Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
waterfieldParticipantThere are most certainly some differences. At least in my wife’s opinion. Her non scientific observations are from years of being an educator from young children all the way through high school at both the teaching and administrative level and now as an advocate for parents who have children with special needs. One difference being-and its significant-is that young adolescent girls begin to mature earlier than boys in their own age groups.
waterfieldParticipantNot sure I get the “BTW, I never buy the “I am all nicely in the middle against the extremes” part -especially the “I am all nicely” stuff. That seems more like a personal attack on someone (me) who has never said I am better than anyone. I’m just a centrist. That’s all. Not more “nice” than anyone. Maybe I could say “BTW, I never buy the “I am all nicely progressive against the middle” . But I haven’t done that because I don’t care to make this stuff personal against anyone. And of course your quote was meant for me since I’m the only one here who claims to be a moderate middle of the road centrist type of guy. That stuff pisses me off.
I’m done-we shall see how this plays out.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 8 months ago by
waterfield.
waterfieldParticipant“It’s a bad establishment, and getting worse.There are people who are situated so they never have to suffer from it, and I suppose they are either blind to it, or bland about it.”
But this is exactly a perfect description as to what is happening to the GOP as we speak. Personally, I think that Trump or Cruz is far worse that a mainstream democrat. The word “evil” comes to mind thinking of them as President. Hillary is a politician and tough as nails in the LBJ mode but I never think of her as being evil. If she becomes President she may well champion ideas -not necessarily legislation-that will piss off both the left and the right but if one of those other yahoos becomes President there will be actual injury to the disenfranchised and poor people in this country and other countries. And those on the right will all jump with joy.
waterfieldParticipantI doubt it. However, she will need to out bully him which she can do if she gets away from the “I have a plan” standard political speech. Note the absence of these words from Trump. And as these elections have shown so far we know how America loves rough, tough, beat em up bullies which should not surprise us football fans. And when it comes to orally beating the crap out of someone she is as good if not better than Trump. Now will she make a good President. Who the hell knows ?
As far as the emails goes I doubt if charges are ever brought there can be any conviction. There is a component in any criminal proceeding that requires an intent to knowingly break the law. And in the federal statutes at law this intent require goes further and requires an intent to injure or damage another. Simply put, acting negligently-which clearly she did-is not enough. Even gross negligence is insufficient. But is that enough to disqualify her for the office? IMO if you weigh the email stuff against her performance as New York senator and her performance as Secretary of State the former should not even be a consideration.
Now , looking at her performance in those offices, she clearly is a pragmatist and is part of the “establishment” which to many is anathema and should disqualify her from any political office. To those-I offer you Trump.
waterfieldParticipantYes-I agree with all that-with a caveat-Cruz is worse. While Trump comes off as a loud mouth nincompoop Cruz is a downright mean ass hole hiding behind god and country.
waterfieldParticipant“I can imagine a world
without mega-corporate money in politics.”I cannot. I’m a centrist-whatever that means-because in my opinion they get stuff done more often than those who are at loggerheads with the other side of the aisle. I can think of a hundred other examples of where the “pragmatic” approach resulted in social and economic progress- but I’ve beaten my drum too long on this subject. My suggestion is that if its between Trump and Clinton you take Chomsky’s advice:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192
waterfieldParticipant“Now, name a ‘pragmatist’ since the 40s who has made fundamental progress stemming the tide of Corporate-Power.”
Its interesting-and telling-that you discount some of the greatest achievements this country has ever accomplished by pragmatic leaders simply because they occurred before you were born. Particularly when you stated flatly that pragmatic leaders cannot make changes. Maybe you meant today? Well here’s a brief list of those “changes” made by a recent leader that were all opposed by the corporate controlled republican party:
Under the Affordable Care Act this country now has -for the first time ever-less than 10% of its population uninsured. More than 17.6 million people now have coverage that did not before. (of course you will say a “real” change would be universal single payer system-but that does not discount the comparative data)
The Iran Nuclear Deal-opposed by all corporate interests
The establishment of US Cuba relations-opposed by some but not all corporate interests
The trade deal with 12 Pacific Rim Countries.
Same Sex Marriage.
When you argue that I will say corporations do good-yes-I believe there is a symbiotic relationship between corporate greed and societal progress. Its been that way and will always be that way as long as the system of capitalism is in place-which it will be. Hitler was defeated in large part because of our own corporate greed. So was the defeat of Polio. The Koch brothers contribute mightily to MD Anderson the leading cancer research hospital in the US> We both love and enjoy our Rams-owned by one of the largest corporate conglomerates in the world. I believe you are a court appointed attorney supported by tax dollars from people likely employed by large corporations. There is always a thread. Its symbiotic.
Citizens United ? Lets look at the Michigan irony. Sanders wins because of the tremendous support from UAW. Yet labor unions benefited every much as corporations from that decision in terms of their ability to provide financial support to the candidate of their choice. So while Sanders-and to be honest Clinton too-rail against Citizens United he carries the UAW vote to victory.
At bottom for me is that-as you agreed-we have made considerable progress on social issues in this country due to the work of pragmatist leaders -but we have also suffered from corporate greed. But until we no longer are under a capitalistic system the good guys and the bad guys will do battle and out of it will be victories and losses. And I can assure you the victories will be on the shoulders of the pragmatist-and not on political anarchy.
Maybe you and I should stick to discussing surfing.
waterfieldParticipantHowever, you countered that “being in the middle” is in fact an ideology-something you claim I deny. Hence my response. Nevertheless, clearly in sociological terms being pragmatic is not an ideology. And to answer you other question in terms of whether the hatred between republicans and democrats has “always been that way”. Well-not in my world. At least not until the last several years. Maybe our society is simply more vitriolic these days. More callous. More malicious. I don’t know-maybe this is a product of an internet generation where on boards like this you can say anything you want against another w/o fear of being punched in the face. Maybe its reality TV. Who knows-but in such an environment the bully becomes the most popular. Hence you get Trump.
I guess I ran off the subject. I’m tired.
waterfieldParticipantI think I enjoyed you more when you “went off”.
Seriously, my point was really an innocent one. It was and is my simple observation that people are being torn apart by the devise nature of today’s politics. I have friends who are republicans who no longer speak to their democratic friends because they are “anti america” and I know many of my democratic friends who genuinely believe all republicans are evil. I suppose my real point is a social science question: how did we get that way? Did this all begin with Goldwater,Vietnam ? When did serving in the government as a “politician” rank so low in the opinion of the general public? If you think I’m “conflating” the anger on the right with the anger on the left -well your wrong. I see the reasons are different. When you argue that “pragmatists” can’t get anything done I believe your wrong on that too. One of the greatest advancements in our country was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 accomplished by back door negotiations of one of the greatest pragmatic presidents of our time. WW 2 was brought to a conclusion by another pragmatist after our entry into the war by still another pragmatist saved Europe-and who also engineered us out of a depression and into the New Deal. Earl Warren, a republican-but a pragmatist-ushered into law Roe v Wade. These were not men on the far right or the far left. To the contrary those on the extremes of our politics are the ones who can’t accomplish much-for the simple reason there will always be the “push back” phenomenon.
waterfieldParticipantIf being pragmatic is an “ideology” then I’m guilty as sin.
waterfieldParticipant“The people have had enough of the politics as usual.”
But why? And what exactly do they want instead?
March 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm in reply to: Man Who Assaulted Black Woman At Trump Rally Learns It Ruined His Life #40150waterfieldParticipantIn terms of competence Clinton was a top notch state senator and actually won me over on her performance as Secretary of State. Between her and Trump I won’t be holding my nose.
waterfieldParticipantBill Maher believes he is the closest thing to Hitler that this country has ever seen. If so its no wonder he is so popular. How sad and frightening.
waterfieldParticipantNo thanks.
Here is an article on Guadalupe Island-known for the Great Whites and where I did a cage dive. The diver mentioned in the article who was killed by a white shark there was an acquaintance of mine. While some may find it a unique place to dive I find it downright scary. Call me timid-that’s fine.
http://www.alertdiver.com/Isla_Guadalupe_Beyond_the_Shark_Cage
waterfieldParticipantThe email fiasco was the very subject of the hearings and not only did she hold her own but she made the republicans look like asses. $225,000 dough from Wall street for a speech? I ain’t refusing that either. Flaws? We all got em.
What it all comes down to for me is Trump v Clinton. To me the choice is clear. To many others there is no difference in the choices. So be it.
waterfieldParticipantPersonally? I think Clinton holds her own against a bully like Trump. She proved that to me in those congressional hearings when she faced off against a bunch of bullies. In a word she’s got balls and is tough if not tougher than Trump. While my personal values are much closer to Sanders I don’t see him standing a chance against the bully.
And, in the general election, I would never vote for Trump to make a “statement”. We tried that with Nader and ended up with Bush which led to Al Qaeda which led to ISIS which led to…
waterfieldParticipantYour likely to find it “non-scary”. That was my experience-and these were big guys-if you recall the video. But again that was in relatively warm water off Guadalupe Island in the Pacific. Not sure how much fun it would be in the cold Atlantic. There were a few people on our boat that never did get into the cage but once your underwater the surface noise is gone and it really is peaceful. And those sharks are sooooo graceful. They are marvelous creatures. But if you recall in that video there was one trouble spot. That was near the end when some “newcomers” were in the cage and one of the great whites got caught up in the lines between the cage and the boat’s swim step. When these guys got out of the cage they were as white as a sheet. And of course that did it for those who were hesitant to begin with.
waterfieldParticipant“Have you ever been in the water with sharks?”
Many times-especially in the Indian Ocean and the Coral Sea. The only times where you are concerned is after spearing a big fish that bleeds a lot. But they usually just pay attention to the dying fish. The bad guys are the Tiger sharks and the Great Whites. The Tigers are in warm waters while the Great Whites are in colder waters. Never been around a Tiger but been in the water when others have seen them. I have been in the water with Great Whites but only in a cage. Ironically a very peaceful and serene experience. Not frightening at all. But I would never venture outside the cage. That’s nonsense.
You mentioned Mavericks. I’ve been there-but had just recovered from hip replacement and was on crutches. I hiked up the hill to get a view during a contest. Not much to see as the breaks are so far out. That’s the problem with big wave surfing. Unless your on a nearby boat the “spectatorship” is not too good.
waterfieldParticipantAn article on Scalia’s belief in the “originalism” approach to the Constitution and its meaning.
waterfieldParticipantAn article discussing what we discussed yesterday: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-politicized-20160216-story.html
waterfieldParticipantI saw Michael Tigar speak at a California Attorneys for Criminal Justice seminar many years ago. Impressive person.
waterfieldParticipantGo figure-huh? Remember Eisenhower, a republican placed Earl Warren, the father of a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, on the Court. Kennedy, a Republican, wrote the gay marriage decision. Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act. See the article I posted above in response to a WV post addressing Scalia’s ardent support of the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings.
We can only hope that jurists will leave their political beliefs at home and make decisions that are consistent with their interpretation of how the Constitution should be interpreted either as an “originalist” or as a living and breathing organism that will flow with the times. (Earl Warren)
A classic example is the Citizen’s United case. To me the decision goes against everything I believe in from a “personal” and “political” standpoint. But as a lawyer I do understand the “legal” principals behind the decision. Sometimes the law does an injustice to many but it still is the law-until it isn’t.
waterfieldParticipantAs a criminal defense lawyer I’m surprise at your opinion of Scalia. His “originalism” belief in the constitution actually joined and authored several decisions that gave protection to the accused. Even if he had to hold his nose at the same time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0
waterfieldParticipantYes
waterfieldParticipantOver the years the president’s nominee has normally focused on finding someone that both parties can accept. One strategy now would be for Obama to nominate a very liberal judge which then forces the Republicans to reconsider their stalemate on the chance that Clinton-or Sanders win and their stuck with the worst case scenario.
waterfieldParticipantTrump is essentially an unknown. But if it’s between Clinton and Cruz-which it may come down to-and knowing a little about your ideals-which I share many-I guarantee you after a year of a Cruz Presidency you will wish Ms. Clinton was there instead-by a long shot.
Scalia died today. I doubt Obama can push through a justice. In fact I will be shocked if he does. Not this Congress.
waterfieldParticipantMack: I get the love for Bernie. I do. Of all those running for President -Republicans and Democrats-he would be the only one I would ever invite over for drinks and dinner. He is so genuine and loveable he would be a wonderful guest and conversationalist. OTOH I would not have wanted LBJ as a dinner guest since I wouldn’t know what he was saying was truth or not. But in times of crisis I would want him to lead as opposed to Sanders. But I do get the lover for the latter. I share it.
waterfieldParticipantI don’t question the “validity” of his message. It’s my message as well. However I believe he is a one pony show. I’m no Clinton fan but his all reminds me of Nader’s run that put you know who in office which led to the outbreak of terrorism throughout the world following the downfall of Hussain. I hear nothing from Sanders on this other than he never voted for the war. Fine but what does he intend on doing NOW if he’s President. My question is the same as it was to my Nader friends -would you rather have Gore as president or George W.? Today it’s would you rather have Clinton or Trump/Cruz ? That’s a far different question than who do you like from all the candidates.
waterfieldParticipantThat Ross-Kessler quote is very special -to me. Thx for posting it.
waterfieldParticipantSanders supplies me with answers to the question what would you like to see as a goal but gives me nothing when the follow up question is “how would you do that”. I would not bet my mortgage on him as the nominee since NH is essentially an all-white state. When you add in the minority (blacks and latinos) into Clinton’s camp she is still the favorite. I don’t see that group of people running towards Sanders.
As far as WV’s question my opinion is that Nader’s true focus was on the environment while Sanders is on the economy and battling the 1%. I think most people are more concerned about the latter than the former-or at least put it at the top of priorities.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 8 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
