Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
waterfieldParticipantWell Z I sooooo hope you are right. However, my faith in the American public is at a low level today. IMO there are three major forces that support this idiot. 1) Business ( he is doing what he promised -getting rid of all the “political correct” regulations, and putting more money in their pockets, etc. ) 2 ignorant people. Those are people either too stupid or smart but not interested in how the government actually runs (i.e. how does a bill become law) 3) Racists and bigots who like the way the guy talks (i.e. he talks like they do) We need a sea change in how people “think”. That may take more than your one year. I only wish we had the same Republicans in office that we had during Nixon. Instead we now have the Freedom Caucus who run the party. The real question is how did they get there. I blame TV reality shows and video games. We are a society with no attention span to speak of.
waterfieldParticipantI should clarify: There are many other federal crimes that he might possibly be charged with including election law violations, money laundering, lying to FBI, tax laws, etc. But assuming a President can be held in violation of such statutes I doubt the public would be so outraged at this conduct- they believe almost everyone at some point could be guilty of-justifying removal from office. The main obsession with the press and most lay people has always focused on the “collusion” with the bad guys in re the election and “collusion” is only a federal crime if it involves anti trust issues (price fixing, etc.) So again the hope-IMO-rests with electing the guy OUT of office as well as taking back Congress. In that regard public opinion obviously matters significantly.
waterfieldParticipant“But that doesn’t matter.
Donald Trump, and his associates, are not being tried in the court of public opinion. They are going to be tried elsewhere, and whether Americans have combat fatigue or not is not relevant at this point. Everybody treats this like what matters are his poll numbers.”
I think your wrong on this. The President and his supporters are ONLY concerned about public opinion. The only reason Nixon was forced to leave was because the public knew everything from the tapes and overwhelmingly wanted him out of office. Moreover, Congress was in the hands of the Democrats. The leaders of the GOP new that given public opinion if Nixon was impeached he would be convicted. it was the Republicans who convinced Nixon he had to resign. In Trump’s case both the house and senate are controlled by the Republicans. If they don’t sense a public outrage they are not likely to take the initial step (impeachment) in getting rid of Trump. From a criminal stanpoint, there is a serious legal issue of rather a sitting President can even be indicted- Finally, “collusion” is not a crime and he can only be indicted based on a federal criminal statute. Thus the only practical solution is through the polls-i.e. taking congress back and voting him out of office. Public opinion means everything.
waterfieldParticipantAnother problem is our rapidly growing old-age entitlement programs. But I suspect a mandatory death program at a certain age might not be a popular political slogan.
waterfieldParticipantWe have far better and more accurate ways of identifying people in need today than 50 years ago. I say that’s a good thing not a bad thing.
waterfieldParticipant4) shut down the internet. Seriously, if I want to communicate with WV or Billy I write a letter or phone call. A person’s mental illness can and often is exasperated and fueled by the internet.
Of course these are so drastic but the shooting today had more-if not all-of these elements. And I am so upset over this morning. One student interviewed reminded me so very much of my grandson. Same looks, same height, same speech-just makes me sick. Why are students like the shooter, so alone, so unbalanced, so depressed, so filled with violence, so oblivious and carefree as to lives of others. Where does that come from ?
waterfieldParticipantI have a different take. I believe -just personal observations and listening to the general public around me-we are becoming more and more ignorant and just plain stupid. And I don’t think its the fault of our schools or our political system. It goes back to what I’ve been saying for a long, long time. People like you ( no children), WV (no children) and me (one child) are people that SHOULD be having children but over the last 40 or so years have stopped doing so. OTOH those that anyone with any adult sense can see should NOT be having children are continuing to breed and populate are country with unbalanced, mentally sick, and totally ignorant people. This doesn’t bode well for our future.
Look at the tragedy this morning in Texas. Surely this student shooter will be found to be unbalanced. My answer is very Hitlarian.
1) Implant a birth control device in every born female that can only be removed only on the passing of some basic criteria, such as education, employment, basic income sufficient to support a child.
2) Eliminate all video games that award the killing of human targets. (that’s mostly all of them)
3) Confiscate all guns and place them in a dispensary where you can check out the weapon for such things as hunting, target practice, etc. Same as in the Navy where servicemen on leave can “check out” a gun.
I suspect that many, many years from now some of these will be enacted-simply for our survival.
waterfieldParticipantWe have relatives who are evangelical Christians who feel as your mom does. I don’t get it. IMO he’s the least Christian like President we have ever had. My only thought is that they like his position on abortion. At least his position today.
We really are not a very smart country.
waterfieldParticipant“All that amendment says is that if you’re in a state militia — which no longer exist — you can keep and bear arms.”
The problem Billy is that from a purely literal standpoint that is simply not true. There happens to be a comma between “State” and “the”. In pertinent part the amendment reads as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.”Because of the comma that sentence can be taken two ways: 1) The right of people in the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed. And that would “appear” to be the intent-at least to me. But if that WAS the intent-so the argument goes-why didn’t congress be more specific and clear?
2) It can-also because of the comma-be read “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed as well.So at the very least there IS an argument as to the intent of the language.
In any even I may have a solution-borrowed from the Navy. If one truly needs “protection” he can register and keep his small weapon (revolver, etc) at home. However, if one wants an automatic assault weapon or one converted to such, in order to go out and shoot up cans or whatever in the dessert all they need to do is go to a dispensary and check one out for the day-“ONE” that is. And you don’t get another until you check it back in. I know that won’t prevent what happened in San Bernardino and maybe not Vegas but it will reduce the proliferation and sales of assault weapons. While driving around Tennessee this summer Barb and I saw this enormous sign alongside the highway: ” MACHINE GUNS FOR RENT HERE”. We laughed out loud. But in retrospect maybe that IS an answer. I know it used to be that if you have leave in the Navy and wanted to go target practicing there was a dispensary where you could check out a weapon.
A compromise? Sure. But I doubt seriously that you will ever do much better when it comes to gun control -at least until the 2d amendment is re-written.
BTW: did anyone watch Jimmy Kimmel’s moving address to this issue?
waterfieldParticipantBut, the USA can attack North Korea. What can/should THEY do?
The perfect definition of a “dodge”.
waterfieldParticipantI love the old grainy films in that video. One problem for me is that big wave surfing is really dangerous especially for the normal everyday surfer. While I don’t know anyone personally who has been killed I know of several who have died in the last couple of years including an acquaintance of mine who is now in a board and care with severe brain loss from apoxia after falling from his board and being held down for several minutes. Most surfing film, understandingly, make the sport out to be glorious w/o a decent warning as to its dangers.
Same with free diving-something I’m more familiar with. Many think that because you simply need to hold your breath it’s simple to do (i.e. “snorkeling”). However, the more and deeper you want to go the more dangerous it becomes. Pretty soon your risking apoxia by shallow water blackout. You pass out and if no one is near your lungs can easily fill up with water and then your on the bottom.
The ocean is a fun place but depending on what your doing it can also be very dangerous. Films and videos about these sports need IMO to be more balanced.
waterfieldParticipantI’ve only been to Mavericks once and they were practicing for a big swell predicted. It was right after I got out the hospital with a hip replacement surgery. I was on crutches and it wasn’t easy on crutches walking in the sand. Then you have to climb a dirt path up to the top of that cliff to get any kind of view. I couldn’t do that but Barb did. The break is a long long way out so even on top of that cliff you don’t get a good look w/o binoculars. People actually die out there !
waterfieldParticipantW/o any studies to show this I also think that there many Clinton “voters” whose beliefs were closer to Sanders but were concerned he had no chance at all to win an election against the Republican front runner (Trump) and thus voted for Hillary as a way to stop Trump in the general. I know more than a few who fall w/i that category.
waterfieldParticipant“And yet this is the country that denies climate change”
I doubt anyone anymore realistically denies climate change. The Republicans even know that the earth is warming and in large part caused by fossil fuels. Even major oil companies are now in agreement. What the Republicans are selling is that the gains that can be made by curtailing fossil fuels are minor compared to the resulting economic losses. they look at it as a simple cost benefit analysis. But this is a different subject then why is our attention span declining over the years and how does IT play into that.
waterfieldParticipantWho is Kyle Kulinsky anyway? I saw the entire discussion between Kasich and Sanders previously and watch this segment again. First he didn’t “rip apart” the female host at all. Essentially he said lets get back to the issues and not worry who is going to run again or not. Moreover Sanders comments were clearly directed at the media in general and not this particular host. Bernie didn’t “rip apart” anyone. Pure hyperbole. Kulinsky also said it was more a debate than a town hall meeting. Hardly. They both agreed on just about everything.
waterfieldParticipantI reflect on the educational system’s impact on all of this quite a bit, since it is basically my job to teach critical thinking. So I wonder, how much fault belongs to teachers? How much is the system? How much is the students? And I don’t know.
What I do know is that I ask students questions that require higher level thinking – evaluation, synthesis, etc. – and few of them answer. I am careful to start with the lower level questions – recall, understanding, etc. – so that I “scaffold,” an education term for making sure all the pieces are understood by the students so that they are in a position to answer the question. And…you know…they just don’t. Largely. Even when they have registered enthusiasm for the topic in question. So it doesn’t seem to be apathy, at least not entirely.
I do believe that the system tends to numb kids, and dull their love of learning (I would get rid of grades K-8 at least, possibly even k-12 because I think it teaches kids that school is about getting points rather than learning and exploring). But I am inclined to think that teenagers, even bright teenagers, just mostly are not capable (or perhaps mature enough) to engage in critical thinking. There are some. Maybe 10% of the kids I have come through my classes. But most kids just want the answer, and want to parrot.
And this isn’t unique to our time.
I am just more and more inclined to believe that critical thinking just isn’t for everybody. I have a lot of friends who seem intelligent, but just aren’t interested in politics, or social issues, environmental issues etc. To them it’s just boring stuff, and both sides do it, and shut up about it already. That kind of thing. They just aren’t interested in engaging.
I don’t know. I just don’t know. But I tend to think the problem is that for the most part, humans just don’t want to struggle mentally, physically, or emotionally.
I think there is a solid reason for why we struggle with critical thinking. IMO over the years our ability to stay focused on a subject has become shorter and shorter caused by our own form of entertainment. I read an article some time ago in a Hollywood magazine that said the change in film sequences have gotten much shorter than the movies in the 40s and 50s. Meaning watching a movie then meant you stayed in a scene longer than today. Not too long ago my wife and I watched the HBO series “Big Little Lies” (highly recommended). Most scenes were short lived and the camera jumped from angle to angle and then to another subject-except one scene where Nicole Kidman is in a session with a marriage counselor. it lasted far longer than any of the other scenes. We saw this same scene with different people in our home and to a person the scene with the marriage counselor -where the camera does not change for a lengthy period of time-they became fidgety and some even said it was getting late and needed to go home, etc.
Anyway that’s my own personal research on this subject. But I know for so many people today they need quickness in their lives and to study a subject or even read an editorial takes much longer time than the quick fast paced entertainment we’re used to. We are becoming hard wired to answers that come to us quickly or we become bored and that’s not a good feeling. We want the simple quick answer to things. Its not a lack of intelligence but more an aversion to anything resembling detailed focus. We see it in smart phones, comedy shows, Fox news, IT stuff, big screen films, etc.
And we even see it in the President. (i.e. don’t give me an analysis-just give me the answer) As our internet technology increasingly invades our private lives we seem to be losing our ability to delve into something to truly understand it. How many students in law school actually read the cases as opposed to a shortened cliff note summary. How many people find joy in simply going to a library.
No I don’t think its our educational system. Out attention span has simply lost its appeal. IMO we have become wired by technology to boredom when it comes to critical analysis. Who wants to “work” at analysis?
waterfieldParticipant“Identifying with a political brand?”
I often wonder what is it about being a Republican that resonates with so many white, uneducated, men in their 50s-70s. In a large part I believe it’s the “manly man” syndrome. Republicans just seem to have that tough guy image and that appeals to older uneducated white men rather than younger educated white males. It also has an increasing appeal to the Hispanic male -but not to the African American male as much. Why is the macho image more important to a Hispanic male and white uneducated older males than to an African American male? And why are there seemingly more and more white uneducated women who are attracted to this image of being “tough” ? (I know a few and they are the most dangerous in their enormous 4 WD trucks, rabid football fans-Steeler fans predominately-and “come a packin” (lol). Football is the ultimate macho sport and I’m betting that a huge majority of rabid football fans-men and women-are Republicans-much more than baseball and basketball.
Forget about urban intellectuals-America is back ! Back to the time of the tough cowboys !
waterfieldParticipantYes-what I meant is that when it comes to this particular issue the Republicans will always default to economics.
waterfieldParticipantHappy Birthday!
You’re still young. I just turned 55 on Friday. Now THAT’S old.
I know one thing–the body requires more maintenance when you get older. I’ve headed back to the gym the last few weeks. I’m tracking my food. When I do that I do at least feel better. Maybe not especially younger–but better.
Let’s hope the Rams don’t age us anymore this year.
You think THAT’S old? Try…never mind.
waterfieldParticipantI love Ted Talk. Really enjoy just about everything I hear on it.
waterfieldParticipantI’m not sure about that. Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral because of 3 important states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Because of the rust belt factor with loss of jobs, etc I don’t think Sanders message would have appealed to those people. He would have won the same states as Clinton and maybe by wider margins but that would not have mattered.
Sanders would have beaten Trump, according to the poll numbers…and that includes in the states you name.
.
You could be right. But remember the “poll numbers” had Clinton winning -and yes in those very same states. So from an electoral standpoint I think the result would have been precisely the same. IMO people don’t like to overtly(responding to a poll) identify with a snake oil salesman but in private quarters (voting booth) all bets are off.
waterfieldParticipantI’m not sure about that. Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral because of 3 important states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Because of the rust belt factor with loss of jobs, etc I don’t think Sanders message would have appealed to those people. He would have won the same states as Clinton and maybe by wider margins but that would not have mattered.
waterfieldParticipantMy present dog (Pepper) is a moderate democrat. My previous one (Casey -the one with Prozac) was a racist right wing nut job who would bite anyone of color-including the two polynesian tree cutters. I ask her about Trump but she won’t say anything. Truth be told it’s primarily a one way conversation.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by
waterfield.
waterfieldParticipantI had a dog once who took Prozac. Didn’t help. Continued to chase down people and try and eat them.
May 19, 2017 at 2:22 pm in reply to: Right Builds an Alternative Narrative About the Crises Around Trump #69057waterfieldParticipant“I get the impression you dont really care about it, or the fact that they are undemocratic and are unaccountable.”
You are not the privileged one to only know about the stuff this agency has done. I know as much as you do and many others do as well. My opinion is that notwithstanding the stuff that we find hard to digest this country still needs it in the same manner we need the NSA and the FBI.
Depending upon the CIA director and the attitudes of whomever happens to be the U.S. President (or in GW’s case, VP Cheney who had his own CIA within the CIA without informing Congress), the CIA does play a vital role in keeping the U.S. safe, but in some areas has been evil or poorly used. We don’t always get to choose our bedfellows.
May 19, 2017 at 1:06 pm in reply to: Right Builds an Alternative Narrative About the Crises Around Trump #69051waterfieldParticipantI don’t think there is a “conspiracy,” either. And I doubt very much that everybody in Intel is anti-Trump.
It is clear he has offended them.
=================
I suspect it is more than just ‘he offended’ them. It could be that. But that makes them seem awfully…thin skinned. I have NO idea what the truth is, but it could be more than just ‘personal offense taken’. It could be a deep-state-policy thing.
I dont think we will ever know.
As far as the word ‘conspiracy’ — we are dealing with a secret society, a secret culture, a secret organization — the CIA. So, i dont even know how to leave out the term ‘conspiracy’, or how to even talk about them.
I see it as a pathological organization. Doesnt matter (to me) if a few of them are ‘good people’ or fighting for a less-monstrous-organization. Its no different than Monsanto or Blackwater. I see them as pathological. Reflections of a pathological system in general. I see them the way Smedley Butler saw the powers-that-be.
Again, no ‘heat’ here. I’m just talkin calmly. No big thing.
My views have darkened since about the beginning of the election cycle. Partly because of what i saw the Dems do to Bernie. Partly because of what the corporate media has become — its much worse now than ever. Its essentially nothing but propaganda now. The CIA disgusts me.
w
v“we are dealing with a secret society, a secret culture, a secret organization — the CIA. ”
What I don’t get is this: if in fact they are a secret organization, culture and society-how do you know so much about them that you hate them as passionate as you do? They just can’t be all that secret for you and others to obtain information on the bad stuff they do.
waterfieldParticipantMore on how Trump supporters see this thing: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/trump-scandal-conservatives-media.html?emc=edit_th_20170518&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=66806393&_r=0&referer
They have a completely alternative reality going, and there is no way to change that. I think we need to be clear about that. We aren’t going to change the minds of those people who have been brainwashed. Our only hope is to change the minds of people who have been apathetic about politics. Those are the potentially persuadable people.
When I was much younger and fairly apathetic about politics I became enamored with JFK. His intelligence, attractiveness, personality, etc. From that point forward I have been given to politics in the form of campaigns, various committees, and so on. I suspect we need someone like that who can-as you wrote- “change the minds” of those uninterested in politics. After all Trump has the personality that turned on a whole lot more people than I ever could imagine. So-we can philosophize about socialism, capitalism, conservatism,liberalism, progressive, etc but to get people out to vote you need “star” quality-and unfortunately Trump had that. Hopefully that future star will have fundamental core beliefs that are far different than the little boy who now is the most powerful leader in the world.
waterfieldParticipantI don’t care if he gets convicted or not. I want the entire Republican deconstruction of the government snarled up in traffic. I want him stopped. I want the Republican party to catch fire, and voters to be so disgusted with them that 2018 changes the direction of the country.
And there is a lot more here than just the possibility of criminal collusion with Russia. I mean…I think we already have obstruction of justice. How can we not? Trump pressured Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn, and then came out on TV and flat out said he fired Comey because of the Trump/Russia stuff. That is already enough to impeach Trump, and so that is a matter of due process. The Mueller investigation means this isn’t going away. And I believe we have hit the tipping point now that I’ve long expected where the benefits of having Trump in the WH (tax cuts, shredding the Big Government, etc) are from now on going to be outweighed by the collateral damage to the GOP. They are screwed. The only question is how long will it take for them to come to terms with that. IMO, from a GOP point of view, “If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done quickly.” They should fry the guy, and go with Pence ASAP.
My hope is they don’t act quickly because imo an ineffective Trump white house under investigation is preferable to a Mike Pence administration which could right the ship and swiftly enact all kinds of painful legislation.
Additionally, there are all kinds of other questions that are going to be vented by both the House and Senate. And I think they are going to eventually appoint an independent counsel which is different from what I understand. Mueller can only investigate what has already happened, but an independent counsel would be investigating what happened with an eye for making changes for the future. So we are now going to investigate what external influences there were on this election and prepare for cyber attacks in future election cycles.
In short, this is a big can of worms, and criminal conviction isn’t necessary as far as I am concerned. I want to see the fire spread throughout the GOP, and the knives to come out, and the GOP to suffer an internal war, and heads to roll.
Well-as I see it-unless there is-or are-criminal convictions the public -besides people like you and me-are not going to jump the Trump ship-as long as the economy continues to grow under his administration-which it has been. With few exceptions (i.e. crimes committed) it’s always about the economy. Good or bad its how we are wired. And if Mueller’s investigation shows no criminality then that will only beholden these idiots. I do hold out hope that your scenario comes to bear but I’m nowhere near as assured as you are.
waterfieldParticipantP.S. Even if no “crime” by the President is discovered there is always the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
waterfieldParticipantWhile I admire and agree with the appointment of a special counsel(i.e. prosecutor)and especially appointing Robert Mueller the problem is he is charged with determining if any crimes were committed be it by the President or others. It will be a secret process that could end up in two words: “No crimes”. And “no indictment.” Nothing will have been learned as to what really happened that would reflect on the competency of the President and his ability to lead this country. Simply put no matter how credible and respected Mueller is his job is narrow as a special prosecutor. What is still needed is an “independent investigation” into issues that may not rise to the level of criminality but nevertheless reflect on how dangerous this administration is acting and needs to be held accountable for -either at the polls or by impeachment or by resignation.
Well, I don’t understand that. I saw the letter (can’t find it now), and it appeared to give him a mandate to investigate the connection to Russia, and anything else that comes up in that investigation, and I would think that he would have a tough time concealing any findings even if he wanted to do so. Don’t you think that findings will make their way into the public? And Schiff said that the House and Senate are both going to continue their investigations, so I don’t see how Trump gets away with this. It’s likely a matter of time, and anything he steps in from now on will only compound the urgency to do something about him.
McConnell looked like he was going to his own execution today as he dodged reporters. I think we’ve finally hit the tipping point.
I will add, btw, that I doubt there was direct collusion with Russia. Why would Putin let Trump in the loop of what he was doing? I’m sure they talked, and discussed mutual interests and possibilities, but I can’t see why Putin would reveal tactics to Trump or his camp.
Yes-he can investigate the “connection to Russia” but only to the extent that criminal activity may have been committed. A connection with Russia is not a crime nor is the President giving to them secret information that was given to him by Israel a crime. And by law his investigation is secret and we will not be privileged to know what is discovered unless he finds that crimes have been committed. The best bet to discover information the public can know about is the congressional hearings on the subject. But that presents a problem that was exposed in the Iran/Contra hearings. The congressional hearings provided North with immunity to testify before Congress. However the DOJ did not and when they obtained a conviction it was overturned by the Appeals Court because in their view immunity trumps conviction. Congressional hearings are always interested in providing immunity whereas the DOJ is not unless it is critical for a conviction.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
