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.
Header Image (book)
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Checking the comment notification.
ReplyDeleteSo much winning!! I can hardly stand it! :)
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'd be happy with another Kennedy-esque Justice....I'm really hoping that POTUS selects Randy Barnett. Pretty Libertarian, definitely Constitutionalist.
ReplyDeleteAt 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......
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.
DeleteNo 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.
DeleteI 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.
DeleteI 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.
I would argue against Kennedy being some sort of standard bearer of Libertarianism [see Kelo and Gonzales v. Raich.
DeleteSF's middle paragraph stands on it's own regarding 'traditional values'.
"Custom" = "traditional" values. Like a definition of "marriage".
DeleteFrank 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”
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.
DeleteBut 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.
DeleteAn 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.
DeleteEarlier 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.
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.
DeleteWhen 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.
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).
DeleteAs Blaise Pascal once said, "Unable to make what is just strong, we made what is strong just."
DeleteThat's "why" the Security Council" gets "veto power" at the UN.
Delete..and "why" we don't need any more "libertarian" justices.
Delete"Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical." - Blaise Pascal
Delete...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
...as "Wisdom" is an "opposing virtue" to "justice."
DeleteHumans are disease vectors, so your point is moot.
DeleteAnd 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.
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.
DeleteThere 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...
DeleteBut I don't mind the cost of being stylish... as "style" necessarily implies the addition of a superfluous expense.
Delete...after all, crony capitalism is ALL about privatizing profits and "socializing/publicizing" costs.
Delete...and we all know just how "down" you libertarians are with THAT! :)
DeleteMildly 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.
DeleteSo, with ‘superfluous vectors’.......you must clearly support criminalizing fornication and adultery, no?
Deletelol!
DeleteNo wonder the debt is $20 trillion now...
...and "yes".
DeleteThank G_d libertarians aren't a "majority".
DeleteYeah, can’t have any actual liberty now can we. All in service to the State. Look where your ‘majority’ has taken us.
DeleteOne 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.
You’ve got to be positively giddy at the state of regulation, restriction and surveillance. Have to keep the Plebs in line, right?
Delete...no, but I don;t think that granting homosexuals the right to catamites strikes a blow for "freedom".
DeleteMinors aren't citizens, too? Who knew?
DeleteAbsolutely. Not all sexual activity is necessary for procreation. Just like not all scientific solutions to human problems are "humane" (abortion).
Just because you choose to ignore sodomy laws doesn't eliminate the need for them.
Delete...or save Sodom and Gomorrah from eventual destruction.
DeleteI’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.
DeleteOne presumes your system of legislation and surveillance would make even Stalin cringe. Bravo.
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.
DeleteAnd yes, imagine if everyone were as conscientious as me. Heath care expenses wouldn't be outpacing the inflation rate as they currently do.
And of course, amndatory hpv vaccinations are just so much authoritarian state overreach, right CI?
Deletelol!
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".
DeleteYou 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.
DeleteAre you going to be in charge of the ‘oral sex police’?
Deletelets count the vaccination costs... $175 per dose x 3 doses to acquire immunity x 300,000,000 citizens.... chicken feed to the US taxpayer
DeleteAre you going to pay for every case of throat cancer that results?
Deletebtw Not all States permit sodomy.
Delete:p
Must not be many libertairians living in the South.
ps - You're right. To eliminate ALL vectors we can ban procreative sex, too and make everyone do in-vitro fertilization from now on.
DeleteScience solves another human problem!
It's a Brave New World, I tell you!
DeleteFordism ROCKS,
DeleteSure, 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.
DeleteSaying, "don't do it" isn't "enforcement"? Who knew?
DeleteYou'd prefer a "just do it!" or "ignore it" approach, and encourage behaviors that have real world ill effects and consequences?
DeleteYou 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?
DeleteI'd arrest a Hollyweird celebrity once a year just to get the word out. Enforce one, frighten a million into compliance.
DeleteYou 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.
DeleteI’m not in least interested in celebutwits nor your fantasies regarding them.
There’s a reason that Constitutional laws must pass strict scrutiny......
Lawrence vs. Texas?
DeleteSandra Day O'Conners interpretation, Mcduck. Sodomy is sodomy... you just can't enforce the law in a "selective" way. It has to be "universal".
DeleteA "Stop" sign has the very same enforcement mechanism. When was the last time you ran one in front of a cop?
DeleteDo the Police need to station a cop at every Stop sign to enforce traffic laws?
DeleteExactly. In front of a cop. How much sodomy occurs in front of law enforcement?
DeleteYour prohibition is that same Leftism that you probably believe you rail against. Ineffectual and based on feelings.
Thanks for playing.
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.
DeleteOut of sight, out of mind. :)
DeleteSo, 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.
DeleteYou 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.
DeleteWant to encourage marriage? You don't do it by legalizing sodomy.
DeleteNow 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?
DeleteThis is fascinating.
Want to discourage promiscuity? Encourage marriage.
Beatiality is consenting adult Citizens?
DeleteYou’ve aptly illustrated that you have no case. Not that there was any doubt. Than you.....you’ve been a great help.
Your right, Film has no influence over culture.
DeleteNext!
Yawn......
DeleteLet me know if you come up with a cogent defense of your position......with enforcement mechanisms.
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,,,
DeleteReally??
DeleteYou 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?
:)
DeleteThersites,
DeleteWhat a graph!
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?
DeleteRemember 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.
Franco,
DeleteWelcome!
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!
FJ assumes a high level of promiscuity.
DeleteThersites - 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.
DeleteYour 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".
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.
DeleteAnd 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!
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...but then again, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law requiring them to stay to the right, does it?
DeleteYou expect to find the bend in the knee of the curve at Lawrence?
DeleteI'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.
Perhaps you could first explain the "undue burden" that NOT having a "specific physical object" rammed up you *ss poses the Citizen?
DeleteIs it an "undue burden" that I can't shove it up my dog's *ss?
DeleteScalia'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.
DeleteScalia 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...
ps - Are Greek erastes and eromenos historical fiction, too? After all, most of what I know of their practices come from The Satyricon.
DeleteA law which treats the promiscuous/monogamous equally would pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause...
DeleteI turned you off at:
DeleteIs it an "undue burden" that I can't shove it up my dog's *ss?
...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".
DeleteLike 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".
The LAW is the WILL of the Master. As such, I don't believe in it.
DeleteThe “master”? Hah! Your “master” is shown to be the State. How sad.
DeleteBetter one Master than 300,000,000.
Delete
DeleteIt 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)
Not if base subservience is still the outcome.
Deletelol! I'm no follower of the religion of "submission".
DeleteYou either control yourself, or others will control you.
DeleteEasily said when you want the State to criminalize the consensual behaviors of others.
DeleteBoth 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.
DeleteFrom 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."
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. :)
DeleteAlso, 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;)
DeleteMaybe CI is distracted by all ways in which sexual contact differs from the municipal supply of water.
DeleteIf so, I'd recommend a close reading of Plato's "Philebus", on pleasure, falsity, and the good.
DeleteOne 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."
DeleteGreat 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.
:P
DeleteI do hope you get the help you need. It doesn't seem healthy to be so fixated on sex.
Delete...and you're not, Batman? Freud was wrong?
DeleteHere, I'll call you an Uber...
Delete"You're an Uber!"
...as for me, you can call me a Mensch! :)
DeleteNo...I just don't want sex between consenting adults criminalized. I figure you'll come out against freedom of association next.
DeleteUber...that's actually sort of funny.
BTW, you can save yourself some time if you wish....I don't traffic in YouTube links.
...and I don't post them for your benefit. :)
Deletebtw - Isn't marriage an argument against freedom of association?
Delete...that creates in its' stead a 'liberty' of association (removing its' sexual aspects from the equation).
DeleteI am pro-marriage after all. Aren't you?
DeleteOr is marriage too "Statist" for you, too?
Deletebtw2 - American Philosophical Society or American Philosophical Association? Is the former's membership policies an "undue" restriction upon freedom of association, in your mind?
DeletePerhaps the difference in 'name' reflects a necessary difference in the terms "association" and "society".
DeleteOn 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.
I think a Libertarian is a good idea, too.
ReplyDeleteA libertarian will not give me a Roe overturn.
ReplyDeleteScrew that.
Republicans may be unwilling to risk the sh--storm that an attempted repeal of Roe would cause.
DeleteWhat 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.
Can somebody please translate Ducky for me?
DeleteSimply 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.
DeleteI assume htat's not something you want.
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.
DeleteIt'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.
DeleteBut 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.
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.
Deleteyes, 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.
Why implement tariff policy that encourages offshoring?
DeleteOstensibly 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.
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.
DeleteWithout 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?
DeleteThe 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.
DeleteChina’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:P
DeleteRoe vs. Wade would be tried on the Constitutionality.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
I don't believe so. Depends on the Libertarian.
DeleteMany 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteSam,
DeleteYou're right!
Yes, folks, I'm still around. Never mind that I'm technically on blog break.
"Danger Ducky" warns of an authoritarian state, when that is what progressives have been agitating for since at least the 1930's.
ReplyDelete"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in progressive antifa-style fake anti-fascism."
SF,
DeleteSpot on!
A Friendly Old Ghost said
DeleteYes, but "progressives" are really communists, so please call them what they are.
Hey FT
ReplyDeleteI hope that all is well with you As. We haven’t heard from you in a while.