Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Another SCOTUS Appointment! WINNING!

Officially, I'm on a blog break because Warren is visiting.

But THIS happened yesterday: Who's on Trump's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice Kennedy?


About the above graphic: Twitter Censors the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

140 comments:

  1. So much winning!! I can hardly stand it! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although I'd be happy with another Kennedy-esque Justice....I'm really hoping that POTUS selects Randy Barnett. Pretty Libertarian, definitely Constitutionalist.

    At the very least, I just hope the pick is not squandered on a bobbleheaded political hack. And here's hoping to RBG feeling her age as well......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree we need a good shot of libertarianism into the Supreme Court. The recent ruling on internet sales tax was an abomination. The very idea a state can compel a business in some other state to collect taxes for it is an abomination.

      Delete
    2. No offense intended, SF, but Kennedy WAS a Libertarian. I think we need somebody who stands for traditional values... not a jurist who's open to "anything" so long as "science" can invent a cure.

      Delete
    3. I don't know what you mean by "traditional values," but Judges need to stand for the US Constitution as it was written, not all this aspirational nonsense pushed by the left.

      I am all for traditional values; they have guided me why entire life and I have instilled them in my children, but if they are not enumerated in the constitution they have no legal standing. Furthermore, imposing such extra-constitutional values upon a society that has consciously rejected them would be a form of tyranny.

      I sure has hell wouldn't want Muslim Judges enforcing their "traditional values" on us, nor would I want rightwing religious fundamentalists doing it.

      Delete
    4. I would argue against Kennedy being some sort of standard bearer of Libertarianism [see Kelo and Gonzales v. Raich.

      SF's middle paragraph stands on it's own regarding 'traditional values'.

      Delete
    5. "Custom" = "traditional" values. Like a definition of "marriage".

      Frank Herbert once said: “Justice belongs to those who claim it, but let the claimant beware lest he create new injustice by his claim and thus set the bloody pendulum of revenge into its inexorable motion”

      Delete
    6. When 'traditional values' are sanctioned as law, and not only burden the Citizen, but provide no value to the State or the polity...they should be rendered unjust.

      Delete
    7. But it begs the question...."why was the practice of homosexuality worthy of being proscripted by law (and almost universally throughout ALL cultures"? I doubt that simple prejudice explains the universal nature of the proscription. Only time, and the accumulation of new data, will again "reveal" its' reasons.

      Delete
    8. An early reason, when the survival of a clan or community was always in doubt, was that of procreation. We don't labor under that paradigm anymore.

      Earlier communities also were disinclined to acknowledge or protect any form of civil liberties, whether from base fear, superstition or ignorance of natural rights.

      My position is that there is no rational reason to proscribe the union of two consenting adults based on gender. The argument against it in the current era.....that I encounter.....has always been one of simple prejudice.

      Delete
    9. This goes to Blackstone's statement that Law is not made; it is discovered among the customs and mores of the people, and in natural law.

      When you have a polyglot, tower of babel society with few shared values and mores, Blackstone's formulation is impossible, and every group views one part of the law or another as a tyranny.

      Delete
    10. Personally I see a number of further reasons for the proscription. Disease vectors (ala AIDS)(which Science has YET to overcome and therefore a "paradigm" under which we STILL labor). And "social peace"... a place where men don't have to waste their time defending their persons against larger and more sexually aggressive males (and which gave birth to proscription against the RAPE/sexual assault of women).

      Delete
    11. As Blaise Pascal once said, "Unable to make what is just strong, we made what is strong just."

      Delete
    12. That's "why" the Security Council" gets "veto power" at the UN.

      Delete
    13. ..and "why" we don't need any more "libertarian" justices.

      Delete
    14. "Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." - Blaise Pascal

      ...but as with every libertarian SCOTUS mistake...

      People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come in to the mind of others. - Blaise Pascal

      Delete
    15. ...as "Wisdom" is an "opposing virtue" to "justice."

      Delete
    16. Humans are disease vectors, so your point is moot.

      And I'll take some more Libertarian 'mistakes' over the frequent 'traditional Conservative' ones we've labored under over the years. I default toward not burdening the liberties of the Citizen....over assuaging people who are uncomfortable.

      Delete
    17. I think you needn't be worried though. I don't expect POTUS to nominate someone who is actually a Libertarian. The closest he may come is Mike Lee.....who is not a half bad Republican.....but a Republican nonetheless.

      Delete
    18. There are "necessary" disease vectors and "superfluous" ones. I don't confuse the two. But if you don't mind spending $6+ billion a year keeping a lid on it, why should I? Oh, that's right, I pay taxes...

      Delete
    19. But I don't mind the cost of being stylish... as "style" necessarily implies the addition of a superfluous expense.

      Delete
    20. ...after all, crony capitalism is ALL about privatizing profits and "socializing/publicizing" costs.

      Delete
    21. ...and we all know just how "down" you libertarians are with THAT! :)

      Delete
    22. Mildly interesting, except that denying civil liberties to a subset of Citizens doesn’t mitigate the cost of treatment or prophylaxis. Your point is again moot.

      Delete
    23. So, with ‘superfluous vectors’.......you must clearly support criminalizing fornication and adultery, no?

      Delete
    24. lol!

      No wonder the debt is $20 trillion now...

      Delete
    25. Yeah, can’t have any actual liberty now can we. All in service to the State. Look where your ‘majority’ has taken us.

      One wonders where the line is, that you would actually rise up in defense......and how that squares (or really doesn’t) with your fealty to authority.

      Delete
    26. You’ve got to be positively giddy at the state of regulation, restriction and surveillance. Have to keep the Plebs in line, right?

      Delete
    27. ...no, but I don;t think that granting homosexuals the right to catamites strikes a blow for "freedom".

      Delete
    28. Of course, their not Citizens right. Remember, sometimes precedent bites you in the ass. Can’t cry to the State then.

      Delete
    29. You support regulating the sexual behaviors of heterosexuals too, right?

      Delete
    30. Minors aren't citizens, too? Who knew?

      Absolutely. Not all sexual activity is necessary for procreation. Just like not all scientific solutions to human problems are "humane" (abortion).

      Delete
    31. Just because you choose to ignore sodomy laws doesn't eliminate the need for them.

      Delete
    32. ...or save Sodom and Gomorrah from eventual destruction.

      Delete
    33. I’ve been speaking of consenting adults, not minors. You haven’t shown a ‘need’ for sodomy laws. Luckily for you though, you’re free to not engage in any sexual activity that doesn’t lead to procreation. And all without the ‘services’ of the State.

      One presumes your system of legislation and surveillance would make even Stalin cringe. Bravo.

      Delete
    34. I haven't? I'd think that America's STD and oral cancer rates speak for themselves. Especially in the age of pending "universal" health care.

      And yes, imagine if everyone were as conscientious as me. Heath care expenses wouldn't be outpacing the inflation rate as they currently do.

      Delete
    35. And of course, amndatory hpv vaccinations are just so much authoritarian state overreach, right CI?

      lol!

      Delete
    36. Gee, why don't these people (in the vid) know they're at risk? Seems noone explains the downsides of oral sex anymore... whereas nothing says "downside" better than "illegal".

      Delete
    37. You conveniently ignore hetero transmission of STDs....not exactly a ‘necessary vector’. You don’t have a case, because denying civil liberties with regards to contracts, will have a deliterious effect on promiscuity.

      Delete
    38. Are you going to be in charge of the ‘oral sex police’?

      Delete
    39. lets count the vaccination costs... $175 per dose x 3 doses to acquire immunity x 300,000,000 citizens.... chicken feed to the US taxpayer

      Delete
    40. Are you going to pay for every case of throat cancer that results?

      Delete
    41. btw Not all States permit sodomy.

      :p

      Must not be many libertairians living in the South.

      Delete
    42. ps - You're right. To eliminate ALL vectors we can ban procreative sex, too and make everyone do in-vitro fertilization from now on.

      Science solves another human problem!

      Delete
    43. It's a Brave New World, I tell you!

      Delete
    44. Sure, there’s still sodomy laws on the books.......tell me how that is stopping it from occurring; since you don’t address enforcement, I’ll chalk this up to an entertaining conversation at least.

      Delete
    45. Saying, "don't do it" isn't "enforcement"? Who knew?

      Delete
    46. You'd prefer a "just do it!" or "ignore it" approach, and encourage behaviors that have real world ill effects and consequences?

      Delete
    47. You can't outlaw ALL stupidity... but shouldn't you outlaw the easy stuff so that you don't have to provide every conceivable rational reason for not doing something stupid like spreading stds?

      Delete
    48. I'd arrest a Hollyweird celebrity once a year just to get the word out. Enforce one, frighten a million into compliance.

      Delete
    49. You don’t understand what enforcement Means do you? A decree isn’t an enforcement mechanism. Much like the gun control clown show believes that universal background checks will be effective, they can’t point to an enforcement mechanism.

      I’m not in least interested in celebutwits nor your fantasies regarding them.

      There’s a reason that Constitutional laws must pass strict scrutiny......

      Delete
    50. Sandra Day O'Conners interpretation, Mcduck. Sodomy is sodomy... you just can't enforce the law in a "selective" way. It has to be "universal".

      Delete
    51. A "Stop" sign has the very same enforcement mechanism. When was the last time you ran one in front of a cop?

      Delete
    52. Do the Police need to station a cop at every Stop sign to enforce traffic laws?

      Delete
    53. Exactly. In front of a cop. How much sodomy occurs in front of law enforcement?

      Your prohibition is that same Leftism that you probably believe you rail against. Ineffectual and based on feelings.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    54. people in Hollyweird are strange that way. They like to incriminate themselves on film, and then print their names in the " credits". Enforcement will be easy.

      Delete
    55. So, you’d only seek to prosecute actors who engage in sodomy under their real name.........not the overwhelming demographic who engages in the act every day? Fascinating.

      Delete
    56. You really think porn helps keep down the STD rate? No more gas for the fire, if you ask me. Besides, normalizing "anal" sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do... yet that what you good libertarians have done.

      Delete
    57. Want to encourage marriage? You don't do it by legalizing sodomy.

      Delete
    58. Now you’re just dodging. You interjected actors....but conveniently ignore average Citizens. Do you pretend that they don’t engage in non-proceative sex? Are you REALLY that naive?

      This is fascinating.

      Want to discourage promiscuity? Encourage marriage.

      Delete
    59. ...and we don't outlaw beastiality to protect goats.

      Delete
    60. Beatiality is consenting adult Citizens?

      You’ve aptly illustrated that you have no case. Not that there was any doubt. Than you.....you’ve been a great help.

      Delete
    61. Your right, Film has no influence over culture.

      Next!

      Delete
    62. Yawn......

      Let me know if you come up with a cogent defense of your position......with enforcement mechanisms.

      Delete
    63. Funny, sodomy laws had been enforced pretty effectively for hundreds of years up until porn got mainstreamed and Lawrence v. Texas removed the final barriers,,,

      Delete
    64. Really??

      You think they were effective? You really think that the criminalization of behavior [quite a Leftist theme] approached even a minute percentage of the activity occurring?

      I'll await your citation....because if you dare frame the legislation as effective, you surely have statistics, no?

      Delete
    65. That graph sure looks like it proves what Thersites has been saying, if the data is verifiable and not slanted to make a case based mostly on feelings. Thersites may be making a mistake,. though, by blaming most of the increase in venereal diseases, etc. on homosexuals who are a small percentage of the population. I think the Supreme Court of the early 1960's had more to do with where we are today than anything else. And then we ought to try to find out why the Supreme Court became the tyrant forcefully promoting dissipation and degeneracy that it did. Isn't there a reason somewhere for that? Why did it happen? Don't you think we should know what it is?

      Remember Field of Dreams? "If you build it they will come." Kevin Kostner's movie fantasy was supposed to be about a baseball diamind in the middle of a cornfield, but wasn't 'it really abut the power of creating an attraction? If so, then the 'it' you are building could be a porn shop on a highway or a whorehouse instead of a baseball diamond. Once it's there people are bound to come. It it weren't there, they wouldn't. It's pretty simple.

      Delete
    66. Franco,
      Welcome!

      I took a peek at your blog. How unique its layout is! I see that you have excellent taste.

      I think the Supreme Court of the early 1960's had more to do with where we are today than anything else. And then we ought to try to find out why the Supreme Court became the tyrant forcefully promoting dissipation and degeneracy that it did.

      I agree. Legislating from the bench -- a procedure which is clearly unconstitutional -- has been the SCOTUS's big push for decades. But who can declare that push unconstitutional? Only the SCOTUS! SWAMP ALERT!

      Delete
    67. I don't blame homosexuals for the widespread spread of sexually transmitted diseases (other than AIDS). I blame their message (ie - Pride Parades), that oral/anal sex is "acceptable"... and that encourages it's normalization amongst the 98% heterosexual population. Because once those disease vectors are fully opened up and deviant practices normalized, STDs will be unavoidable and all pervasive, ruining millions of what formerly would have been "healthy" lives.

      Delete
    68. FJ assumes a high level of promiscuity.

      Delete
    69. Thersites - For a moment I thought that you were going to attempt to back up your claim that sodomy laws had been effectively enforced prior to Lawrence [though you can't seem to define the enforcement mechanism]....but you didn't.

      Your graph is misleading, matching CDC graphs only with regard to one STD [Gonorrhea]....not the wide range apparently drawn by one Mr. Murray Moerman.


      Were the graph even correct with regard to all STDs.....you do realize what year Lawrence was decided, no?


      You do have quite a bee in your bonnet for sexual ‘morality’ though. One wonders where you would limit the State [if ever] with regards to more serious health risks, such as smoking and alcohol. I frind it fascinating that alleged proponents of limted government and individual soveriegnty....are so quick to use the State to coerce social behavior....as well as allowing their clergy to be agents of the State.

      But, It's downright adorable that people somehow think that non-procreative sex is an invention of the modern age.... or that it's been "unacceptable".

      Delete
    70. You expect to find the bend in the knee of the curve at Lawrence? Lawrence was the final nail in the anti-Sodomy law crusade, not the first. It's adorable that your mind is so simplistic as to believe it would be, and that the 60's sexual revolution had naught to do with it.

      And communicable diseases have been a concern of the State even before we became one. The USPHS is its' modern result. Quarantine has long been an option, which may seem out of date but would have done much to reassure the American Public during the recent ebola outbreak.

      btw - Even Simple Simon knows that alcoholism and smoking aren't "communicable diseases."

      The non-procreative sex practiced in the Biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorrah are "modern" inventions? Who knew? Perhaps Leviticus should have focused more on "enforcement mechanism"... everybody let's get stoned!

      Delete
    71. btw - What are the enforcement mechanisms that automobile drivers need to stay to the "right"? For some reason, I don't think the "authoritarian law" itself that drivers are worried about. It's the on-coming truck.

      Delete
    72. ...but then again, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law requiring them to stay to the right, does it?

      Delete
    73. You expect to find the bend in the knee of the curve at Lawrence?

      I'm not the person who specifically cited Lawrence as a milestone. Simple minds [and poor readers] are indeed adorable.

      Feel free to limit Thersites position to communicable diseases. If cost to society is a concern, then STDs rank pretty low. If managing the behavior of the Citizenry, based on your version of morality is paramount…..then, you’re probably pretty disappointed when Citizens have a semblance of Liberty.

      Sodom and Gomorrah are historical fiction, and not interesting to me.

      The enforcement mechanism for traffic violations, are patrolling law enforcement and camera/sensor surveillance. What is the like mechanism for two consenting adults engaging in particular sex acts?

      The problem with your ideals of criminalization, regardless of the façade you may cover it with, is that it would be framed to only ‘promiscuous adulterers/fornicators’….but also, committed, monogamous partners.

      For a law to be just, it should be of no undue burden to the Citizen, of benefit to public safety/security and pass at least the rational basis test, if not strict scrutiny. Anything less than that, is overly oppressive to cater to snowflake sensibilities of Statists.

      Cheer up, at least at present, your free to be as freaky or dull in the bedroom as you care to be. Bring your own guilt and shame.

      Delete
    74. Perhaps you could first explain the "undue burden" that NOT having a "specific physical object" rammed up you *ss poses the Citizen?

      Delete
    75. Is it an "undue burden" that I can't shove it up my dog's *ss?

      Delete
    76. Scalia's dissent: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent, which Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Scalia objected to the Court's decision to revisit Bowers, pointing out many decisions from lower courts that relied on Bowers that might now need to be reconsidered.[45] He noted that the same rationale used to overturn Bowers[46] could have been used to overturn Roe v. Wade, which some of the Justices in the majority in Lawrence had upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Scalia also criticized the majority opinion for failing to give the same respect to stare decisis that three of those in the majority had insisted on in Casey.[47] O'Connor's concurrence noted that Scalia's dissent conceded that if cases such as Romer v. Evans "have stare decisis effect, Texas’ sodomy law would not pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, regardless of the type of rational basis review" applied.

      Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.[48]

      He wrote that:


      Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

      He cited the majority opinion's concern that the criminalization of sodomy could be the basis for discrimination against homosexuals as evidence that the majority ignored the views of most Americans:


      So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

      He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".


      Funny how the Left is screaming "Stare Decisis" for Roe now that Kennedy's leaving the Court...

      Delete
    77. ps - Are Greek erastes and eromenos historical fiction, too? After all, most of what I know of their practices come from The Satyricon.

      Delete
    78. A law which treats the promiscuous/monogamous equally would pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause...

      Delete
    79. I turned you off at:

      Is it an "undue burden" that I can't shove it up my dog's *ss?

      Delete
    80. ...and I turned you off at "for a law to be just"... as if YOU (or the "master") had any idea of what "justice" is. For the master, there's only one form of "just is".

      Like I said before wisdom (or "the law") is a virtue which is "opposed" to the actual virtue of justice.

      As Blaise Pascal once said, "Unable to make what is just strong, we made what is strong just."

      But again, I REPEAT myself. The "law" is a poor substitute for actual "justice".

      Delete
    81. The “master”? Hah! Your “master” is shown to be the State. How sad.

      Delete
    82. Better one Master than 300,000,000.

      Delete

    83. It is…crucial to bear in mind the interconnection between the Decalogue (the traumatically imposed Divine Commandments) and its modern obverse, the celebrated ‘human rights’. As the experience of our post-political liberal-permissive society amply demonstrates, human Rights are ultimately, at their core, simply Rights to violate the Ten Commandments. ‘The right to privacy’ – the right to adultery, in secret, where no one sees me or has the right to probe my life. ‘The right to pursue happiness and to posses private property’ – the right to steal (to exploit others). ‘Freedom of the press and of the expression of opinion’ – the right to lie. ‘The right of free citizens to possess weapons’ – the right to kill. And, ultimately, ‘freedom of religious belief’ – the right to worship false Gods. Of course, human Rights do not directly condone the violation of the Ten Commandments – the point is simply that they keep open a marginal ‘grey zone’ which should remain out of reach of (religious or secular) power: in this shady zone, I can violate these commandments, and if power probers into it, catching me with my pants down and trying to prevent my violations, I can cry: ‘Assault on my basic human Rights!’ The point is thus that it is structurally impossible, for Power, to draw a clear line of speraration and prevent only the ‘misuse;’ of a Right, while not encroaching upon the proper use, that is, the use that does not violate the Commandments.


      - Slavoj Zizek, "Fragile Absolute" (110-111)

      Delete
    84. Not if base subservience is still the outcome.

      Delete
    85. lol! I'm no follower of the religion of "submission".

      Delete
    86. You either control yourself, or others will control you.

      Delete
    87. Easily said when you want the State to criminalize the consensual behaviors of others.

      Delete
    88. Both of you make good points, but seem antagonistic towards each other. Why? One of the great philosophers, sorry I can't name him, said "Truth comes from disagreement among friends." Friends not advefrsaries. I'm sorry if I've misjudged you.

      From what I can see both of you may be partly right and partly wrong. For whatever it might be worth I believe in two simple bits of advice that cover the issue satisfactorily to me. One is "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that belong to Him." The other is "Live and let live."

      AA gives good advice too. "Help me to accept the things I can't change, to.change what I can, and have the wisdom to know which is which."

      Delete
    89. We aren't friends. I'm a conservative, and he's a libertairian. He thinks that if 70% of city residents consent to pee in the resevoir, 100% won't eventually get sick. One can't be friends with that level of stupidity. Libertairians score poorly on the virtues of loyalty and purity. In many ways, they're as bad as liberals. He'll cry "liberty" up till the day his personal AIDS diagnosis comes in. :)

      Delete
    90. Also, to be friends, people need to be charitable towards the positions of others. We're WAY past that. Besides, Libertarians score much lower on tests of empathy as well. :p

      Delete
    91. Maybe CI is distracted by all ways in which sexual contact differs from the municipal supply of water.

      Delete
    92. If so, I'd recommend a close reading of Plato's "Philebus", on pleasure, falsity, and the good.

      Delete
    93. One is "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that belong to Him." The other is "Live and let live."

      Great quotes indeed.

      And then there are those who exemplify the hypocrisy that modern 'conservatism' has become….stamping their feet and harrumphing about limited government, all the while seeking to employ the power of the State to regulate the social behavior of the Citizen, especially regarding largely unenforceable laws to begin with. The one arena in which they don’t seek to conserve, ironically….is Liberty. Making them no different in that regard…to Leftists. I guess they're happy, as long as it makes them feel better.....

      So, when their position is untenable, they resort to personal attacks and sad attempts at projection. But hey, they’re entertaining at least.

      Delete
    94. I do hope you get the help you need. It doesn't seem healthy to be so fixated on sex.

      Delete
    95. ...and you're not, Batman? Freud was wrong?

      Delete
    96. ...as for me, you can call me a Mensch! :)

      Delete
    97. No...I just don't want sex between consenting adults criminalized. I figure you'll come out against freedom of association next.

      Uber...that's actually sort of funny.

      BTW, you can save yourself some time if you wish....I don't traffic in YouTube links.

      Delete
    98. ...and I don't post them for your benefit. :)

      Delete
    99. btw - Isn't marriage an argument against freedom of association?

      Delete
    100. ...that creates in its' stead a 'liberty' of association (removing its' sexual aspects from the equation).

      Delete
    101. I am pro-marriage after all. Aren't you?

      Delete
    102. Or is marriage too "Statist" for you, too?

      Delete
    103. btw2 - American Philosophical Society or American Philosophical Association? Is the former's membership policies an "undue" restriction upon freedom of association, in your mind?

      Delete
    104. Perhaps the difference in 'name' reflects a necessary difference in the terms "association" and "society".

      On this, the 4th of July, would you prefer to live in the United Associates of America, CI? You could get rid of all those "Statist" dependencies that way.

      Delete
  3. I think a Libertarian is a good idea, too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A libertarian will not give me a Roe overturn.
    Screw that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Republicans may be unwilling to risk the sh--storm that an attempted repeal of Roe would cause.
      What you will most likely get is another pimp for the corporate state which really hasn't been working out but what you risk is a fascist state (please don't claim I'm comparing tRump to Hitler, be an adult).

      We'll see how the court situation shakes out. That's a troubling development for sure, but I don't see unanimity around Trump from the business community, and it seems he'd need that.

      I don't think the alt-right movement is strong enough to be his bullyboys, and I think the racists in America are overwhelmingly outnumbered.

      I see a groundswell of opposition to this guy getting stronger by the day, and I will remain hopeful that continues apace.

      Still... it's a confluence of some seriously troubling data points. Has to be taken seriously.

      Delete
    2. Can somebody please translate Ducky for me?

      Delete
    3. Simply trying to reassure you that as dangerous as this next nomination will be there is hope it won't be the capstone of a fascist state.
      I assume htat's not something you want.

      Delete
    4. DUcky, just so you know, I saw your comment about Trump not knowing Harley Davidson has overseas factories in Australia and Brazil, suggesting he doesn't know what he's talking about. Except he does; What's upset him is that they're going to EUROPE. He never mentioned anywhere else. It's EUROPE where HD sales have become larger than American sales of their bikes. It's Europe he's been discussing.

      Delete
    5. It's pretty clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Harley has to find some way to overcome the tariff or lose share in Europe. They clearly will build plants overseas especially if they see this as a long term problem.

      But Preznit Tweety will try to lie to the enraptured base as he has about U.S. Steel opening six new plants. Utter lie but he's been silent about Mid Continent Steel and Wire announcing large layoffs.

      It's just one win after another for the suckers and the Chinese have kicked his butt.

      Did you see that the North Koreans have been enlarging one of their nuclear sites. Yup, the wins just keep coming as this fool gets manipulated but the base keeps acting like a bunch of lap dogs.

      Delete
    6. Ducky, Harley Davidson should do anything it needs to do...their sales in Europe have risen above American sales so it makes sense to build there. I'm against what Trump's threatening them with. This almost sounds Obama-esque. ...telling others what they can or cannot do.

      yes, NoKo is supposedly enlarging...but I'm optimistic and, as much a non-fan of Trump-rhetoric/hyperbole as I am, I'm just not hateful enough to keep up the nastiness. I almost feel sorry for the Left; you're ALL suffering Hillary Clinton's "I COULDN'T LOSE!" syndrome.
      Time to get off it and hope for the best....it feels better, believe me.

      Delete
    7. Why implement tariff policy that encourages offshoring?
      Ostensibly this policy is in place to reduce the balance of payments but without dealing with China he's just going to generate inflation and unemployment.
      When did Obama threaten corporations? He was very corporate friendly like a good little DLC toady. Time to admit that it's time to deal straight up with Trump's policy and not try to use Obama as a crutch.

      It;s about Trump not Clinton.

      Delete
    8. Tariffs will have negative consequences to the American people: higher prices, fewer choices, decreased employment, retaliation by trading partners, and ultimately, increased future tariffs. Apparently, most Americans (including Trump) do not realize that the word deficit in trade doesn't mean the same thing as it does in finance. If our national leaders do not have a grasp for this, we are in serious trouble.

      Delete
    9. Without tariffs, corporation have zero reasons to ever employ an American worker. Why pay a living wage when you can employ a foreigner for a starvation one?

      Delete
    10. The steel tariffs aren't about Europe. They ARE about China. Europe and Canada must be subject to the tariffs, or China will simply "pass through" their steel by transhipping it to Vancouver and letting it come through via NAFTA.

      Delete
    11. China’s eight-fold expansion in steel production over the past 20 years has resulted in a worldwide oversupply. China now accounts for half of global steel output and is the largest exporter. Steel producers in the United States and other countries have faced a rising tide of imported steel. The U.S. reaction has been to impose antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) measures to restrict imports. AD/CVD orders have not succeeded in restoring full profitability to U.S. steel mills, but have raised costs for manufacturers that use steel as an input.

      Delete
  5. Roe vs. Wade would be tried on the Constitutionality.
    A Libertarian would be what the American People would want; to determine Roe was UN-Constitutional.
    There are laws that tell women they cannot do things to their bodies = drink alcohol, use crack at pregnancy; engage in prostitution...etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe so. Depends on the Libertarian.
      Many are so hooked on everybody doing whatever they want, that abortion becomes an extension of that.
      As was the perversion of marriage.
      Perhaps not all, but I don't know which one we'd get.

      Delete
  6. My guess is that a libertarian justice would find almost every federal law unconstitutional –including a few of the Constitution’s amendments— and he or she would be right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam,
      You're right!

      Yes, folks, I'm still around. Never mind that I'm technically on blog break.

      Delete
  7. "Danger Ducky" warns of an authoritarian state, when that is what progressives have been agitating for since at least the 1930's.

    "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in progressive antifa-style fake anti-fascism."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Friendly Old Ghost said

      Yes, but "progressives" are really communists, so please call them what they are.

      Delete
  8. Hey FT
    I hope that all is well with you As. We haven’t heard from you in a while.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective