[Finfinder]

@Drlee You are going to support the Democrats to pick the next supreme court justices that is all I need to know about your spin.

BTW you are wailing about the process and you want me to study history why don't you study some history and tell us the behavior of the Democrats verses the Republicans when comes to picking justices. You think walking in on a secret meeting is bad paalease.

[Drlee]

@Drlee You are going to support the Democrats to pick the next supreme court justices that is all I need to know about your spin.

Yes. Of course. I want a justices who will stop trying to legislate morality from the bench. As a conservative I do not like activist judges. For example. The decision on Citizens United. Money is speach? How is that conservative. Voter suppression? How is that conservative?

BTW you are wailing about the process and you want me to study history why don't you study some history and tell us the behavior of the Democrats verses the Republicans when comes to picking justices.

I want justices who consider history. Again. Citizens United in a country where the founders would have been appalled by the notion that a corporation could lobby a lawmaker not to mention give money to one.

Then there is abortion. I am a conservative. I do not believe we ought to foist one group's religious beliefs on another. And clearly abortion is an issue driven largely but not exclusively by religious belief.

I am appalled by the absurd republican position on immigration. It is about as far from the conservative position as possible. A conservative would believe in workplace enforcement (which works) and not on a wall which doesn't.

Then what conservative would leave his allies on the battlefield and be happy watching US Army soldiers being pelted with garbage as they slink away from the people who had their back in battle?

No Finfinder. I am a real conservative. This bullshit is not. The democrats are by far and away the patriotic and conservative party now.

You think walking in on a secret meeting is bad paalease.

Nice try. This was not a secret meeting. There were democrats and republican committee members there who were supposed to be. The people who crashed it were potentially crashing a meeting and an area of classified information they were not permitted to see. That is a crime. But crime is no stranger to republicans these days.

[late]

I am a conservative.

Lots of different flavors these days. Most of them aren't actually conservative, but the philosophy has a flaw.

Capitalism and science are powerful engines of change. So when a conservative supports them, and there is nothing wrong with that, they are also creating a need for reform. A need for constant reform.

I call myself a Progressive, but my goal is just to keep the country from destroying itself. Making it a little better would be nice, but with the Party of No, that's not too likely, is it?

If I were to guess, I'd say you were a Rockefeller Republican. That was the almost liberal wing of the East Coast Establishment Republicans of the 60s and the 70s.

That's roughly the same Right of center territory Bill Clinton moved into when he was "triangulating"

As you know, there is a pendulum swing to politics, and the Dems are slowly moving to the Left. Just so you know.

[Hindsite]

The Democrats and the media seem to lack the awareness that they have lost credibility.

That does not seem to matter to them because they just want to remove the Trump of God as leader by hook or crook.

[Drlee]

If I were to guess, I'd say you were a Rockefeller Republican. That was the almost liberal wing of the East Coast Establishment Republicans of the 60s and the 70s.

That would be about true these days.

That's roughly the same Right of center territory Bill Clinton moved into when he was "triangulating"

That is also true.

Part of the blame about this is on the early Trump team. Instead of insisting that Trump learn what he needs to know to be president it appears that they thought they could "play" him to their own advantage. So Trump (correctly) assumes that his own people are rolling him. They were not and certainly are not taking him seriously. So where does he turn for advice? Nowhere. And what do we get? A president that is going it alone.

What else can he do but look to his own counsel? The republican party, by not saying no to him, has done him no favors. By caving they have left him guessing. If you look at it he has not done such a bad job of guessing. McConnell could have helped make Trump a good and successful president by a bit of tough love. He didn't.

That does not seem to matter to them because they just want to remove the Trump of God as leader by hook or crook.

And this is clearly the fault of republicans, not democrats. If the republicans had been supporting Trump's agenda by steering his actions in acceptable ways we would not have the problems. Unfortunately republicans have isolated the president. I could make a good case for President Trump feeling that Pelosi and Schumer are better "friends" that most of the republicans are; giggling behind their hands while not offering him good advice.

[Hindsite]

I could make a good case for President Trump feeling that Pelosi and Schumer are better "friends" that most of the republicans are; giggling behind their hands while not offering him good advice.

I think you are deceiving yourself.

[blackjack21]

For those of you who are unaware, the committee was meeting in a secure room where cell phones are not allowed at any time. Nor are uninvited people.

...when there are hearings taking place involving classified information. Janitors go in there all the time. It's no big deal.

The republicans who stormed the meeting room are committing an offense far worse than Hillary's email nonsense.

Upsetting Adam Schiff is a very serious offense indeed.

The highest deficits in history are those of Trump. Clinton balanced the budget.

All spending bills and all tax bills arise in the House. There is a difference between Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump. There is a difference between big spending Republicans like Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. Who was running the House when Clinton was president? Newt Gingrich. The establishment hated the balanced budget.

The republicans could get me back easily. All they have to do is go back to their conservative core values.

Let's start by getting rid of gay marriage and abortion.

And Blackjack. McConnell is up for reelection this cycle.

Indeed. He's going to win again. That's why he'll back Trump. He has to fear the Tea Party, and they will end his career if he convicts Trump.

I want a justices who will stop trying to legislate morality from the bench.

You mean like "gay marriage"?

The decision on Citizens United. Money is speach? How is that conservative.

How is it not? Robert "Sheets" Byrd used to lament that the founders would never have considered someone like him worthy of a Senate seat. It was intended for landed aristocracy.

Voter suppression? How is that conservative?

The Founders didn't give women, blacks, native Americans, indentured whites, or white males without property or the ability to pay a poll tax the right to vote. How is universal suffrage conservative?

I want justices who consider history.

Are you sure?

Citizens United in a country where the founders would have been appalled by the notion that a corporation could lobby a lawmaker not to mention give money to one.

They would have been appalled by women on the supreme court, a women as speaker of the house, an hysterical woman like AOC, a black president of the United States, homosexual marriage derived out of the same 14th Amendment you are lamenting for giving the same lobbying rights to corporations as to homosexuals.

Then there is abortion. I am a conservative. I do not believe we ought to foist one group's religious beliefs on another. And clearly abortion is an issue driven largely but not exclusively by religious belief.

At the founding, Americans were natalists. Are you sure you want justices who consider history?

I am appalled by the absurd republican position on immigration. It is about as far from the conservative position as possible. A conservative would believe in workplace enforcement (which works) and not on a wall which doesn't.

Both work.

Then what conservative would leave his allies on the battlefield and be happy watching US Army soldiers being pelted with garbage as they slink away from the people who had their back in battle?

Most conservatives would oppose fighting imperial wars. Washington cautioned against foreign entanglements. Do you think Washington would have been cool with the US having troops in Syria without a declaration of war, without an authorization to use force, ostensibly fighting with a non nation-state as an ally that wanted to erect an ethno state while the US is not defending US borders and calling the native US population racist? Somehow, I'm guessing Washington wouldn't be too cool with that.

No Finfinder. I am a real conservative.

Uh huh. Why don't you lie back on the couch and tell us about your feelings for your father.

The democrats are by far and away the patriotic and conservative party now.

Dude. I'm laughing so hard I've got tears flowing.

[Hindsite]

The Founders didn't give women, blacks, native Americans, indentured whites, or white males without property or the ability to pay a poll tax the right to vote. How is universal suffrage conservative?

You make it clear that Driee is poorly educated on American history and government.
Praise the Lord.

[Drlee]

..when there are hearings taking place involving classified information. Janitors go in there all the time. It's no big deal.

This is just absurd and untrue.

Upsetting Adam Schiff is a very serious offense indeed.

Grow up.

All spending bills and all tax bills arise in the House. There is a difference between Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump. There is a difference between big spending Republicans like Paul Ryan and Donald Trump. Who was running the House when Clinton was president? Newt Gingrich. The establishment hated the balanced budget.

The tax cuts and big spending originated when the republicans had the house. But it doesn't matter. Even if the democrats had proposed the cuts (and they didn't) the republicans could have and should have balanced the budget instead of passing a wealthy relief act and spending like drunken sailors.

Let's start by getting rid of gay marriage and abortion.

You are confusing Bible belt evangelical values for conservative ones.

Drlee wrote:
And Blackjack. McConnell is up for reelection this cycle.

Indeed. He's going to win again. That's why he'll back Trump. He has to fear the Tea Party, and they will end his career if he convicts Trump.

If this is true it is all the more reason to leave. If a party is so corrupt that it has to excuse what would be felonies from any other government "employee" it has to be held responsible for its inability to govern. It is no surprise to me that they the fine people of McConnell's state are unable to understand how government works. At least not in sufficient quantities to sway an election. They are more concerned about their guns than they are honest government.

Drlee wrote:
I want a justices who will stop trying to legislate morality from the bench.

BJ said: You mean like "gay marriage"?

Nice zinger. That is not what happened and you know it. It is annoying when you play stupid because you are not. If you want to debate with me then bring up your game and stop playing to Hindsite.

Drlee wrote:
The decision on Citizens United. Money is speach? How is that conservative.

BJ: How is it not? Robert "Sheets" Byrd used to lament that the founders would never have considered someone like him worthy of a Senate seat. It was intended for landed aristocracy.

Two completely different issues and you know it. The founders would never have allowed a cent of corporate or union money to go to a candidate.

Drlee wrote:
Voter suppression? How is that conservative?

The Founders didn't give women, blacks, native Americans, indentured whites, or white males without property or the ability to pay a poll tax the right to vote. How is universal suffrage conservative?

The 14th amendment was passed when a republican house, senate and president were in power.

Drlee wrote:
Citizens United in a country where the founders would have been appalled by the notion that a corporation could lobby a lawmaker not to mention give money to one.

They would have been appalled by women on the supreme court, a women as speaker of the house, an hysterical woman like AOC, a black president of the United States, homosexual marriage derived out of the same 14th Amendment you are lamenting for giving the same lobbying rights to corporations as to homosexuals.

Probably. It is a good thing that conservatives have worked to change those things over the year. All of those "gotchas" that you posted would have appealed to Goldwater for example. And he hated corporate money in elections.

Drlee wrote:
Then there is abortion. I am a conservative. I do not believe we ought to foist one group's religious beliefs on another. And clearly abortion is an issue driven largely but not exclusively by religious belief.

BJ wrote: At the founding, Americans were natalists. Are you sure you want justices who consider history?

Nonsense. It was not even a minor issue then. They did not think about abortion much at all.

Drlee wrote:
I am appalled by the absurd republican position on immigration. It is about as far from the conservative position as possible. A conservative would believe in workplace enforcement (which works) and not on a wall which doesn't.

BJ wrote: Both work.

Wrong as usual. Walls do not work and even if they had some minor utility the expense in money and environmental damage is totally unnecessary.

Drlee wrote:
Then what conservative would leave his allies on the battlefield and be happy watching US Army soldiers being pelted with garbage as they slink away from the people who had their back in battle?

Most conservatives would oppose fighting imperial wars. Washington cautioned against foreign entanglements. Do you think Washington would have been cool with the US having troops in Syria without a declaration of war, without an authorization to use force, ostensibly fighting with a non nation-state as an ally that wanted to erect an ethno state while the US is not defending US borders and calling the native US population racist? Somehow, I'm guessing Washington wouldn't be too cool with that.

Very true. I opposed that adventurism when Bush (R) started it.

Drlee wrote:
No Finfinder. I am a real conservative.

Uh huh. Why don't you lie back on the couch and tell us about your feelings for your father.

Please stop acting like you are 15.

Drlee wrote:
The democrats are by far and away the patriotic and conservative party now.

BJ said something irrelevant to this assertion of mine.

Hindsite said: You make it clear that Driee is poorly educated on American history and government.
Praise the Lord.

Clearly you are just the guy to know better. Your obvious vast knowledge of American history could be written on a 3X5 card.

[jimjam]

You make it clear that Driee is poorly educated on American history and government.
Praise the Lord.

This from a guy who wasn't sure who Franklin D. Roosevelt was and, yet, enjoys his monthly Social Security check …………. .

Meanwhile, the best Obese Donald the coward can do about stepping outside his bubble/comfort zone is just one more highly produced propaganda event:

President Trump and his allies have billed his speech at a historically black college here on Friday afternoon as a chance to step outside the friendly confines of his supporter base and pitch his administration’s actions on criminal justice reform and black employment directly to a black audience.

But in the invitation-only room of about 300 people, only about 10 students will be admitted from Benedict College, which is hosting the event, said Mayor Stephen K. Benjamin of Columbia. More than half of the seats were reserved for guests and allies of the administration, organizers said.

[blackjack21]

This is just absurd and untrue.

It's not the holy of holies, Drlee. It's just a room.

The tax cuts and big spending originated when the republicans had the house.

They are a good thing.

Even if the democrats had proposed the cuts (and they didn't) the republicans could have and should have balanced the budget instead of passing a wealthy relief act and spending like drunken sailors.

This spending binge started with Obama's stimulus package, and continuing resolutions to deny the Republicans to pass a budget of their own in 2011 when they retook control of the House.

You are confusing Bible belt evangelical values for conservative ones.

Conservatives look to the future of the population, which is why they are not particularly favorable to homosexuals. It's also why they don't often care for bachelors like ourselves.

If this is true it is all the more reason to leave.

Not only is McConnell running for re-election, so is Lindsay Gramm and Susan Collins. Their careers would end forthwith if they voted for impeachment, and they know it.

If a party is so corrupt that it has to excuse what would be felonies from any other government "employee" it has to be held responsible for its inability to govern.

A true conservative knows that the felony maps to a section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations. Can you cite one yet, because nobody seems to be able to at this point. I would love for someone to cite the law Trump ostensibly violated.

They are more concerned about their guns than they are honest government.

Guns help to ensure honest government.

The founders would never have allowed a cent of corporate or union money to go to a candidate.

They were deeply split on it, as the fights on the First and Second Bank of the United States illustrated. They certainly wouldn't have allowed a Federal Reserve with a fractional reserve fiat currency, necessary for today's welfare state.

The 14th amendment was passed when a republican house, senate and president were in power.

Yeah. That would be in 1868 when the Founders were all dead and the South was under martial law and forced to ratify at gunpoint. The 14th Amendment didn't extend voting rights to anyone. That's why they passed the 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to freed black slaves, but not freed black women slaves or white women. That was the 19th Amendment. Again, are you sure you want judges who know their US history?

It is a good thing that conservatives have worked to change those things over the year.

Most of the anti-slavery Republicans until 1877 were considered radical. Lincoln was considered a moderate, because he opposed the Radical Republicans. The conservative Republicans also opposed anti-slavery along with the Democrats. It was Radical Republicans who pushed for the 14th Amendment and later the 15th Amendment. See the Wade-Davis bill that was in opposition to Lincoln's 10% plan. Speaking of impeachment, it was the Radical Republicans who impeached Andrew Johnson, as he was vetoing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and so forth.

All of those "gotchas" that you posted would have appealed to Goldwater for example. And he hated corporate money in elections.

Yeah. So he would have hated Lincoln then too, because Lincoln was a railroad attorney. That's where Lincoln's backing came from. Remember, Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican.

Nonsense. It was not even a minor issue then. They did not think about abortion much at all.

The country was underpopulated. If you wanted to have abortions, they would have prosecuted. They were ardent natalists. Even today, states like Missouri that would elect someone like Claire McCaskill will vote to ban abortion in most cases. Abortion is popular in major population centers like California and New York. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, many states will restrict abortion. The Supreme Court did not settle the issue politically at all.

Wrong as usual. Walls do not work and even if they had some minor utility the expense in money and environmental damage is totally unnecessary.

It worked for China. It worked for Hadrian. It worked for Berlin. It's working for Israel.

Very true. I opposed that adventurism when Bush (R) started it.

And yet, you're joining the only party that has a neoconservative front runner... having voted for the neoconservative warhawk in the last election who voted for Bush's war, which implemented Bill Clinton's "regime change" policy--which I'm guessing he passed to avoid removal from office following impeachment. He launched his missile attacks against al Qaeda as the Lewinsky scandal was going down too.

President Trump and his allies have billed his speech at a historically black college here on Friday afternoon as a chance to step outside the friendly confines of his supporter base and pitch his administration’s actions on criminal justice reform and black employment directly to a black audience.

Trump is campaigning for every vote. It's going to be a fun year.

[Drlee]

This spending binge started with Obama's stimulus package, and continuing resolutions to deny the Republicans to pass a budget of their own in 2011 when they retook control of the House.

Right. Under a republican appointed Secretary of the Treasury, following a bit smaller plan than the one Bush desperately wanted.

Conservatives look to the future of the population, which is why they are not particularly favorable to homosexuals. It's also why they don't often care for bachelors like ourselves.

(laughing with you not at you.)

Not only is McConnell running for re-election, so is Lindsay Gramm and Susan Collins. Their careers would end forthwith if they voted for impeachment, and they know it.

Really? Do you think their republican base will vote for AOC instead?

[Hindsite]

This from a guy who wasn't sure who Franklin D. Roosevelt was and, yet, enjoys his monthly Social Security check …………. .

I never claimed to be highly educated in American history and government. I was just pointing out that blackjack21 showed how poorly educated Driee was in those subjects.

They are more concerned about their guns than they are honest government.

I am concerned about both the second amendment and honest government. That is why I want be voting Democrat.

[jimjam]

I never claimed to be highly educated in American history and government. I was just pointing out that blackjack21 showed how poorly educated Driee was in those subjects.


I am concerned about both the second amendment and honest government. That is why I want be voting Democrat.

He's "concerned" a bout the second amendment ….. Better be careful ……… there are almost 400,000,000 guns in America and about 330,000,000 humans and he's "concerned" about the second amendment ….. . Better watch out …. the "socialists" are going to take away 400,000,000 guns

I suggest you go out and buy a few more and bury them in the woods somewhere.

[Hindsite]

He's "concerned" a bout the second amendment ….. Better be careful ……… there are almost 400,000,000 guns in America and about 330,000,000 humans and he's "concerned" about the second amendment ….. . Better watch out …. the "socialists" are going to take away 400,000,000 guns

I suggest you go out and buy a few more and bury them in the woods somewhere.

My best action to preserve my second amendment is to support the NRA and not vote for the Democrats. But I might have to go out and buy extra ammo, since I heard there are some Democrats that want to put high taxes on ammo.

[Drlee]

I never claimed to be highly educated in American history and government. I was just pointing out that blackjack21 showed how poorly educated Driee was in those subjects.

No. Actually he didn't. In fact, much of what he said was deliberately distorted. But you see Hindsite you don't know that because you said, "I never claimed to be highly educated in American history and government". This is something that has been evident to most of us for some time but thank you for letting us now that you are aware of it.

But I might have to go out and buy extra ammo, since I heard there are some Democrats that want to put high taxes on ammo.

Couple of things.

First. If you are concerned about ammunition prices you should do what those of us who shoot frequently do...reload. It is cheap and easy.

Second. The democrats have had the house of over a year. Have you seen such a bill pass?

Third. What is it that you, someone who claims to be an old man, need more than about 50 rounds of ammunition at any time need more ammo for?

Fourth. Did you know that 3% if Americans own half of the guns? Did you know that way less than half of households contain even a single gun? Did you know that just under 1/3 of Americans have any at all?

I am a multiple gun owner and, as all people who would even think of using a gun for self defense ought to, have taken classes on the proper use of firearms for self defense as well as keeping my shooting skills up through relatively frequent practice. I find it appalling that some people believe that any person in the country should be able to arm himself in public without any training whatsoever. Of course these people are just stupid but that does not mean they have no political clout.

Blackjack mentioned that the founders imbued only certain people with the right to vote. Perhaps Blackjack only mistakes why they did it.

[Tainari88]

@Drlee

Clearly you are just the guy to know better. Your obvious vast knowledge of American history could be written on a 3X5 card.

For some reason this struck me as extremely funny. I laughed a lot at this one.

I think history of any sort is not his forte Drlee.

I love history. I bought two books at the UNAM library bookstore yesterday and played cards with a professor there for an hour. It was loads of fun.

The two titles were De Teotihuacan a los Aztecas Antologia de Miguel Leon-Portilla and Vision de los Vencidos Relaciones Indigenas de la Conquista both of them are historical books. I love those.

I missed Latin American academic life. I had forgotten how warm and communal it is. I missed it a lot.



Trump, they love making pinatas out of that man here...that and things to hit him with. Lol.

[Drlee]

@Tainari88 I missed Latin American academic life. I had forgotten how warm and communal it is. I missed it a lot.

Yes. I know what you mean. "Local" history often is more personal and certainly more insightful than when a historian 'studying the sources' parachutes in to a subject from afar and sternly proposes 'the definitive work'.

I have been thinking about my local indigenous population lately and wondering about how our current period will look to historians. (I am less than 2 miles from a very large reservation and my state has a great many of them.) To most people it looks like nothing is going on there and, at best, the people are just holding on to the more theatrical of their cultural features. Will this be the period that historians in 2100 (there will be people alive then who are adults today) will just dismiss as "....from 1900 to 2050 these cultures largely disappeared as their land was....." But there is stuff going on today that is meaningful to them. Continuing your thought it seems that if there is to be any history of this time, we had better be writing it now and locally.

I wonder about what will become of the Trump legacy. It seems to me that there is a very real possibility that all of this strurm and drang will disappear and that he will just be another one term president, akin to Jimmy Carter or Rutherford B. Hayes in historical importance. (No offense to Carter intended.)

[Tainari88]

Yes. I know what you mean. "Local" history often is more personal and certainly more insightful than when a historian 'studying the sources' parachutes in to a subject from afar and sternly proposes 'the definitive work'.

I have been thinking about my local indigenous population lately and wondering about how our current period will look to historians. (I am less than 2 miles from a very large reservation and my state has a great many of them.) To most people it looks like nothing is going on there and, at best, the people are just holding on to the more theatrical of their cultural features. Will this be the period that historians in 2100 (there will be people alive then who are adults today) will just dismiss as "....from 1900 to 2050 these cultures largely disappeared as their land was....." But there is stuff going on today that is meaningful to them. Continuing your thought it seems that if there is to be any history of this time, we had better be writing it now and locally.

I wonder about what will become of the Trump legacy. It seems to me that there is a very real possibility that all of this strurm and drang will disappear and that he will just be another one term president, akin to Jimmy Carter or Rutherford B. Hayes in historical importance. (No offense to Carter intended.)

Drlee, archaeology has the cure for that. You take out something very very old. Something done by human hands in 3000 BC and you look at it and touch it....and you see how ingenious it is...with the available resources at the time? You start pondering how those people spent their waking hours....and how they would deal with tragedy and loss? How limited they were in their day-to-day living and how struggle was just an integral part of living....you are struggle.

My little boy asks interesting questions Drlee. He is 8 years old now and starting to ask deep very deep questions. One of them was yesterday..he asked me looking at a billboard advertising the Plaza de Toros and bullfighting. He asked, "Why do people go and see bulls trying to kill the man? And who thought of that? Where does that come from?" And it gave me an opportunity to talk about old pagan traditions from the Roman times and Roman coliseum....animal sacrifice, the minotaur, Greek and Roman mythology and history. The core of Spanish culture. Ancient times and how people would applaud violence and death....and animal and human sacrifice...how it survived in Spanish culture til the present day in the tradition of Spanish bullfighting....he then said something very wise, he said after I explained as much as I could to him? "Don't you think life has enough risk to be entertaining without having to kill an animal who is innocent Mami?"

I like my son's mind. He always is thinking about preserving life first.

You think about how short our individual life spans are? And how we are such a tiny tiny slice of the life of this planet....newbies really to this Earth. Yet somehow our own societies political life is of intense interest to many...and not of any interest. Most humans had to take up most of their days with very simple things for thousands of years. Hauling clean water, cooking food, taking care of livestock and or plants and children, and cleaning homes, laundry, hunting, fishing, etc....it is all what most humans did without a lot of time dedicated to self reflection. Most people were having to do a lot of work all day long and it was intense. Quiet times were in the evenings and that is when people would tell stories to each other and commune over cooked meals and talk with each other.

I think all that being together in the evening is becoming scarce Drlee. I like the time I get with my boy....without any interruptions. It makes it easy for him to ask those questions I like to answer for him.

[jimjam]

The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, confirmed Trump’s response: “I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President.”

Shame on you Stephanie …….. this is astoundingly pathetic but …… apparently a job requirement for our genius/great master.

This is what the American revolution fought for?