Caroline Kennedy --- 2020

[monadnocky]

Right now I'm picturing Mitt Romney, reclining on a nice Mission-style chair overlooking the frozen waters of Lake Winnipesaukee, smiling smugly in his Irish-knit sweater, sipping tea and quietly singing the refrain from "How You Like Me Now."

[Matthew J]

Here is the Washington Post story. Can't make this stuff up.

Mysterious intruder rattles GOP lawmakers - The Washington Post

More disturbing to me than the intruder is the below quote from the end of the article. Elected officials ought not be so concerned about people hearing their comments on matters affecting the people they are elected to represent.

Leaks from internal member discussions are unacceptable,” she said, adding that “these conversations are intended to allow members to candidly discuss how to address the issues facing the American people.

[j44ke]

More disturbing to me than the intruder is the below quote from the end of the article. Elected officials ought not be so concerned about people hearing their comments on matters affecting the people they are elected to represent.

Leaks from internal member discussions are unacceptable,” she said, adding that “these conversations are intended to allow members to candidly discuss how to address the issues facing the American people.

Transparency, schmamparency.

[Corso]

So I guess everyone following just ignores the recent Rueters poll:

>>The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed.
Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree.”<<

49% agree, 41% disagree.

Now before you start ranting on how polls are not accurate (I agree)…CBS news last night quoted “a recent poll” (CBS can just say “recent and not identify who’s poll?). So if it’s good enough for CBS to refer to, lets play along.

Anyhow, Scott Pelay reports the 49% to 41%, goes to Major Garret (a very left leaning white house reporter) and says “What is the white house doing about the 41% who disagree…blah blah blah…

…Never once returning or mentioning the MAJORITY fact of the 49%!!!!

If the 41% percent was news enough to report on a national CBS newscast, the 49% (MAJORITY) number was also news!

Just another left leaning news cycle in America.

And Rich, before you ask me again not to participate here, another member has posted more on this thread than I have, and you don’t feel the need to ask him to stop? Because he’s aligned with your opinion?

Mods, not getting personal here, just replying to an earlier posting (#115).

[dogrange]

So I guess everyone following just ignores the recent Rueters poll:

>>The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed.
Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree.”<<

49% agree, 41% disagree.

Now before you start ranting on how polls are not accurate (I agree)…CBS news last night quoted “a recent poll” (CBS can just say “recent and not identify who’s poll?). So if it’s good enough for CBS to refer to, lets play along.

Anyhow, Scott Pelay reports the 49% to 41%, goes to Major Garret (a very left leaning white house reporter) and says “What is the white house doing about the 41% who disagree…blah blah blah…

…Never once returning or mentioning the MAJORITY fact of the 49%!!!!

If the 41% percent was news enough to report on a national CBS newscast, the 49% (MAJORITY) number was also news!

Just another left leaning news cycle in America.

And Rich, before you ask me again not to participate here, another member has posted more on this thread than I have, and you don’t feel the need to ask him to stop? Because he’s aligned with your opinion?

Mods, not getting personal here, just replying to an earlier posting (#115).

Yes, I agree that it is possible that a lot of Americans, potentially a majority of votors would say that they agree with the order. I think that is really sad, especially given that the order is a blunderbuss that excludes even those (1000s) who have assisted our forces in the Middle East (not to mention legitimate refugees, but for the grace of G-d we could all be one). Supposedly that is being addressed now, but we will see. I hope it is just that most haven't had the time to familiarize themselves with the order's lack of detail and precision, as well as it's potential benefits to ISIS & co., but it could just be that we really are a hysterical cowering bunch of P***sies as a nation who hide in the closet whenever ISIS says, BOO!

[guido]

There is a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt being stirred up tight now. And most of it is through lack of basic information. I wonder how many of the folks who answered the Rueters poll actually knew that no terrorists had come to the US from any of the countries in the ban? Or if anyone who is a fan of "extreme vetting" knows how much vetting already takes place before an emigrant or refugee can come into the country?

[Corso]

There is a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt being stirred up tight now. And most of it is through lack of basic information. I wonder how many of the folks who answered the Rueters poll actually knew that no terrorists had come to the US from any of the countries in the ban? Or if anyone who is a fan of "extreme vetting" knows how much vetting already takes place before an emigrant or refugee can come into the country?

And please add “or if any of those protestors actually have a reason for protesting other than they “Hate Trump”? Those countries: the ones the Obama administration picked?

Ignorance of the facts apply to all sides.

[Saab2000]

Ignorance of the facts apply to all sides.

This is certainly true, I'll grant you that.

That said, I'm concerned with "Alternative Facts" that seem to be coming down from the White House at times. There's still time for the POTUS to be a president and not an autocratic dictator. At least his pick for SCOTUS appears to be qualified, even if he weren't my personal choice. There is room for interpretation there.

[Cookietruck]

There is a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt being stirred up tight now. And most of it is through lack of basic information. I wonder how many of the folks who answered the Rueters poll actually knew that no terrorists had come to the US from any of the countries in the ban? Or if anyone who is a fan of "extreme vetting" knows how much vetting already takes place before an emigrant or refugee can come into the country?

this a great point. one of my in-laws was telling my wife last night that she believes it to be true (because some told her he personally did this) that you can go down to the post office, have your picture taken and have a US passport in roughly 45 minutes, my wife told her it actually takes 6-8 weeks and she wouldn't believe it.
she has no idea on the actual process for immigrants or refugees to actually get into the country but she really thinks trumps immigration ban is going to make us much safer.

[Matthew J]

And please add “or if any of those protestors actually have a reason for protesting other than they “Hate Trump”? Those countries: the ones the Obama administration picked?

Ignorance of the facts apply to all sides.

Physician heal thyself.

The Obama administration slowed down visa applications from Iraq only. Never stopped the process altogether. Certainly did not throw the other countries on the list while, you know, leaving off the countries where the 9/11 perps actually hailed from (and making nice with Putin, who, ya know, is currently providing direct military support to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah).

[colker]

So I guess everyone following just ignores the recent Rueters poll:

>>The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed.
Some 53 percent of Democrats said they "strongly disagree" with Trump's action while 51 percent of Republicans said they "strongly agree.”<<

49% agree, 41% disagree.

Now before you start ranting on how polls are not accurate (I agree)…CBS news last night quoted “a recent poll” (CBS can just say “recent and not identify who’s poll?). So if it’s good enough for CBS to refer to, lets play along.

Anyhow, Scott Pelay reports the 49% to 41%, goes to Major Garret (a very left leaning white house reporter) and says “What is the white house doing about the 41% who disagree…blah blah blah…

…Never once returning or mentioning the MAJORITY fact of the 49%!!!!

If the 41% percent was news enough to report on a national CBS newscast, the 49% (MAJORITY) number was also news!

Just another left leaning news cycle in America.

And Rich, before you ask me again not to participate here, another member has posted more on this thread than I have, and you don’t feel the need to ask him to stop? Because he’s aligned with your opinion?

Mods, not getting personal here, just replying to an earlier posting (#115).

So.. what if tomorrow 49% also agree on measures which contradict the principles expressed in the US constitution? American democracy is not a popularity contest: it´s a political system based on ideas that should never be compromised.

[Cookietruck]

So.. what if tomorrow 49% also agree on measures which contradict the principles expressed in the US constitution? American democracy is not a popularity contest: it´s a political system based on ideas that should never be compromised.

and with that pointed out. this is pretty good reading.

Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional - POLITICO Magazine

[Corso]

So.. what if tomorrow 49% also agree on measures which contradict the principles expressed in the US constitution? American democracy is not a popularity contest: it´s a political system based on ideas that should never be compromised.

Colker, to answer your question:

100% of people surveyed in a poll can disagree on something in the Constitution if they want to, it’s not going to change the Constitution. Part of our freedom is to have such opinions, and the freedom to state them.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, the 14th is the one that covers someone such as you (I’m assuming you are not a US citizen) to be covered under our constitution when you enter US territory. Pretty amazing I think.

Amendments take a 2/3 majority vote by our elected officials. So yes, numbers matter.

And yes, unfortunately, elections are often won on popularity, all over the world.

"Ideas should never be compromised” I agree. The same elected officials vote and create laws. This country has immigration laws. Yet, some elected officials have decided not to obey those laws, either by looking the other way, or by creating “sanctuary cities’, a term that officially does not exists.

So who is compromising what? If the laws are unconstitutional, how were they created in the first place?

It’s complicated, my friend.

[colker]

Colker, to answer your question:

100% of people surveyed in a poll can disagree on something in the Constitution if they want to, it’s not going to change the Constitution. Part of our freedom is to have such opinions, and the freedom to state them.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times, the 14th is the one that covers someone such as you (I’m assuming you are not a US citizen) to be covered under our constitution when you enter US territory. Pretty amazing I think.

Amendments take a 2/3 majority vote by our elected officials. So yes, numbers matter.

And yes, unfortunately, elections are often won on popularity, all over the world.

"Ideas should never be compromised” I agree. The same elected officials vote and create laws. This country has immigration laws. Yet, some elected officials have decided not to obey those laws, either by looking the other way, or by creating “sanctuary cities’, a term that officially does not exists.

So who is compromising what? If the laws are unconstitutional, how were they created in the first place?

It’s complicated, my friend.

Elections are popularity contests but Laws are not: it´s not about how popular but how faithfull to the spirit of the constitution.

[Saab2000]

So let me ask a question:

While it's indisputable that Donald Trump won the required number of votes in the Electoral College, he doesn't have a popular mandate. Last year when Mitch McConnell said (without precedent - President Obama was not a Lame Duck president at that point) that the will of the people should be respected when selecting a new SCOTUS justice to replace the late Justice Scalia does he now walk that back, knowing that the will of the people is, in point of fact, not to have Trump's nominee ascend to the bench at the Supreme Court?

I'm not actually suggesting that the Democrats just filibuster this nomination (nor am I suggesting that we abolish the Electoral College just because I don't get what I want) because I believe that an eye for an eye just makes us all blind, but it's clear that there is no popular mandate here. I hope the nominee is a good one. He seems to be respected, even by those who don't share his ideology.

[Matthew J]

So let me ask a question:

While it's indisputable that Donald Trump won the required number of votes in the Electoral College, he doesn't have a popular mandate. Last year when Mitch McConnell said (without precedent - President Obama was not a Lame Duck president at that point) that the will of the people should be respected when selecting a new SCOTUS justice to replace the late Justice Scalia does he now walk that back, knowing that the will of the people is, in point of fact, not to have Trump's nominee ascend to the bench at the Supreme Court?

Indeed. McConnell walked into this by on the one hand suggesting the constitutional process should bend to the will of the people then on the other demanding that the Democrats accept the electoral process.

Where I am from this is called arguing out of both sides of ones mouth.

[guido]

Indeed. McConnell walked into this by on the one hand suggesting the constitutional process should bend to the will of the people then on the other demanding that the Democrats accept the electoral process.

Where I am from this is called arguing out of both sides of ones mouth.

Arguing out of both sides of his mouth is something Mitch McConnell is very well practiced at.

[j44ke]

So let me ask a question:

While it's indisputable that Donald Trump won the required number of votes in the Electoral College, he doesn't have a popular mandate. Last year when Mitch McConnell said (without precedent - President Obama was not a Lame Duck president at that point) that the will of the people should be respected when selecting a new SCOTUS justice to replace the late Justice Scalia does he now walk that back, knowing that the will of the people is, in point of fact, not to have Trump's nominee ascend to the bench at the Supreme Court?

I'm not actually suggesting that the Democrats just filibuster this nomination (nor am I suggesting that we abolish the Electoral College just because I don't get what I want) because I believe that an eye for an eye just makes us all blind, but it's clear that there is no popular mandate here. I hope the nominee is a good one. He seems to be respected, even by those who don't share his ideology.

Saab, this is a subtlety of governance that is lost I think in the American system of government because we are not a parliamentary democracy. If we were a parliamentary democracy, we would likely be going through a time of coalition governments where the left and the right were variously having to assemble coalitions in order to retain power. It would not necessarily make the government more efficient, as Europe and the UK are experiencing similarly stagnated governments with similarly frustrated electorates who are experiencing the slings and arrows of the de-industrialization of their economies. But it would perhaps be a more accurate fingerprint of the political philosophies created by the electorate. We would likely have something like the Green Party and then also something like the one run by Marine Le Pen, along with various forms of moderate centrist middle etc. parties. In America, mandate or no mandate doesn't mean bupkis - winner takes all. The only check is if the opposition party wins one of the houses of Congress, but that isn't the case now.

I am not sure this Supreme Court nominee is the one to filibuster. The next one will be the nominee to filibuster. That's the tipping point nominee, unless Trump decides to emulate Eisenhower and select a moderate after selecting a conservative. Plus with the Republicans threatening to do away with the filibuster entirely as an available tactic in Congress, I'd figure that the Democrats have one filibuster to use and then game over. And if one of the liberal justices dies or has to retire, then look out.

BTW, Collins of Maine and Murkowski of Alaska have both decided to vote "no" on DeVos. I talked to my pal who works for Murkowski, and he doesn't seem sold on the "no" vote but says she couldn't vote yes on qualifications, i.e. DeVos is just not qualified for the job. That's often said as part of the partisan rhetoric from the opposition party and thus often merits a grain of salt, but to hear it come from members of the party in power is different.

Edit: re: polls. I think the last election showed that polls are pretty much broken, at least the way they are done in the US. The only organization that came close to predicting the elections was Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight and they do statistical analysis not polling. So I wouldn't really pay much attention to polls until they fix themselves, even if they start saying 100% of America wants Obama back. Polls are just another business.

[Saab2000]

I agree on DeVos. I hope she is not confirmed.

Not all of his appointments have been disappointing to me. And I'm not against a 'conservative' justice per se. I would be against a poorly qualified or borderline unhinged judge being nominated. There have been poor nominations to the court in the past. This one does not, on the face of it, appear to fit that label.

And I agree on the filibuster here. I would save that tactic for something really extreme, something which this nomination doesn't appear to be, even though he's probably not my personal choice. I wouldn't necessarily favor a liberal justice either. I hope our SCOTUS justices are above these labels and try to adjudicate each case on its own merits. It's not an easy job and I think most try to do a good job. I do think the politicization of the court over the past generation or so is very unfortunate.

This morning watching Morning Joe I saw a piece with Senator Manchin of West Virginia. We need more of his bipartisan spirit and less of the toxicity of some of the more vocal congresspeople we see too often.

[j44ke]

The one that scares me a little is Steve Mnuchin for Treasury. That guy is super qualified, but in the way that one day the country wakes up and wonders where all the money went. It all just seemed to disappear. That guy is too smart!