Modded Mustang Forums banner

2481 - 2500 of 2515 Posts

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
So much misleading **** in that opinion piece. Assuming the economy suddenly became healthy under Trump as if he didn't inherit an economy from a previously successful administration that inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and acting as if blacks have ever been socially or culturally liberal but are now suddenly abandoning those ideals - blacks as a demographic have never, ever been socially liberal.

I won't bother to touch on employment statistics and how they are continually massaged by all parties to show good numbers when the details behind those statistics paint a much less positive picture.

Literally only one Democratic presidential candidate believes we should pay reparations and she's a complete nobody. Everyone else believes "they should be studied" which is just a non-answer because politically, holding an opinion on that one way or another would be political suicide but of course ****ing Fox News jumps to "they definitely want to pay reparations" because nobody would ever bother asking "do you support reparation payments for slavery" at a Republican debate because the responses wouldn't get any ratings upticks because they'd be so predictable.

"Free stuff" - ah, the Fox News war cry to rile up the simple-minded bumfuck morons who can't bother to understand the details and purpose behind social programs while unironically using foodstamps to support their methed out family members. Oh whoops, sorry, is that an over-generalization? Strange how easily those can be thrown around.

I also won't bother to touch on the whole "political polls don't mean anything since 2016 - can't you libtards see that when you were all pointing to the polls to show that Hillary was a guaranteed win?!" Can pretty much guarantee the exit polls for 2020 will not deviate as substantially as these predictive polls are suggesting with regards to the black demographic.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I don't completely disagree with you. A rich society should help its disadvantaged members. But I feel that many of the welfare programs have trapped individuals in poverty instead of giving them a leg up so that they can take care of themselves.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
I don't completely disagree with you. A rich society should help its disadvantaged members. But I feel that many of the welfare programs have trapped individuals in poverty instead of giving them a leg up so that they can take care of themselves.
I'm sure there is some kind of legitimate reason for it, at least on paper, but I don't understand why strides can't be made to alleviate the "welfare cliff". Only thing I can imagine is it's due to political motivation in how changes to the system would be interpreted by either side and what it would mean in regards to the reactions of the constituency.

Of course, the reality is also that some people will straight up never be able to work or contribute to society due to one of a million different potential reasons. Accepting that as fact instead of being idealist about it that every person that can breathe can also work and contribute to the economy is a step some people are unwilling to face. Since genocide tends to be frowned upon in modern western society, something has to be done to help those cases even knowing that it is not a financial net improvement for the economy.

For the cases of people that are just unwilling to work because they're lazy, I don't know what the best answer is that would make everybody happy. My personal opinion is that it's just the cost of doing business. Modern western philosophy seems to indicate we don't punish the many because of the few, but so many people want to do that because "the few" make the most noise and it pisses people off so they continue to seek out examples of the system abuse to continue feeding their outrage over someone they'll never have to interact with.

We let the guilty go free so that the innocent can't be wrongly punished. Obviously that's totally theoretical, but there's a reason why it's what most normal people try to strive for, at least in principle.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
The answer is aid should be temporary like unemployment unless there are sound medical reasons for it continuing.

When I was stationed in Florida I worked with a black DoD civilian who was a volunteer down at project housing. He was a college graduate working in a good job and he wanted to show the kids there a positive role model. We were friends. One day we were talking. He was emotionally down. He asked me, "How do you tell a teenage girl who is arguing with her mother not to get pregnant when the government is going to give her an apartment and a paycheck if she does?" I had no answer for him but we are clearly incentivizing the wrong thing.

We know what we are doing know isn't working but it seems that the Democrats are willing to double down anyway. Take college loans. When I was teaching AFROTC I had to counsel one of my students. He was borrowing to the max so he could live large in his own apartment when his parents lived in the same town as the university. That is a bad case but other students are borrowing tons of money for worthless degrees. AFROTC offered scholarships but it offered scholarships only in degrees the Air Force needed. We need to do something similar with college loans. Our government made 18 year olds adults. They borrowed the money. They need to pay it back. The good thing is that most do.

It time to realize that many of these programs need fixed or cancelled. Adding more will just make things worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
I don't completely disagree with you. A rich society should help its disadvantaged members. But I feel that many of the welfare programs have trapped individuals in poverty instead of giving them a leg up so that they can take care of themselves.
Go read the study done by Nobel prize winning Economist Esther Duflo. She did a real world study on how social programs help or hinder a society. I won't be the spoiler in regards to her conclusions but I can tell you you can pretty much guess what that outcome was.

I will say that almost none of the Republican talking points that are being parroted on this site could be corroborated and in fact most were the opposite but I'll leave the interpretation to you although, having judged your latest critiques, I highly doubt that the read will change your mind much. If you're willing to ignore Trumps criminality, the case for Climate Change and any other fact sourced theory I doubt you'll take this to heart but who knows. Maybe you'll actually put away the tin foil and actually open your mind to fact based data.

BTW Ester Duflo is only the second woman to win a Nobel Prize in Economics.

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,486
I don't completely disagree with you. A rich society should help its disadvantaged members. But I feel that many of the welfare programs have trapped individuals in poverty instead of giving them a leg up so that they can take care of themselves.
I disagree. It is FAR more likely for an individual to become trapped by their own behaviors than by some systemic foe (welfare system, failing schools, societal inequities, lack of opportunities, etc.).

We live in the richest country the world has ever known, at the freest and most prosperous time in all of human history. American indigence is basically an oxymoron. Nevertheless, it is still a possible outcome, and overwhelmingly, that outcome is chosen by individual behaviors.

This isn't to discount the nation's obligation to our truly vulnerable citizens (the seriously ill, disaster victims, seniors, etc.), but we should not automatically presume the “needy” are blameless victims. In many cases, the “need” is just the ultimate consequence of chosen behaviors.

Despite progressive insistence to the contrary, success and failure is largely a personal matter. Self-destructive/constructive behaviors have a profound impact on a person's socioeconomics, and those effects accumulative throughout a lifetime. A series of responsible and constructive behaviors tend to advance a person's prosperity over time; a series of unwise and destructive behaviors tend to diminish it. It isn't a perfect science, of course. You can do everything right and still lose. You can do everything wrong and still win. Yet, you usually reap what you sew. In this country, we can ascend from any depth or fall from any pinnacle.

I don't think that's a trap, necessarily. It's just cause and effect.

---------- Post added December 3rd, 2019 at 01:02 AM ---------- Previous post was December 2nd, 2019 at 11:46 PM ----------

Go read the study done by Nobel prize winning Economist Esther Duflo. She did a real world study on how social programs help or hinder a society. I won't be the spoiler in regards to her conclusions but I can tell you you can pretty much guess what that outcome was....
John
This is awesome. In this case, the correct wisdom will be found by examining a study, largely focused on extreme poverty in 3rd-world nations, conducted by flaming liberal professors at MIT and Harvard, and glorified by an organization known for its flagrant bias against conservatives.

I hope Eagle does as you suggest. That will certainly straighten him out. >:)
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I highly doubt that the read will change your mind much... Maybe you'll actually put away the tin foil and actually open your mind to fact based data

John
There you go again. You don't seem to be able to make a post without including an insult. Do insults make you feel superior? That is not the way to make friends and influence enemies.

My wife is an anthropologist. She only retired from teaching a year ago and she is still in contact with her anthropology friends. But I think most of them focus on Africa not India. I'll ask her if she has heard of Esther Duflo. She reads far more than I do. She just recommended a book to me that I still have sitting on my desk. Its called the Russia Hoax, The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump, by Gregg Jarrett. You might want to read it but I highly doubt the read will change your mind much. :smile2:
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Jonathan Turley is a constitutional lawyer. He has worked with Congress on impeachments before. He is considered an expert in the field. He and three other constitutional experts have been called to testify before Congress on this impeachment tomorrow at 10:00 am. Here are some of his comments:

"In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history. It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the narrowest impeachment in history. There is, however, a precedent for the Democrats’ expansive interpretations of bribery and impeachment: the trial of Warren Hastings, 230 years ago in Britain. But Hastings’ tale is a cautionary one that nobody should aim to repeat."

In discussing the founders definition of bribery which Schiff say was much broader, Turley says: "Mr. Schiff’s sudden transformation into an originalist may be short-lived. The Framers did not, in fact, view bribery as some overarching concept of corruption."

At the Constitutional Convention there was a discussion on what should be an impeachable offense. George Mason wanted broad terms. James Madison disagreed.

Turley says, "Mason failed. The Framers rejected terms ranging from “corruption,” obtaining office by improper means, betraying one’s trust to a foreign power, “negligence,” “perfidy,” “peculation” and “oppression.” All these were rejected along with “maladministration” and kept off the Constitution’s list of impeachable offenses.'

"Notably, perfidy means dishonesty and peculation means self-dealing — two common allegations in today’s Trump hearings. The Framers dropped these terms, however, as too broad and undefined. Indeed, in arguing against the inclusion of maladministration, Madison remarked that “so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate,” an outcome repugnant to him. Mason then substituted “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which was approved.'

"Since then, politicians have often sought to adopt expansive interpretations to make impeachment easier. When I served as lead defense counsel in the Senate impeachment trial of federal Judge Thomas Porteous, the lead House manager sought to convict my client on the novel theory that even conduct before taking office could be impeachable. That impeachment manager was Adam Schiff.'

"There is much that is worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal, and it is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime. But the Framers expressly warned against lowering the impeachment standard to a mere discretionary option for any party that happens to control the Senate. That’s what interpreting bribery to include any action viewed as “offering public acts for some personal or political purposes” would do."

It appears that Adam Schiff has been down this road before and that he is well aware that the founding fathers limited the scope of impeachable offenses. Apparently he either can't learn or else he is intentionally deceiving us.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
The Framers also expressly warned us about the ability for a president to easily become a monarch without the balance of powers between the branches.

The Supreme Court should be determining in the next couple months whether we currently have a King or a Representative at the helm of our country.
You have got to be joking. There is an election coming up next year. The Constitution limits him to two terms. He is working with a divided Congress. There are plenty of checks and balances. Besides that argument doesn't fly anyway. Democrats have been crying for impeachment since before he even took office.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,491
Rep. Al Green (D) presented the best summary of Democrat motivations, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach the president, he will get re-elected." That's the long and short of this whole circus. The only material facts were presented by the President himself when he released the transcript text. Everything beyond that has just been interpretation, conjecture and propaganda. We all know what the final outcome will be: the (D) house will vote to impeach, the (R) senate will acquit - presuming they even bother to try the case. Either way, Trump will not be removed from office - and every single member of congress knows it.

So, why would Democrats entertain such a futile endeavor? The answer is simple: the 2020 election! Democrats believe this process will "stain" the President, at least enough to disrupt his reelection. Will it work? Probably not. The mostly likely outcome is Dems lose seats in the house, Trump gets reelected by a landslide, and the libs spend the next four years chewing their own **** sandwich and perfecting that pissy look on their faces. And God help them if we have another Supreme Court vacancy. OMG! I can't wait to see that hearing. It's a great time to be an American!!!
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I watched the the Judicial Committee hearing up to the point where they recessed for House vote.. What a sham! They do not intend to call any fact witnesses-people who were present when the so called impeachable offenses occurred. The Democrats picked three of the Constitutional experts: Professor Feldman, Professor Karlan, and Professor Gerhardt. All three were supporting impeachment before being called to testify. The Republicans picked Professor Turley even though he dislikes Trump and he voted for Clinton.

During their opening statements two of the Professors (Karlan and Gerhardt) clearly hated Trump. Karlan spoke with absolute and complete anger in her voice. It was so bad I wrote in my notes that she much be suffering from TDS. The least passionate of the three Democrat experts was Professor Feldman. He made it clear that he thought investigation of a political rival by a foreign government and withholding aid and a White House visit until a commitment into and investigation was announced were impeachable crimes.

And for the first couple of hours that is all you heard. The Democrats asked multiple questions of the three but only one question of Professor Turley. They refused to let him explain his answer instead demanding a simple yes or no.

Every single vote taken on procedures or points of order went along straight party lines: 24 Democrats vs. 17 Republicans. It isn't hard to imagine what the final vote will be.

Professor Turley said that we are doing what Alexander Hamilton was concerned about. During past impeachments the crimes committed were clear and both side agreed on the facts. They are unclear in this case and even the facts are contested. He said several times that there is no need to rush. He said that if you want to impeach you have to build a good foundation and the timeline is too short to do that.

He disputed some of the charges. Bribery is well defined. It deals with accepting money. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struct down a decision where gifts were actually received. It said that a boundless interpretation cannot be applied to include such things as meetings.

I thought in interesting when the Congressman said the Constitution was the Supreme law of the land. I wonder who he thinks is the final authority over interpreting the Constitution? In case you don't know its the Supreme Court.

Turley said that Obstruction is a crime with meaning and that impeachments need to be based on proof. Challenging a subpoena in court is not obstruction of justice. Actually, it gives credence to it when the court agrees. The court agreed during the Nixon impeachment and he resigned a few days later. Making it a high crime because of an appeal to a court is a Congressional abuse of power.

He said that Hamilton was also concerned about impeachment according to party, not according to facts. The standard is not fluid. Without taking the time to get all the facts it is impeachment more of rage than of reason. Turley said this a couple of times. Impeachment will be viewed as illegitimate when its all one side. He said if they don't take the time to get the facts they will leave half the country behind.

He said that Bad Practices is not the definition of bribery and that in spite of what others have said the Constitution doesn't define crimes, it references crimes. It was pointed out that the President was suppose to look at corruption in Ukraine before releasing aid. He was doing that. In other impeachments people were asked to lie. Trump never asked the Ukrainians to lie and he was in his right to ask for an investigation.

We had a corrupt Vise-President and his son. Yes, I am aware that is an opinion not fact but it's only an opinion because VP Biden got the investigation stopped and the investigator fired by threatening to withhold aid. That definitely gives the appearance of corruption. Now, he gets a free pass because he's a presidential candidate.

We knew how this was going to end before it started. I'll tune in again when its in the Senate.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I stand corrected. As a Republican Congresswoman just pointed out by reading from the transcript of Trump's phone call, Trump did not ask for an investigation into Biden. He was talking about something called Crowdstrike. I had no idea what it was so I looked it up. It had something to do with a server he had been told was given to the Ukrainians or something like that. This was concerning the 2016 election not the 2020. Apparently he never mentioned Biden in the phone call. I have just heard that so much that I started accepting it as true.

If I recall at first people were saying it was code but Crowd Strike was something unique and separate from the Bidens. I apologize for buying into the fake news. No one is immune.

Edit: And now Professor Karlan has been caught. She apparently gets upset when she is quoted out of context. But she has said that on the phone call Trump was using the royal 'we' to mean 'me." A Republican Congressman just pointed out that she was doing to Trump what she hated. If the next line of Trump's call is read he is clearly talking about our country not himself.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct
- Professor Jonathan Turley, 1998 Clinton Impeachment Hearings

While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. Madison saw impeachment as “defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.” And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving “political crimes and misdemeanors” and resulting in “political punishments.”
- Professor Jonathan Turley, 2014
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Yes. And he said today that they haven't shown any impeachable offenses. He stressed over and over they need to take the time to get the facts (the foundation) or else they will lose half of America.

Half of America is enough to get Trump re-elected. You don't suppose he will be the first President to be impeached and win re-election do you?. Damn if that isn't something.

Oh, it was obvious that Professor Karlan really disliked Trump but on the news tonight they showed a clip of her attacking Trump's minor son. I missed that earlier. What is this impeachment about? Rage not reason.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,497
mhm you are definitely right about the Trump's propaganda working
Oh puuuhhlleeeeze! Did you even watch today? It was a total circle-jerk of anti-Trumpers. Did you even hear the activist rants of Karlan and Feldman? There wasn't a single new fact presented all day - just opinions, feelings and meaningless dramatics. Again ... just another show for the cameras. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to spot a biased and choreographed production.

This is about 2020, and it really doesn't matter what I believe - nor what you believe. My vote will cancel yours - yours will cancel mine. That's a given. All that matters is what the Independents believe - they decide elections. About 40% of the electorate (the enlightened and entitled) wouldn't vote for Trump if he cured cancer and perfected cold-fusion. Another 40% (the uneducated deplorables and gun/bible clingers) will vote for him regardless. That leaves 20% of the electorate who can be swayed. The question is, will those Independents see this whole process as a sham or take it seriously? Latest polls suggest Independents support this by only 44%. Not looking good for y'all Soc.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to spot a biased and choreographed production.
We talking about Nunes? Or do we close our eyes and ears every time that weaselly shitball speaks?

Yes, the propaganda works on some, quite indeed. You can tell when things like "memos" suddenly become "transcripts".

And again, as so many of you have pointed out, polls mean nothing these days, so why even bring them up?
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Discussion Starter #2,499
We talking about Nunes? Or do we close our eyes and ears every time that weaselly shitball speaks?....
That is really funny. That's EXACTLY how I feel about the Dem's little garden gnome. Every word that drips from Jerry Nadler's mouth is like a little troll attack in that children's book, The Billy Goat's Gruff, ... "Who's that tripping over my bridge? Now I 'm coming to gobble you up!"

I just can't take him seriously ...

"Uh! Uh! The gentleman is not wecognized!"
"That is not a, Uh! Uh! a pwoper point of order!"
"The gentleman is not wecognized!"
"THAT IS NOT ... THE GENTLE ... THE CHAIR DOES NOT ...!"
"WHO'S THAT TWIPPING OVER MY BRIDGE?????"
"I wecognize myself for five minutes to gobble you up!"

---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 AM ----------

Woooooooooooot! Here we go. Nancy just announced they are proceeding with articles of impeachment in the house. I'm going to get to the store today and stock-up on popcorn and beverages. If the Dems are going to burn their own house down, I don't want to miss a moment of it. This is going to be good.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Woooooooooooot! Here we go. Nancy just announced they are proceeding with articles of impeachment in the house. I'm going to get to the store today and stock-up on popcorn and beverages. If the Dems are going to burn their own house down, I don't want to miss a moment of it. This is going to be good.
I mean did you really expect them not to? You gonna buy popcorn when ya boi Traitor-To-America Mitch acquits on all charges as well?
 
2481 - 2500 of 2515 Posts
Top