves the idea that the media are all that powerful.In any case, there is plenty I did not mention in my essay but as G@G limits our fun to 4,000 characters at a time - and 2,000 for subsequent replies - there is much I might have added but did not. Blame it on the editor.
That first question you referenced was asked by me... so having reviewed it, I know you feelings about it. I’ll try to keep rembering that no one watches those “news” outlets. I guess it’s how the free market works, people won’t buy a crappy product. I have to keep reminding myself of that...😩😩
@Girther10 It is not that no one watches those outlets. Rather it is that the audience is so segmented that everyone goes pretty much to the outlet that confirms their prejudices - and as night follows day howls about the bias of the outlet (s) that do not.The media does not so much persuade as inflame. It does not so much alter opinion as confirm extant opinions - and to the extent that media thrives on conflict and sensationalism it will intensify those opinions. Suffice to say, this makes moderate and dispassionate discussion and debate difficult.Indeed, you've heard me say before that the period the West in general, and the U. S. in particular, is going through social turbulence not unlike the 1960s and 70s. We've been here before but one big difference is that the previous period was at a time when the technology created a more or less broad based media and everyone was operating within a more or less common frame of reference.The current period, by contrast, is playing out against a backdrop of a technology that fragments the psychology of the audience. The implications of that for the broad cultural/social/political debate and thus democracy are potentially extremely serious.Indeed, it is one of the massive failings of the current crop of politicians - Mr. Trump VERY much included. They are mediocrities who do not rise to a higher level of debate but who inflame passions and rub salt in the social wounds. In this they are very second rate. The wisdom of their policies are arguable, but oddly are not that different from each other. Often descending to little more than a bizarre combination of pandering and self-pity. This especially with Mr. Trump, it must be said, who created the marvelously self-absorbed term, "presidential harassment." News flash to Mr. Trump: Harassment is a standard part of the game of politics. The other side is not called "the opposition" for nothing.
No problem! ☺️
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I honestly don't see how people can respect the Republicans so much these days. I mean no offense when I say that the GOP has lost its way. If you really are 64 then you can at least agree on that.I mean, just from what I've read, y'all had basic values of freedom of the individual in the beginning but you gave it up so you could win more elections. It's hard to see the GOP as anything but the party of 1984 where corporations are supreme and history is irrelevant to you. I mean Obama was no where near perfect but they demonized him and went on record saying they wanted him gone no matter what, they actively ignored compromises during his presidency and made an effort in hurting his image. I mean seriously, it's one thing to dislike a man and his beliefs but it's another thing to completely demonize him.Then you've got Trump who, according to he Muller Report, is a criminal. Not saying impeachment is necessary but are you really going to vote for him again? He's destroying America's image in the world and your image as a party. I just don't see what you do. Is it about policy? Is it about wining? Is it about keeping Democrats out of office?
@Hypnos0929 I don't think that Trump is a perfect president and I did not support him in the Republican primaries in 2016. I do not like him as a person but I agree with many of his policies. However, in 2016, the choice was Trump or Clinton and I believe that she is evil incarnate. Politics today is so highly polarized and the Deep State is real; the Mueller report is politically biased and it found insufficient evidence against the President. I actually lean more toward Libertarian beliefs and would support a Libertarian candidate if they had a realistic chance.
Muller himself said he found evidence of criminal activity (Not related to the Russian scandal, which he said is most likely untrue) BUT the DOJ and Congress must be willing to use it.
@Hypnos0929 And his statement represents a conclusion. I know that conclusions about such matters are influenced by bias and Mueller is definitely a partisan. His team was partisan. This does not represent a dispassionate conclusion by an impartial investigator.
Everyone has biases but Mueller made it clear that there's evidence of crime (s) that were committed but as an investigatior he is unable to say guilty or innocent due to DOJ policy and the fact it isn't up to him, it's up to Congress to convict. Here are 2 relatively unbias looks at the report. I say relatively because a non bias human doesn't exist.https://youtu.be/t3qjH7pFq_0https://youtu.be/f71Rasj_0JY
In that case, I definitely see your point
From where I stand it really feels like a publicity stunt.
This time he committed a crime and can't hide it.
@Twalli - What is the crime? Are you able to articulate that without a democrat talking point? Cuz so far there is ZERO evidence of any crime.
Obstruction of justice is confirmed
@Twalli - Nothing has been confirmed or proven. Here we go again, making shit up.
No. A president who is impeached by the Senate is forced out of office. It's never happened before, but Andrew Johnson came within one vote of being impeached. Nixon resigned because he believed he would almost certainly be impeached and possibly indicted afterward if he went to trial. (And he was probably promised a pardon if he resigned quietly.)I may be using the word "Impeached" imprecisely, but everything else I just said is accurate.
Oh, its definitely not going to make it to the Senate. Trump would have to screw McConnell over directly, which even he isn't that dumb.
Different country, so no guarantee, but thanks for answering :-)
He has committed crimes now. Before he hadn't, but now there's hard evidence.
The president always picks the Supreme Court justices. That being said, I don’t like Kavanaugh.
No, the president didn't always pick the supreme court justice. That was added later after the constitution was written. America is supposed to have checks and balances where the justice branch can check the power of the executive. it doesn't work when the executive can decide who the justice branch is.
Are you sure about that?
Yes I'm sure. That's how America is supposed to work.
Then who should appoint the judges?
The people, duh! That's how democracy works: people vote!
You mean by electing them?
They tried that in Pennsylvania and Florida. Really sucks.