POLITICAL THREAD

[vhcat70]

If true, it's ova.

View embedded media

Yea, Dems couldn't vote against a dying veteran. Just watch them.

 

[vhcat70]

View embedded media

Really, anyone could listen to people who let their hormones run their lives? Quite scary.

 

[vhcat70]

View embedded media

Enjoyed BK rubbing his Catholicism in Libs noses in his speech. Guy admits he worships God. Who can have that in the SC?

 

[WKBlu]

 

[vhcat70]

The Democratic Party left me behind — and I'm not alone

I am a Democrat who has spent the last two years often criticizing my own party and fellow Democrats.

Yeah, I’m a bad Democrat, I know.

I have friends and readers asking me, “Are you still a liberal?” and “Have you changed parties?” and “Why are you seemingly defending Trump?”

I’ve been a loyal Democrat for about 15 years. As someone who became a citizen in 2006, I became a Democrat during the George W. Bush years, because I liked the party’s anti-war, pro-minority, pro-environment, pro-little guy positions.

But the 2016 election was an eye-opener for me. To use the current political jargon, I became “woke,” in some very different ways, and I got “red-pilled.”

The Democratic Party and its followers have left me for many reasons, but here are a few examples:

• The party and its followers have been showing illiberal tendencies for some time.
• It has gone off the rails on immigration, free speech, identity politics and some other issues — a topic I’ll defer for another day.
• I’m no Trump supporter, but I’ve been horrified and repulsed by the political and cultural left’s hatred, demonization and mistreatment of President Trump, his family, his administration officials and his voters, which is even worse (if that’s possible) than what the right did to President Obama.

I view the current political climate both as a citizen and a writer.

As a citizen, I see myself more as a political orphan — neither Democrat or Republican.

For an opinion writer, self-identifying as a Democrat (or Republican) can be constricting. It can consciously or unconsciously make you hew to positions, make you defend the indefensible. It can give you cognitive dissonance.

For example: Defending Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the Democratic Party’s current far-left stance on immigration would’ve required me to be dishonest about my views or to contort my opinions into impossible positions.

I see myself as a political independent these days, who’ll opine based on what she sees and thinks, not along party lines.

For what it’s worth, renegades like me are like that canary in the coal mine: We’re trying to warn Democrats when they’re tone-deaf or still don’t get it.

So just why is she still a Dem?

 

[vhcat70]

I am no fan of Mitch McConnell because I think he is the biggest bull gator in the Swamp BUT, I would like to thank him for saving the Supreme Court. The thought of Hillary Clinton making Supreme Court picks would put a sane person over the edge.

Love bit bull gators. Trump is biggest of all-time. He's just not in the swamp.

 

[vhcat70]

Wonder how long till some made up #metoo nonsense rears its head? The lefts favorite ploy



Same. History won't do that move justice. By all indications it was an insane gamble, but trump pulled it off and the move influenced the court and therefore the nation forever.

No, McConnell pulled it off.

 

[sefus12]

Really, anyone could listen to people who let their hormones run their lives? Quite scary.

I find the utter lunacy of the unhinged left as hilarious as the next person, but I have to admit there's a part of it that downright scares me.

There's a large group of people, youth and adults alike, they 100% believe whatever the MSM force-feeds them and does in fact let their emotions drive all their decisions and opinions. Facts, logic, common sense..... none of that matters. They are literal emotional zombies who's only reaction is to throw some sort of tantrum and call people names when things don't go their way.

Just look at the reactions last night. The left was going nuts before a nominee was even named. It's not about reason, it's about emotion. And even worse is that a big chunk of this faction would gladly watch the US burn if it meant they could say "see, Trump was wrong about this".

I don't know if it can be fixed, but it is a bit scary. Group think is terrifying (once you get past laughing at the vagina hats, unhinged crying, screaming in the air, and seeing the sad excuses for men in said faction).

 

[WKBlu]

ABC newsroom already had deemed the Trump pick controversial hours before they even knew who it was

 

[bigblueinsanity]

No, McConnell pulled it off.

I meant trump pulled off the win which made the gamble paid off. If trump doesn't win, the gamble turns out a huge loss as Hillary likely nominates a more liberal justice than Obama's (can't recall his name ATM).

I can see how that was confusing. I wasn't as clear as I should have been

 

[moe_schmoe]

 

[KingOfBBN]

So true.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

US, Afghan Special Forces Capture IS De Facto Capital in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON / NANGARHAR PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN — U.S. and Afghan Special Forces on Sunday captured Islamic State's de facto caliphate capital in eastern Nangarhar province of Afghanistan.

This is where they dropped the MOAB and important part of the OBOR.

Also from the article:
"Russians, Chechens, Tajikistanis, Uzbekistanis, Arabs and mostly Pakistanis are among the IS militants fighting in eastern Nangarhar province," Ghorzang added

 

[moe_schmoe]

So just why is she still a Dem?

Umm...

As a citizen, I see myself more as a political orphan — neither Democrat or Republican.

I see myself as a political independent these days, who’ll opine based on what she sees and thinks, not along party lines.

 

[Bill - Shy Cat]

All soccer team and coach have been rescued by Thai Seal Team. Congrats on a successful mission accomplished!

Begs the question, “Does Ethiopia have a Seal Team?”

 

[bigbluefattycat]

The Democratic Party left me behind — and I'm not alone.[/I]

Left out of the post is this quote that I agree with:

"The real divisions, as I see it, aren’t between Democrats and Republicans, but between the political and corporate ruling class and the national media establishments that support them, on the one hand, and the rest of us. All the other divisions are less consequential."

All the other divisions are inflamed by this board and the establishment to keep us away from the bankers who control the corporations and media that control the politicians. Keep us fighting among ourselves why they continue to enslave us with debt. End the FED should be our goal in my opinion.

 

[moe_schmoe]

The Anti-Trump Conservative Firing Circle Is Wildly Out Of Touch With The American Electorate

Cosmopolitan conservatives have mistaken their outsized visibility in the media for indispensability to the conservative cause. The prevailing opinion among them during the election was not just that Trump was going to lose, but that he was going to deliver an historic defeat to the Republican Party.

In summer 2016, I became a traitor to my clan, breaking with this consensus and publicly supporting Trump. Some of my associates let me know they considered my move morally indefensible. It soon became obvious that they saw themselves as valiant knights manning the ramparts on the citadel of true conservatism, guarding the one true creed until Trump self-destructed.

After the debacle, the party would rebuild, and they would serve as the vanguard of renewal. They would be the ones to decide who would gain admission back into the citadel and who would wander forever in purgatory, repenting and pleading for readmission into the company of the good and responsible intellectual leaders of the conservative movement.

But Donald Trump won. Trump, it turned out, read the conservative electorate much more accurately than the finest minds in Republican punditry did. He identified immigration, drugs, unemployment, and, yes, religious liberty as key issues that the media, the Democrats, and, to a certain extent, the Republican Party establishment were ignoring or downplaying. He wove his blunt positions on these issues into an ideology of populist nationalism.

The conservative cosmopolitans refuse to credit this achievement. Instead, they recoil at Trump’s ideology and continue to serve as the self-appointed guardians of the conservative citadel.

 

[moe_schmoe]

 

[KingOfBBN]

The Anti-Trump Conservative Firing Circle Is Wildly Out Of Touch With The American Electorate

Cosmopolitan conservatives have mistaken their outsized visibility in the media for indispensability to the conservative cause. The prevailing opinion among them during the election was not just that Trump was going to lose, but that he was going to deliver an historic defeat to the Republican Party.

In summer 2016, I became a traitor to my clan, breaking with this consensus and publicly supporting Trump. Some of my associates let me know they considered my move morally indefensible. It soon became obvious that they saw themselves as valiant knights manning the ramparts on the citadel of true conservatism, guarding the one true creed until Trump self-destructed.

After the debacle, the party would rebuild, and they would serve as the vanguard of renewal. They would be the ones to decide who would gain admission back into the citadel and who would wander forever in purgatory, repenting and pleading for readmission into the company of the good and responsible intellectual leaders of the conservative movement.

But Donald Trump won. Trump, it turned out, read the conservative electorate much more accurately than the finest minds in Republican punditry did. He identified immigration, drugs, unemployment, and, yes, religious liberty as key issues that the media, the Democrats, and, to a certain extent, the Republican Party establishment were ignoring or downplaying. He wove his blunt positions on these issues into an ideology of populist nationalism.

The conservative cosmopolitans refuse to credit this achievement. Instead, they recoil at Trump’s ideology and continue to serve as the self-appointed guardians of the conservative citadel.

Dead on. Trump was the only one who had the balls to take on illegal immigration while the others were convinced they had to compromise to have a shot.
Simply put, never Trumpers are the worst for a variety of reasons. Their solution was to let Democrats win out of some ridiculous spite or desire to keep the status quo because "that's the way things are." Those types look an awfully lot like Democrats. How they could not see how important the SCOTUS was is why no one should ever listen to these people.

Those people are the reason we got Obama. Their ideal picks were two Dem-lite guys who didn't fire up the base at all and we watched as spineless Republicans refused to stand up to Democrats and their media and were just going to accept us losing the country and change. We, the American people, said, "Eff that" and put in a bulldog as if he was a stick of dynamite. Who could have guessed that a crass New York billionaire was more in touch with conservative voters than any of these establishment dickheads?

 

[Pelosigalore]

View embedded media

I’m so happy that the Rs sacked up on blocking that dude.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Modern journalism.

 

[Tskware]

Judge Kavanaugh: Interpretive Principles as a Way of Life

One of the clearest windows into what drives Judge Kavanaugh as a jurist came during his speech at the Antonin Scalia Law School some time before I joined the faculty. He spoke of Justice Scalia as a role model, praising his courage to stand up to pressure from all sides and interpret the law as it is written:

What did Justice Scalia stand for as a judge? It’s not complicated, but it is profound and worth repeating often. The judge’s job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution. Don’t shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is for the amendment process. Changing policy within constitutional bounds is for the legislatures. Remember that the structure of the Constitution – the separation of powers and federalism – are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are at least as essential to protecting individual liberty as the individual rights guaranteed in that text. And remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits. Simple but profound.
​

In a time when folks on all sides seem to debate the meaning of judicial restraint, wondering how to read the tea leaves on prospective Supreme Court nominees, Judge Kavanaugh has explained his understanding of the proper role of the judge: It is not to be deferential or practice “restraint” for its own sake. Rather, the role of the judge in cases and controversies is to find against government action where it veers from the statutory and constitutional text but then defer to the other branches where the Constitution leaves decisions up to them:

Was Justice Scalia a deferential judge who was reluctant to overturn the decisions of the legislature, the President, the agencies, the states? Or did he believe in a more aggressive role for the Judiciary in second-guessing those decisions? The answer of course is both. In constitutional disputes, Justice Scalia recognized that the courts have an essential role in aggressively protecting the individual rights actually spelled out in the Constitution...​

But on the flip side, courts have no legitimate role, Justice Scalia would say, in creating new rights not spelled out in the Constitution. On those issues, he believed in complete deference to the political branches and the states. Deference not for the sake of deference. But deference because the Constitution gave the Court no legitimate role in the case...​

Put simply, he was deferential when the Constitution and statutes called for deference. He was not deferential when they did not. Justice Scalia was an apostle of restraint and an apostle of engagement. He believed in the passive virtues, but he also believed in the active virtues. He understood that the role of the court was not to defer in all cases, nor to vote for the individual right in all cases. Whether to do so or not depended on the text and history of the constitutional provision in question.​

Judge Kavanaugh expounded further on statutory interpretation and the proper role of the statutory text in his Harvard Law Review book review of Second Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann’s work Judging Statutes. Judge Kavanaugh gave a clarion call for judges to form consensus around a narrowing of the concept of statutory ambiguity. Judge Kavanaugh pointed out that many of the interpretive doctrines through which judges often smuggle policy preferences into legal texts are doctrines of ambiguity where interpreters conclude the text does not answer the relevant interpretive question, leaving them free to apply the deference doctrine or values-based canon of their choice. He observed:

Statutory interpretation has improved dramatically over the last generation, thanks to the extraordinary influence of Justice Scalia. Statutory text matters much more than it once did. If the text is sufficiently clear, the text usually controls. The text of the law is the law. . . .

By emphasizing the centrality of the words of the statute, Justice Scalia brought about a massive and enduring change in American law. But more work remains. As Justice Scalia’s separate opinions in recent years suggest, certain aspects of statutory interpretation are still troubling. In my view, one primary problem stands out. Several substantive principles of interpretation — such as constitutional avoidance, use of legislative history, and Chevron — depend on an initial determination of whether a text is clear or ambiguous. But judges often cannot make that initial clarity versus ambiguity decision in a settled, principled, or evenhanded way.

The upshot is that judges sometimes decide (or appear to decide) high-profile and important statutory cases not by using settled, agreed upon rules of the road, but instead by selectively picking from among a wealth of canons of construction. Those decisions leave the bar and the public understandably skeptical that courts are really acting as neutral, impartial umpires in certain statutory interpretation cases.
​

He continued on to emphasize that “[t]he American rule of law . . . depends on neutral, impartial judges who say what the law is, not what the law should be”:

In my view, this goal is not merely personal preference but a constitutional mandate in a separation of powers system. Article I assigns Congress, along with the President, the power to make laws. Article III grants the courts the “judicial Power” to interpret those laws in individual “Cases” and “Controversies.” When courts apply doctrines that allow them to rewrite the laws (in effect), they are encroaching on the legislature’s Article I power.
​

Judge Kavanaugh was published again on interpretive theory in the Notre Dame Law Review in 2014. This time on constitutional interpretive theory. He “explain[ed] how the text of the Constitution creates a structure—a separation of powers—that protects liberty.” He emphasized that “one fact matters above all in constitutional interpretation and in understanding the grand sweep of constitutional jurisprudence—and that one factor is the precise wording of the constitutional text.” He then covered in depth the Founders’ development of the constitutional separation of powers, the role of the separate branches without our system of government, and the connection between this constitutional structure and the safeguarding of individual rights.


Among many other speeches and writings, Judge Kavanaugh also delivered the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at the Heritage Foundation in October 2017. During the speech he called on individuals to, “n the next few days, block out 30 minutes of time and read the text of the Constitution word for word.” He described the Constitution as a document of “majestic specificity”—one of the Judge’s insightful turns of phrase. And he then described how fidelity to the Constitution’s core structure impacts so many of the cases that have come before him and his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit:

If you were in my judicial chambers, you would hear me often saying to my clerks: “Every case is a separation of powers case.” And I believe that. “Who decides?” is the basic separation of powers question at the core of so many legal disputes.

And the bread and butter of our docket on the DC Circuit is interpretation of statutes, usually when deciding whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority or statutory limits. That question of policing the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches—our administrative law docket—constitutes one of the most critical separation of powers issues in American law. And the most important factor is the precise wording of the statutory text...
​

In the end, Judge Kavanaugh has indicated that for him it comes down to consistency with statutory text and, ultimately, the Constitution. The beauty of a judge with 12 years on the appeals court that stands at the front line of review of major administrative agency action and complex questions on governmental structure is that it is clear exactly where he stands. Not just on his judicial philosophy but also on his ability to persuade others to more closely follow the constitutional text. His consistent record of faithfulness to law, placing constitutional principle over policy, drives Judge Kavanaugh’s position as thought leader and faithful judge.

Sounds pretty solid to me.

 

[warrior-cat]

View embedded media

And people wonder why we were in the shape we were in until Trump arrived. These people are completely unhinged. Our country would have imploded with Hillary as president. Trump has momentarily stopped the destruction of the greatest country this planet has ever seen. Now, it is our job to ensure we keep it on the "Right" track.

 

[WKBlu]

 

[AustinTXCat]

nominated the Bush boyfriend. so much for the end of Roe V Wade. Trump played it safe and added another swing vote.

 

[AustinTXCat]

have you seen the massive plastic dumps in the oceans? the entire world should be against plastic straws. When the oceans die off from the trillions of microscopic plastic particles we will wish we had acted much sooner.

I'll 100% agree here. We really must get a good handle on plastic disposables. Speaking long-term, those products are extremely hazardous for our environment.

 

[KingOfBBN]

It's as if the Paddock is an advisor. lol

 

[KingOfBBN]

California university works to reduce number of white people on campus

 

[DSmith21]

For those lefties hoping that Kavanaugh isn't a strong conservative, I offer this projected ideological spectrum of the four finalists. As long a he is to the right of Roberts (who is still a pretty conservative justice), Trump made a great choice.

 

[Sawnee Cat]

For those lefties hoping that Kavanaugh isn't a strong conservative, I offer this projected ideological spectrum of the four finalists. As long a he is to the right of Roberts (who is still a pretty conservative justice), Trump made a great choice.

If Kavanaugh is to the right of Alito, I will take him and be thankful. I am not sure this is correct but we shall see. I pray it is

 

[WKBlu]

I'll 100% agree here. We really must get a good handle on plastic disposables. Speaking long-term, those products extremely hazardous for our environment.

I can get behind countless pro-environment policies including getting rid of plastic straws, what I object to the most is the US getting in these multi-national/world agreements that are non-binding and the US agrees to giving billions of dollars to ‘sh-t hole’ countries that are so rife with corruption there is zero chance most of those countries will even attempt to try to live up to it.

Russell Kirk was writing the 70s that a big aspect of environmentalism was wealth re-distribution from rich to poor countries. Bush was right to exit Kyoto and Trump was right to exit the Paris accord (although I think we are still obligated up to 2020). I want America to be a good steward of the environment. I’m sure there are some Trump EPA actions I would disagree with...but I’m 100 percent against America giving one dollar to another country for environmental purposes, especially in dumb non-binding agreements where each country sets their own goal.

 

[roguemocha]

I'll 100% agree here. We really must get a good handle on plastic disposables. Speaking long-term, those products are extremely hazardous for our environment.

Never going to “win” or agree with Left vs Right. We can all agree single use plastics are terrible and should mostly be done away with and straws are the easiest thing everyone can say no to.

 

[irishcat1965]

View embedded media

California university works to reduce number of white people on campus

I really wish California would become a separate country. The United States would be much better off. In 2016, while it is true California did pay 369 billion in federal taxes, it received $356 billion in Federal Aid. That way California could accept all the immigrants it wanted and become a socialist dumpster fire.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Hillary and Bill flying commercial. They’re just one of us. She’s running in 2020. The gifts just keeping on coming.

 

[cat_chaser]

Never going to “win” or agree with Left vs Right. We can all agree single use plastics are terrible and should mostly be done away with and straws are the easiest thing everyone can say no to.

Rogue - I'm with you on this. I know you are a Key West dude and my family and I vacation down there every year. I noticed this past year a lot of the bars/restaurants on the water had gone to the "paper" straws. I laughed at the notion at first, but they held up surprisingly well. My kids thought it was the coolest thing ever.

It's a sad sight when you are on the water/(man-made) beaches down there (or anywhere for that matter) and see a bunch of trash floating around and washed up. And knowing there are actual HUGE floating islands of trash in the ocean is simply depressing. I find that kind of pollution to be a much greater threat than green house gas pollution.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Bernie calling all of these people "right wing extremists" including one he even voted to confirm.

 

[WKBlu]

 

[irishcat1965]

I wonder if Chelsea is upset or happy Monica swallowed several of her siblings in the Oval Office.

 

[roguemocha]

Rogue - I'm with you on this. I know you are a Key West dude and my family and I vacation down there every year. I noticed this past year a lot of the bars/restaurants on the water had gone to the "paper" straws. I laughed at the notion at first, but they held up surprisingly well. My kids thought it was the coolest thing ever.

It's a sad sight when you are on the water/(man-made) beaches down there (or anywhere for that matter) and see a bunch of trash floating around and washed up. And knowing there are actual HUGE floating islands of trash in the ocean is simply depressing. I find that kind of pollution to be a much greater threat than green house gas pollution.

One of the bars I work at does metal straws for $1 and you can use it forever and take it with you to all the bars you ever go to again. Who needs a straw anyway? Pretty sure humans made it for 1000’s without them and now the USA throws away 500 million straws a day. Also, if you come down here just bring tumblers, we’ll fill them up for you with cocktails and not use any plastic.

 

[mdlUK.1]

I really wish California would become a separate country. The United States would be much better off. In 2016, while it is true California did pay 369 billion in federal taxes, it received $356 billion in Federal Aid. That way California could accept all the immigrants it wanted and become a socialist dumpster fire.

But then we’d have to build a wall around California to keep them from spreading.