Why the Trump team is different from all others

[emilynghiem]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

the DIFFERENCE, frigidweirdo
is when the rightwing including prolife
"go too far" with their beliefs so that this risks violating the Constitution,
they CAN BE CHECKED by CITING AND ENFORCING THE CONSTITUTION, where they DO respond and check themselves.

That's why there are prochoice Republicans and conservatives able to balance the prochoice beliefs and need for due process with their "right to life" beliefs equally protected under the same laws as BELIEFS.

NOT SO WITH PROCHOICE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.

frigidweirdo look at the ACA mandates that violated and penalized free choice of citizens because "compelling govt interest" was more important politically. That is the equivalent of putting the right to life of unborn before the equal civil liberties and due process of women affected by abortion laws. the LEFT did the same with "the right to health care" putting THAT BELIEF before the civil liberties and due process of "not just women but ALL CITIZENS NATIONWIDE".

To be fair frigidweirdo when I have explained to my fellow Democrats about NOT passing penalizing mandates and restrictions "that take away civil liberties from law abiding citizens WITHOUT DUE PROCESS" -- there are SOME who will listen and accept that argument.

I find MORE rightwing who will listen to the prochoice argument and include that under Constitutional principles. But I find it HARDER and more RARE to explain DUE PROCESS to liberals who just believe in mandating laws through federal govt that endorse their beliefs. Then complain when the rightwing threatens to do that through govt.

There is a HUGE difference if the rightwing will at least respect the Constitution BEFORE political party and beliefs; but the leftwing is so dependent on party, they use party agenda and majority rule based on that to OVERRIDE Constitutional arguments.

I find more people on the left depending on party power to bypass or override the Constitutional process.

The places I have caught rightwing going too far (such as with the right to life beliefs, or not treating Muslims the same as Christians in terms of religious freedom) they tend to check themselves when confronted with Constitutional standards.

Too many on the left tend to put Party power and beliefs over the Constitution.

Obama and Pelosi pushing ACA mandates above and against all Constitutional arguments in opposition is a prime example.

How can anyone argue about right to life beliefs being pushed onto the public, without criticizing the left for pushing right to health care beliefs and policies that IMPOSED federal tax penalties on free choice for ALL CITIZENS.

Where was the due process for us in that case?

There problem with what you've just said is that often there isn't just a right wing v. left wing. There are individuals on either side,both "sides" contain people who do and who do not respect the constitution. Mostly I'd find that the majority on either side are more interested in their partisan bullshit politics game and winning, rather than doing the right thing. This is why I support changing how people vote by using Proportional Representation.

Maybe you find those on the left more willing to do the wrong thing because you talk more with those on the left in a manner which is argumentative, whereas I talk more with those on the right in such a way.

The problem is one that is major and affecting the whole country. It's driving the US down and down and down and down.

The point I made was that just because a person supports ONE THING that protects the constitution, doesn't mean much in this day and age when many people will support what is convenient for them. We don't need to be partisan ourselves in order to make this case, whether one side does it more than the other is impossible to tell, because people don't make statistics for such things. What we can see is that Hillary and Trump weren't exactly the best choices for president and yet most of the country voted for them.

Dear frigidweirdo
I totally agree with you on proportional representation by party. i believe this can and will be achieved as more progressive left (especially from the Green and even the Socialist workers) who are reforming the Democratic party align and form alliances with libertarian and independent conservatives (including Tea Party) reforming the Republican party.

First step is acknowledging and including the parties, instead of fighting to exclude or silence them. So if you are saying you do better NOT confronting the right in an adversarial way, let's agree to leave that to people who can communicate with the rightwing in an inclusive manner.

I am able to communicate and work with fellow progressives and Democrats in a collaborative manner. Even though we do not yet fully agree on how this plays out on national public levels of federal govt and policy, we can at least agree on starting points of agreement on the grassroots ground level, before working our way up to the top.

When I argue with them politically, as I am here with you, we tend to redirect to where we AGREE, such as where you and I agree on proportional representation. So even though it gets confrontational, that should not get in the way of reaching agreement on principles we share in common.

If you can do this with me here, even while we confront each other on points of conflict, then SURELY you can do the same when confronting rightwing as well.

I encourage you to do both, keep holding each other to account even on points of conflict, but DON'T let that get in the way of finding and sticking to points and principles of agreement.

So if you can get rightwing to agree that they want their "right to life" beliefs and/or Christian beliefs protected equally as other beliefs, that is the same argument the LEFT should be making to defend the rights to fund and exercise "right to health care" beliefs and LGBT beliefs in public.

so this is why we need separate representation by party. You could steer these rightwing adversaries in that same direction, by showing how this party representation would protect and defend their beliefs from infringement.

May I encourage you to keep trying to do this. Don't let conflicts get in the way, because all people are going to have those, even within the same parties.

Thank you frigidweirdo !

 

[theHawk]

Well you couldn't care less about it, but the reality is that we're not discussing abortion here, we're discussing how people will flip flop on their "morals" and "principles" at the drop of a hat. One minute they're this, the next they've conveniently forgotten about it because it's not convenient for their next argument. I was using abortion as such an example, we don't need to get into the finer details of your views on abortion here.

So, does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Yes it does. How can you be pro-life and pro-executions and pro-war at the same time?

The ONLY way for this to be possible is if you're willing to compartmentalize your views, and argue using whatever you think will "win" you the argument, rather than actually standing behind some principles. So, back to the topic of conversation, if a guy comes out and fights for first amendment rights, this doesn't mean he is "pro-Constitution", it could easily mean that whatever he is arguing for is convenient for whatever it is he wants.

Don't you agree?

No, it has nothing to do with the death penalty, or being "pro-war" (whatever that means). Two separate issues completely.

I agree that "a guy" arguing for one constitutional right doesn't make them "pro-constitution", the left are often guilty of that. Avidly defending one right, yet attacking others.
I haven't seen anything of Stephen Miller to prove he is like that.

 

[Old Rocks]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

No child, it's about destroying the left and their leviathan......

Why sure. Just get Putin to help you. No blue helmets here, but a lot with the Red Star on them. LOL, you people are so damned stupid.

What we need is someone fighting for the wage earner, seeing to it that we have a real and affordable health care system in place, and an education system that provides this nation with the skilled people we need to compete in the world market. That person has already been shown not to be the orange clown, or someone like you that creates enemies out of thin air, and hates your fellow citizens.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

Did you not read the article? The man fought for first amendment rights against fascist lefties that completely disregard the Constitution.

There are people, a lot of people, who fight for those rights which are convenient to their own ideology. Like "pro-lifers" who fight for the right of life for the unborn human babies, but then go home and eat a cow, love executions and try and make LIFE as hard as possible for many.

A person who supports HUMAN RIGHTS doesn't just fight for one thing, and fight against another. That's just a marriage of convenience, and I'm pretty tired of people who claim that they're pro-Constitution while not being pro-constitution but pro their own shit that's convenient for themselves.

the DIFFERENCE, frigidweirdo
is when the rightwing including prolife
"go too far" with their beliefs so that this risks violating the Constitution,
they CAN BE CHECKED by CITING AND ENFORCING THE CONSTITUTION, where they DO respond and check themselves.

That's why there are prochoice Republicans and conservatives able to balance the prochoice beliefs and need for due process with their "right to life" beliefs equally protected under the same laws as BELIEFS.

NOT SO WITH PROCHOICE LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.

frigidweirdo look at the ACA mandates that violated and penalized free choice of citizens because "compelling govt interest" was more important politically. That is the equivalent of putting the right to life of unborn before the equal civil liberties and due process of women affected by abortion laws. the LEFT did the same with "the right to health care" putting THAT BELIEF before the civil liberties and due process of "not just women but ALL CITIZENS NATIONWIDE".

To be fair frigidweirdo when I have explained to my fellow Democrats about NOT passing penalizing mandates and restrictions "that take away civil liberties from law abiding citizens WITHOUT DUE PROCESS" -- there are SOME who will listen and accept that argument.

I find MORE rightwing who will listen to the prochoice argument and include that under Constitutional principles. But I find it HARDER and more RARE to explain DUE PROCESS to liberals who just believe in mandating laws through federal govt that endorse their beliefs. Then complain when the rightwing threatens to do that through govt.

There is a HUGE difference if the rightwing will at least respect the Constitution BEFORE political party and beliefs; but the leftwing is so dependent on party, they use party agenda and majority rule based on that to OVERRIDE Constitutional arguments.

I find more people on the left depending on party power to bypass or override the Constitutional process.

The places I have caught rightwing going too far (such as with the right to life beliefs, or not treating Muslims the same as Christians in terms of religious freedom) they tend to check themselves when confronted with Constitutional standards.

Too many on the left tend to put Party power and beliefs over the Constitution.

Obama and Pelosi pushing ACA mandates above and against all Constitutional arguments in opposition is a prime example.

How can anyone argue about right to life beliefs being pushed onto the public, without criticizing the left for pushing right to health care beliefs and policies that IMPOSED federal tax penalties on free choice for ALL CITIZENS.

Where was the due process for us in that case?

There problem with what you've just said is that often there isn't just a right wing v. left wing. There are individuals on either side,both "sides" contain people who do and who do not respect the constitution. Mostly I'd find that the majority on either side are more interested in their partisan bullshit politics game and winning, rather than doing the right thing. This is why I support changing how people vote by using Proportional Representation.

Maybe you find those on the left more willing to do the wrong thing because you talk more with those on the left in a manner which is argumentative, whereas I talk more with those on the right in such a way.

The problem is one that is major and affecting the whole country. It's driving the US down and down and down and down.

The point I made was that just because a person supports ONE THING that protects the constitution, doesn't mean much in this day and age when many people will support what is convenient for them. We don't need to be partisan ourselves in order to make this case, whether one side does it more than the other is impossible to tell, because people don't make statistics for such things. What we can see is that Hillary and Trump weren't exactly the best choices for president and yet most of the country voted for them.

Dear frigidweirdo
I totally agree with you on proportional representation by party. i believe this can and will be achieved as more progressive left (especially from the Green and even the Socialist workers) who are reforming the Democratic party align and form alliances with libertarian and independent conservatives (including Tea Party) reforming the Republican party.

First step is acknowledging and including the parties, instead of fighting to exclude or silence them. So if you are saying you do better NOT confronting the right in an adversarial way, let's agree to leave that to people who can communicate with the rightwing in an inclusive manner.

I am able to communicate and work with fellow progressives and Democrats in a collaborative manner. Even though we do not yet fully agree on how this plays out on national public levels of federal govt and policy, we can at least agree on starting points of agreement on the grassroots ground level, before working our way up to the top.

When I argue with them politically, as I am here with you, we tend to redirect to where we AGREE, such as where you and I agree on proportional representation. So even though it gets confrontational, that should not get in the way of reaching agreement on principles we share in common.

If you can do this with me here, even while we confront each other on points of conflict, then SURELY you can do the same when confronting rightwing as well.

I encourage you to do both, keep holding each other to account even on points of conflict, but DON'T let that get in the way of finding and sticking to points and principles of agreement.

So if you can get rightwing to agree that they want their "right to life" beliefs and/or Christian beliefs protected equally as other beliefs, that is the same argument the LEFT should be making to defend the rights to fund and exercise "right to health care" beliefs and LGBT beliefs in public.

so this is why we need separate representation by party. You could steer these rightwing adversaries in that same direction, by showing how this party representation would protect and defend their beliefs from infringement.

May I encourage you to keep trying to do this. Don't let conflicts get in the way, because all people are going to have those, even within the same parties.

Thank you frigidweirdo !

Well, I do add a lot of people onto my ignore list simply because I know they're not going to debate. However keeping to a positive attitude all the time isn't going to happen, I work, and I get tired and sometimes I fight back, though generally I try not to fight as much as I have in the past and stay on the message.

However the problem is the right don't want PR, simply because they've seen it benefits them greatly, and they don't want to lose having more power per vote than they should have.

Conflicts are there because people want to have conflict, many come on here with only that in mind.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well you couldn't care less about it, but the reality is that we're not discussing abortion here, we're discussing how people will flip flop on their "morals" and "principles" at the drop of a hat. One minute they're this, the next they've conveniently forgotten about it because it's not convenient for their next argument. I was using abortion as such an example, we don't need to get into the finer details of your views on abortion here.

So, does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Yes it does. How can you be pro-life and pro-executions and pro-war at the same time?

The ONLY way for this to be possible is if you're willing to compartmentalize your views, and argue using whatever you think will "win" you the argument, rather than actually standing behind some principles. So, back to the topic of conversation, if a guy comes out and fights for first amendment rights, this doesn't mean he is "pro-Constitution", it could easily mean that whatever he is arguing for is convenient for whatever it is he wants.

Don't you agree?

No, it has nothing to do with the death penalty, or being "pro-war" (whatever that means). Two separate issues completely.

I agree that "a guy" arguing for one constitutional right doesn't make them "pro-constitution", the left are often guilty of that. Avidly defending one right, yet attacking others.
I haven't seen anything of Stephen Miller to prove he is like that.

We're talking "pro-life" here. How can you be "pro-life" and be in favor of killing people?

Yes, the left, the right, especially those on either side who are partisan hacks or just here for entertainment.

Well I don't know anything of the guy, but for someone to come and say "he did this in favor of the 1A therefore he's pro-Constitution" we agree is just false, which was what we're talking about.

 

[theHawk]

Well you couldn't care less about it, but the reality is that we're not discussing abortion here, we're discussing how people will flip flop on their "morals" and "principles" at the drop of a hat. One minute they're this, the next they've conveniently forgotten about it because it's not convenient for their next argument. I was using abortion as such an example, we don't need to get into the finer details of your views on abortion here.

So, does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Yes it does. How can you be pro-life and pro-executions and pro-war at the same time?

The ONLY way for this to be possible is if you're willing to compartmentalize your views, and argue using whatever you think will "win" you the argument, rather than actually standing behind some principles. So, back to the topic of conversation, if a guy comes out and fights for first amendment rights, this doesn't mean he is "pro-Constitution", it could easily mean that whatever he is arguing for is convenient for whatever it is he wants.

Don't you agree?

No, it has nothing to do with the death penalty, or being "pro-war" (whatever that means). Two separate issues completely.

I agree that "a guy" arguing for one constitutional right doesn't make them "pro-constitution", the left are often guilty of that. Avidly defending one right, yet attacking others.
I haven't seen anything of Stephen Miller to prove he is like that.

We're talking "pro-life" here. How can you be "pro-life" and be in favor of killing people?

Yes, the left, the right, especially those on either side who are partisan hacks or just here for entertainment.

Well I don't know anything of the guy, but for someone to come and say "he did this in favor of the 1A therefore he's pro-Constitution" we agree is just false, which was what we're talking about.

We've already gone through this tap dance. I've already told you I don't care about being "pro-life", I am against abortion-on-demand. I am for self-defense, killing people who pose a threat to the lives of others or already committed the act. That includes murderers and Jihadists, and not an unborn child in the womb of a mother. If you believe these beliefs "contradict" each other, then that is your problem, not mine.

 

[longknife]

The rancor of threads like this is truly sad. Such divisiveness.

 

[owebo]

These are the kind of people we need in politics, ones willing to fight back against the fascist anti-American left.

What, people who just know how to fight and don't have much of a clue about the Constitution, how to do their job etc etc? This is all it's about? Fighting the left.

No child, it's about destroying the left and their leviathan......

Why sure. Just get Putin to help you. No blue helmets here, but a lot with the Red Star on them. LOL, you people are so damned stupid.

What we need is someone fighting for the wage earner, seeing to it that we have a real and affordable health care system in place, and an education system that provides this nation with the skilled people we need to compete in the world market. That person has already been shown not to be the orange clown, or someone like you that creates enemies out of thin air, and hates your fellow citizens.

We the people got it child.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well you couldn't care less about it, but the reality is that we're not discussing abortion here, we're discussing how people will flip flop on their "morals" and "principles" at the drop of a hat. One minute they're this, the next they've conveniently forgotten about it because it's not convenient for their next argument. I was using abortion as such an example, we don't need to get into the finer details of your views on abortion here.

So, does it have anything to do with the death penalty? Yes it does. How can you be pro-life and pro-executions and pro-war at the same time?

The ONLY way for this to be possible is if you're willing to compartmentalize your views, and argue using whatever you think will "win" you the argument, rather than actually standing behind some principles. So, back to the topic of conversation, if a guy comes out and fights for first amendment rights, this doesn't mean he is "pro-Constitution", it could easily mean that whatever he is arguing for is convenient for whatever it is he wants.

Don't you agree?

No, it has nothing to do with the death penalty, or being "pro-war" (whatever that means). Two separate issues completely.

I agree that "a guy" arguing for one constitutional right doesn't make them "pro-constitution", the left are often guilty of that. Avidly defending one right, yet attacking others.
I haven't seen anything of Stephen Miller to prove he is like that.

We're talking "pro-life" here. How can you be "pro-life" and be in favor of killing people?

Yes, the left, the right, especially those on either side who are partisan hacks or just here for entertainment.

Well I don't know anything of the guy, but for someone to come and say "he did this in favor of the 1A therefore he's pro-Constitution" we agree is just false, which was what we're talking about.

We've already gone through this tap dance. I've already told you I don't care about being "pro-life", I am against abortion-on-demand. I am for self-defense, killing people who pose a threat to the lives of others or already committed the act. That includes murderers and Jihadists, and not an unborn child in the womb of a mother. If you believe these beliefs "contradict" each other, then that is your problem, not mine.

So why do you keep going on about something when it's not even the topic of discussion?

 

[American_Jihad]

WHY ONLY TRUMP CAN WIN IN NORTH KOREA
It’s time to think outside the box.
May 15, 2017

Daniel Greenfield

...

Three options lie before us. We can walk away, withdraw all our forces, limit the potential risk and see what develops. We can destroy North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and as much of the regime infrastructure as we can manage. Or we can continue kicking the can down the road. That is the existing policy and it is the worst of all the three because it exposes us to the most risk with the least upside.

President Trump is the best hope for dropping an existing policy so stupid that only an establishment could cling to it. As an outsider, he is instinctively skeptical of the way things are.

When Alexander the Great was told that to rule he would have to untie a complex knot, he used his sword to cut it apart. The Gordian Knot of our foreign policy looks complicated until you take a sword to it. We can spend the next century trying to make everyone love each other. Or we can fight to win.


Why Only Trump Can Win in North Korea

 

[American_Jihad]

JARED KUSHNER REBUTS FAKE NEWS ACCOUNTS OF HIS CONTACTS WITH RUSSIANS
Detailed public statement contrasts with sketchy news reports based on anonymous sources.
July 25, 2017

Joseph Klein

Innuendos and wild speculation passing as “objective” reporting, based on leaks from anonymous sources, have become the stock in trade of the fake media. Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, has been one of the principal targets of the media campaign to discredit the Trump administration. Silent for months in the face of mounting speculation of his possible role in alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia, Kushner has finally sought to set the record straight. This week he is meeting with congressional staffers and lawmakers to discuss in detail his activities during the campaign and transition periods, particularly his contacts with Russian officials.

In a statement issued ahead of his closed-door interview with Senate intelligence committee staffers, Kushner said, “I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector." He provided details on several contacts he had with Russians during his father-in-law’s campaign and transition, none of which he deemed to be improper.

Kushner’s statement provides valuable context to the meetings in which he participated. He pointed out that during the course of the campaign, he had contacts with people from approximately 15 countries, noting that he “must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States.” Russia was one of those countries.

...

Jared Kushner Rebuts Fake News Accounts of his Contacts with Russians