[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-03, 21:04, said:

A couple disruptive protestors trying to disrupt Trump rallies got hit and you're saying Trump is trying to crush dissent? Let's see, one was an old geezer who apparently got enraged by a black protestor and sucker punched him as he went by. No excuse for that. The other was a protestor in a KKK uniform who was popped by an African-American supporter. There's still no justification for it. But I wonder whether a disruptive person in a KKK uniform at a Clinton rally would get out alive let alone be popped in the kisser once.

OTOH, there's Chicago. Violence shut down that Trump rally. How do you justify the statements by a Democratic operative boasting that the Clinton campaign used money paid through a PAC to hire thugs to break up that rally. And they did. This behavior is completely out of bounds in our political landscape for either side. It's even worse for those who profess to holding the moral high ground. Let's be clear, that kind of action IS an attempt to stifle dissent.

I'll grant that Trump used some ill chosen words to show his frustration at the progressive's attempts to crash and disrupt his rallies. But extrapolating those comments as promoting violence to stifle all dissent is ridiculous. Where is your evidence that conservative activists crashed Clinton rallies and tried to disrupt them?


You're justifying this?

http://www.msn.com/e...ocid=spartandhp

There is no justification for it, just as there's no justification for any similar violence against folks that share your viewpoint.

There certainly can be justification for violence. Whether it is justified at this point in time is in question, so I do not condone it at this time.

PS: I can't believe you are bringing up this debunked BS and still believe it true.

Quote

OTOH, there's Chicago. Violence shut down that Trump rally. How do you justify the statements by a Democratic operative boasting that the Clinton campaign used money paid through a PAC to hire thugs to break up that rally. And they did. This behavior is completely out of bounds in our political landscape for either side. It's even worse for those who profess to holding the moral high ground. Let's be clear, that kind of action IS an attempt to stifle dissent.

Perhaps you agree with this sentiment, then?

Quote

Dan Adamini, former chair and current secretary of the Marquette County Republican Party, indicated that a single death might be sufficient to end student protests this time around.

“I’m thinking another Kent State might be the only solution protest stopped after only one death,” he posted on Facebook on Thursday. “They do it because they know there are no consequences yet.”

These are not normal times.

I found this from a campus blogger:

Quote

I will leave you with this statement from the university.

The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest.

...

The masked agitators came to campus eastbound on Bancroft Way, and fire damage and other destruction to the Stiles Hall construction site, where a new residence hall is planned, was reported. The group entered campus and immediately began throwing rocks at officers. In an effort to avoid injuries to innocent members of the surrounding crowd who might have been caught in the middle, police officers exercised restraint and did not respond with force.

Agitators also attacked some members of the crowd who were rescued by police. UCPD reported no major injuries and about a half dozen minor injuries. Mutual aid officers from the city of Oakland and from Alameda County arrived at Berkeley around 7:45 p.m. to assist UCPD and Berkeley city police.

No arrests had been made by UCPD as of 9:30 p.m.

Campus officials said they condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics now overshadow the efforts of the majority to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence at Berkeley and his perspectives.

Who these outsiders were is unknown.

[Winstonm]

Big thank you to the state of Washington and its judge for standing up for justice and the rule of law.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 22:32, said:

PS: I can't believe you are bringing up this debunked BS and still believe it true.

I was unaware that it was debunked. Source please.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-03, 23:35, said:

I was unaware that it was debunked. Source please.

https://theintercept...aid-protesters/

[Winstonm]

The failed Yemen raid is turning out to be an indictment of the slip-shod methods of this inadequate bunch of neophytes occupying the WH.

This explains that only the Trump WH was involved in the planning and execution of this raid and they were ill-prepared to make such a decision.

30 civilians and 1 U.S. soldier died because of Trump's rush to be tough and a hero President.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 22:32, said:

There certainly can be justification for violence. Whether it is justified at this point in time is in question, so I do not condone it at this time.

I just don't see any justification for it.

Quote

Perhaps you agree with this sentiment, then?

See above.

Quote

These are not normal times.

I found this from a campus blogger:

Who these outsiders were is unknown.

That blog was excellent.

It's hardly likely that they were right wing.

I note that on Inauguration Day, the protest against Trump was accompanied by a similar group of about 200 provocateurs who did damage in DC. Only in that case, they were arrested and charged with felony rioting according to news reports.

I'd suspect left wing anarchists.

Anyhow, what they are doing isn't protest or dissent, it's criminal.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-04, 00:01, said:

I just don't see any justification for it.



See above.



That blog was excellent.

It's hardly likely that they were right wing.

I note that on Inauguration Day, the protest against Trump was accompanied by a similar group of about 200 provocateurs who did damage in DC. Only in that case, they were arrested and charged with felony rioting according to news reports.

I'd suspect left wing anarchists.

Anyhow, what they are doing isn't protest or dissent, it's criminal.

I agree. I was not initially aware of these outsiders nor the degree if the violence - I saw some on t.v. as it happened and thought it was the student protesters who got unruly.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-03, 23:57, said:

The failed Yemen raid is turning out to be an indictment of the slip-shod methods of this inadequate bunch of neophytes occupying the WH.

Wonder of wonders, I agree. But you must have missed the reported raid development timelines. The raid was completely planned and approved during Obama's last months in the WH. The catch was that the raid required a moonless night which didn't occur until Trump took office. Trump reapproved it, but really had no part in the planning.

Thank God, those who employed those slip-shod methods are now gone from the WH.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-04, 00:21, said:

Wonder of wonders, I agree. But you must have missed the reported raid development timelines. The raid was completely planned and approved during Obama's last months in the WH. The catch was that the raid required a moonless night which didn't occur until Trump took office. Trump reapproved it, but really had no part in the planning.

Thank God, those who employed those slip-shod methods are now gone from the WH.

No, you have missed the updates: it was NOT planned and approved by Obama administration:

https://www.washingt...m=.09a15bd36070

Quote

Colin Kahl, a national security official in the Obama administration, disputed Spicer’s description of the planning Thursday evening. Kahl, in tweets shared hundreds of times, said that the Defense Department worked up a general proposal that asked for the authorities to do raids in Yemen, but that the mission carried out Saturday was not specifically a part of that. Then-President Obama did not make any decisions because he thought it represented an expansion of the war in Yemen and believed the Trump administration should assess how to proceed, Kahl said.

“In a nutshell, Trump and his team owns the process and the ultimate decision — and the consequences,” Kahl tweeted.

[rmnka447]

I was shocked to see on my MSN page, a story about Chuck Todd admitting that the mainstream media failed to report the depth of the dislike for Hillary Clinton in the heartland during the run up to the election. Here is the reference:

https://pjmedia.com/...gloves/?ref=yfp

Don't know much about that website, but it does report what Todd said in a podcast with former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. What is quoted is really just a small, but important snippet from their conversation about the media and its bias.

The podcast is a 1947 Meet the Press podcast and runs about 35 minutes in its entirety. It is the January 26, 2017 podcast with Ari Fleisher.

I listened to it and thought it was an excellent discussion. It throws a lot of light on issues with the mainstream media and why they cause conservatives to see the media as biased and unfair.

[barmar]

From today's "Writer's Almanac":

Quote

On this date in 1789, the first Electoral College convened and elected George Washington as the first president of the United States. Only 10 states were represented in the college. Some had not held their presidential election yet, and others hadn’t yet ratified the Constitution and were therefore ineligible to vote. Congress finally certified the results on April 6, after a quorum was established. Each elector had two votes: all 69 electors present cast one of their votes for Washington. The second vote went toward determining who would be the vice president. John Adams was the runner up, with 34 votes. He provided balance to the ticket, too: he was from Massachusetts, and Washington was from Virginia, which was the largest state at that time.

Washington had led the Continental army to victory in the American Revolution, and he had served as the president of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, so he was an easy choice, and perhaps the only choice. But he really didn’t want the job. He wrote to a friend, “My movements to the chair of Government will be accompanied with feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to his place of execution: so unwilling am I, in the evening of a life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode for an Ocean of difficulties …”

At his inauguration on April 30, Washington wore a simple suit of brown broadcloth. According to the journal of a senator who was present at his swearing in, Washington was very nervous: “This great man was agitated and embarrassed more than ever he was by the leveled cannon or musket.” Washington admitted as much in his inaugural address to Congress: “Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order.”

The details of the office — and indeed, the entire system of American government — were still being hammered out when he took office. Throughout his presidency, Washington took great pains to distance himself from the monarchical customs and ceremonies of Britain. When the Senate asked him how he wanted to be addressed, and offered “His Highness” as an option, he turned them down in favor of the less lofty “Mr. President.” He didn’t wear a military uniform or any robes of state to official functions, appearing instead in a black velvet suit.

Washington served two terms and then stepped down in 1797, despite many calls for him to continue in office. He believed that it was crucial to set the precedent for a peaceful transition, and he longed for a quiet retirement at Mount Vernon, his Virginia plantation. He composed his 32-page farewell address with the help of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. In his speech, he urged the nation to think of itself as a unified body. He said that partisanship “serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.”

Oh, how far we've fallen. From a great leader who accepted the position reluctantly and with humility, to a total blow-hard who has no idea what he's doing and seems determined to run the country into the ground to satisfy his ego.

I'm waiting for the Executive Order saying that we should bring back "Your Highness".

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-February-04, 00:54, said:

I was shocked to see on my MSN page, a story about Chuck Todd admitting that the mainstream media failed to report the depth of the dislike for Hillary Clinton in the heartland during the run up to the election. Here is the reference:

https://pjmedia.com/...gloves/?ref=yfp

Don't know much about that website, but it does report what Todd said in a podcast with former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. What is quoted is really just a small, but important snippet from their conversation about the media and its bias.

The podcast is a 1947 Meet the Press podcast and runs about 35 minutes in its entirety. It is the January 26, 2017 podcast with Ari Fleisher.

I listened to it and thought it was an excellent discussion. It throws a lot of light on issues with the mainstream media and why they cause conservatives to see the media as biased and unfair.

PJ media is about as reliable as Breitbart. It is at best hard right wing. However, how we gather political information has become critically important to our democracy. Continued assaults on the free press only plays into the hands of an autocrat.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-04, 10:03, said:

PJ media is about as reliable as Breitbart. It is at best hard right wing. However, how we gather political information has become critically important to our democracy. Continued assaults on the free press only plays into the hands of an autocrat.

Indeed.
Were they accurately quoted?
Is the entire text included?
Any conflicts of interest present?
Is the other side of the position explained/presented?
A free press, as you imply, MUST contain all viewpoints if it is to be of value. Source protection for whistle-blowers is necessary. Free means independant of influence and censorship.
There is a lot left to be desired but a lot to be admired as well.

[mikeh]

Trump is rapidly cementing his position as his own worst enemy. In a nation that, thankfully, provides the courts with a great deal of power to correct egregious overstepping by politicians, it is truly stupid to set out to denigrate the judiciary. The first step was his attack on the Judge hearing the trump university fraud case, but that could almost be excused because he was a private litigant, albeit one running for office. His tweets last night, calling the Washington federal court judge a 'so-called judge' and the ruling ridiculous (the WH said outrageous before some adult intervened and removed that adjective)are not going to sit well with very many Judges, no matter what their political stripes may be. The POTUS is mounting a childish, petulant assault on the notion of an independent judiciary and federal judges aren't the cowards that republican politicians are, since they don't need to run for re-election.

I wonder what Gorsuch is thinking right now:)

[Trinidad]

I am completely clueless about this, but maybe American lawyers (mikeh?) have an answer:

Isn't Trump's language contempt for the court? Or does that only count for proceedings in the court room? Or is the POTUS immune for such things? (I would think that the Trias Politica proscribes that the POTUS should not be immune for these things.)

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-February-04, 10:28, said:

A free press, as you imply, MUST contain all viewpoints if it is to be of value.

Really? Are you saying that a free press that did not provide the viewpoint of those that want to kill all Jews, homosexuals and the Romany would be of no value? How about a free press that did not provide the viewpoint that the world is flat? After all, there are many who believe this - the Bible says so after all. A free press that does not report the truth and expose lies is of little value. A free press that excludes a few minority viewpoints based on lies and hatred seems to me of perfectly good value, especially when those positions are more than represented through other outlets.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on 2017-February-04, 13:25, said:

His tweets last night, calling the Washington federal court judge a 'so-called judge' and the ruling ridiculous (the WH said outrageous before some adult intervened and removed that adjective) are not going to sit well with very many Judges, no matter what their political stripes may be. The POTUS is mounting a childish, petulant assault on the notion of an independent judiciary and federal judges aren't the cowards that republican politicians are, since they don't need to run for re-election.

When Trump attacks a person on Twitter, many of his stooges also go into attack mode against Trump's victim, and some of those stooges are absolutely nutty and very dangerous. There's no doubt at all that Trump understands this and intends to make the victim and the victim's family feel threatened.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-04, 14:34, said:

Really? Are you saying that a free press that did not provide the viewpoint of those that want to kill all Jews, homosexuals and the Romany would be of no value? How about a free press that did not provide the viewpoint that the world is flat? After all, there are many who believe this - the Bible says so after all. A free press that does not report the truth and expose lies is of little value. A free press that excludes a few minority viewpoints based on lies and hatred seems to me of perfectly good value, especially when those positions are more than represented through other outlets.

No obligation to read it or subscribe to its content. Once you embark on that path (censorship) it becomes a slippery slope pretty quickly as past history indicates. They expose their weaknesses and you use them to adjust your position/opinion.
As you are aware, only hearing of climate/social/political doom etc ends up slanting your perspective accordingly.

[Zelandakh]

How is it censorship to call a lie a lie or to renounce hatred? You seem to think that a free press should support crakpots and hate-mongers, where I think it is part of the role of a free press to make sure the populace understands precisely how wrong such people are.

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-04, 16:58, said:

How is it censorship to call a lie a lie or to renounce hatred? You seem to think that a free press should support crakpots and hate-mongers, where I think it is part of the role of a free press to make sure the populace understands precisely how wrong such people are.

In the new alt-right reality, if you don't give "alternative facts" equal time you are a bigot or worse, fake news. And to my amazement and consternation, the Trump legion continues its support and glee at turmoil and strife.