unckeyherb
Footballguy
Seems arbitrary. There is a vacancy. Trump is president. She is highly qualified. What is the issue?
ETA it’s not 60 days. Trump is president until January.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
ETA it’s not 60 days. Trump is president until January.
timschochet
Footballguy
Obviously I meant until the election. In any case it’s not arbitrary to me. Not that it matters what I think, I’m simply offering my reasoning as to why, if I was a senator, I would vote against. But of course she will be confirmed.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I have liked Nancy Pelosi in recent years more than I have before then. She is in competition with Sam Rayburn as possibly our greatest Speaker; her accomplishments, particularly in these partisan times, have been enormous. She is likely to be revered as one of our most important and best politicians.
Yet she is not perfect and at times she can be deeply flawed. Today’s interview with Wolf Blitzer was...unfortunate. Taking a page out of Trump’s book, she refused to answer his question and blamed the media.
I wrote a few days ago that the Democrats shouldn’t play politics here, naturally they are. If they have a reason for not accepting President Trump’s compromise offer of 1.8 trillion, Nancy was unable to articulate it. What looks like reality is that Democrats and Republicans both are willing to let Americans suffer because both sides believe it will favor them come election time. That really pisses me off.
Yet she is not perfect and at times she can be deeply flawed. Today’s interview with Wolf Blitzer was...unfortunate. Taking a page out of Trump’s book, she refused to answer his question and blamed the media.
I wrote a few days ago that the Democrats shouldn’t play politics here, naturally they are. If they have a reason for not accepting President Trump’s compromise offer of 1.8 trillion, Nancy was unable to articulate it. What looks like reality is that Democrats and Republicans both are willing to let Americans suffer because both sides believe it will favor them come election time. That really pisses me off.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t really wish to comment on the Hunter Biden “story” except to point out that it’s not going to have any effect whatsoever on the election. And I will add a fervent wish that after Trump loses, both Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon will disappear into a well deserved oblivion, with no one paying attention to their nonsense again.
timschochet
Footballguy
Both Mnuchin and Trump continue to offer a better explanation of their position on the stimulus negotiations than Pelosi and the Democrats do, in my opinion anyhow:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/15/mnuchin-says-hell-give-ground-on-virus-testing-in-stimulus-negotiations-with-pelosi.html
It’s time to get this deal done. If it helps Trump get re-elected, I don’t care. Let’s have an agreement already.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/15/mnuchin-says-hell-give-ground-on-virus-testing-in-stimulus-negotiations-with-pelosi.html
It’s time to get this deal done. If it helps Trump get re-elected, I don’t care. Let’s have an agreement already.
gianmarco
Footballguy
I just figured I'd put this here for those opposed to abortion. This is what late-term abortion almost always looks like:Zow said:
Here is the mother's story from that article. I suggest you read it all the way through:
"I saw this article today about Senator Gary Peters and his abortion story. It reminded me why I am pro-choice and reminded me that people need to hear my story too. Some of you may have already heard my story, but I think it is a good reminder of how politics are used to control women's bodies and how everything isn't always what it seems on the surface.
4.5 years ago, I gave birth to my first born. Her name was Embree Eleanor Grammer. She was born via c-section on April 25, 2016. She weighed 4lbs 4oz. She was only 25 weeks gestation. She lived for approximately 20-30 minutes. She was born with a tumor that was roughly the size of a volleyball that was invading her body both externally and internally. It was sucking her blood supply, pushing her organs out of place, deforming her body, and overworking her heart. We found out about the tumor only 5 weeks prior. In that 5 weeks the tumor grew from about the size of a walnut to the volleyball. I grew along with it, from the tiny bump of a first time mom at 20 weeks to measuring the same as a pregnant woman who was roughly 36 weeks along. In 5 weeks.
That 5 weeks was the hardest 5 weeks of my life. We had sonograms twice weekly, traveled across the state to visit more specialists, and were told that essentially our sweet Embree would probably not make it. We had a choice to make. The state of Texas allows an abortion a time period after 20 weeks if the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or if the fetus has "abnormalities." We qualified for this. I have always been pro-choice, but I have never been pro-abortion for myself. While I agree that women have the right to do what is best for them, I myself wasn't ever planning on getting an abortion. I also had hope. Hope that Embree would be healed. Hope that the tumor would stop growing. So we chose to push on with the pregnancy, hoping that Embree would have a chance. I was counting down to the age of viability, just hoping that if I could keep Embree cooking until then, maybe.... just maybe, modern medicine and prayers could keep her alive.
We were not only closely monitoring Embree, but doctors were closely monitoring me. Even though Embree was still alive, she was not in good shape. She was developing Hydrops and I was at a risk of developing mirror syndrome. This would be life threatening to me if it fully developed. On April 22 I went to my second sonogram of the week and my doctors were concerned with the swelling in my feet. I was told that I had a decision to make. Not only was I starting to develop the beginnings of mirror syndrome, but we were 2 weeks away from 27 weeks. This was important because at 27 weeks, I would no longer be able to deliver Embree in Texas via c-section. Why? Because according to the law, by choosing to deliver Embree this early, I would be having an abortion. And while at 24.5 weeks I was still in the grey area of Texas Abortion law where I could deliver her, at 27 weeks I would not be. Surprised this is considered an abortion? Many are. Stay with me.
We decided to schedule our c-section for that Monday. I would be 25 weeks. We made it past the age of viability, but it was becoming obvious that she would not make it. We met with NICU doctors and they reviewed our case. They decided that they would not be attempting any life saving attempts on Embree after she was delivered. This meant officially, we were choosing to have an abortion. We were giving birth to our child early, knowing full well that she would not survive. This is what 'late term abortion' looks like. Catch that political buzz word? I will explain more below.
As you can imagine, this was the worst and longest weekend of our life. We knew that in 2 days we would be meeting our daughter and letting her go. But it gets so much worse. Again, this is considered an abortion. A late term abortion. The State of Texas, like most states who have a large majority who claim to be 'pro-life,' has many restrictions in place to prevent abortions from happening. Here is the thing about abortion legislation.... it doesn't differentiate between what we were going through and what the 'pro-life' groups think they are preventing. The laws in Texas stated that in order for us to give birth to Embree and have a chance to hold her while her soul still resided in her body, we had to do the following: 1. Our doctor had to apply for permission to perform the c-section from the state. This had to be done 24 hours before the surgery. We had to go to the hospital on the Saturday before we were to give birth, in the midst of our mourning, to sign a paper requesting an abortion. Put yourself in that situation. Forever, in the records of the State of Texas, there is a piece of paper that says that I aborted my precious Embree. 2. On top of filing this paperwork for us, our doctor also had to give me a pamphlet published by the State of Texas about the consequences of abortion. By law, she was required to give me a booklet that told me that if I had the abortion I would suffer from depression and anxiety for the rest of my life, have an increased risk of breast cancer, and possible be infertile in the future. Think I'm kidding? Have a look: https://hhs.texas.gov/.../women.../womans-right-to-know.pdf
If you consider yourself "pro-life" you are probably thinking something like, "yes but your situation was different. This isn't what I'm fighting against." Or maybe you're thinking "but I don't consider this abortion." Great. But the actual definition of abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." So while YOU might not consider what we went through to be an "abortion," it was. I had an abortion. I had a late-term abortion.
Why am I bringing this up? Why am I telling you this? Because when lawmakers and people fight to end 'abortion,' they are talking about this too. When you hear about 'late term abortions' taking place, THIS is what is happening. It's not women who have carried babies to full term and then just deciding to have an abortion. It is women and families who are devastated that they are in a situation in which they have to decide whether to let a child suffer in the womb, or end their suffering. 'Pro-life' laws are designed to make this process difficult. They are designed to put obstacles in place. This process is already difficult enough. Even women who are deciding to have an abortion at 8 weeks. It's already a hard decision so why are we allowing people to torture them too. Every time people talk about saving the babies and being pro-life, I cringe on the inside. Not because I don't want to save babies, but because I want to save babies. Save babies from suffering that they are made to endure because some man who has no medical training has decided that he knows women's bodies better than doctors. I cringe because I know as a survivor of these terrible 'pro-life' laws that these laws are being used to trick women in America to vote against their own interest in hopes that they are saving the unborn. I cringe every time I hear people call those who vote in favor of Pro-Choice laws... 'murderers,' because they are saying I murdered my Embree.
I chose to deliver Embree on April 25, 2016 via c-section. I chose late-term abortion. I did so because it was the only way I could hold my baby girl while she was still alive. It was the only way I could encounter her soul until we are together again in heaven. This is why I am Pro-choice. Remember Embree and I when you vote."
gianmarco
Footballguy
And here is the article about Michigan Senator Gary Peters:
United States Senator Gary Peters, a low-key, moderate Democrat from Michigan, is in a very tight re-election race that could decide whether his party wins the Senate. But he’s not the kind of guy who typically makes national headlines. He’s more known for being a dad who enjoys riding his motorcycle and drinking the local beer than he is for saying attention-grabbing things. So it may come as a surprise that with this story, he will become the first sitting senator in American history to publicly share a personal experience with abortion.
“It's a story of how gut-wrenching and complicated decisions can be related to reproductive health, a situation I went through with my first wife,” he told me in a phone interview Sunday afternoon.
In the late 1980s in Detroit, Peters and his then wife, Heidi, were pregnant with their second child, a baby they very much wanted. Heidi was four months along when her water broke, leaving the fetus without amniotic fluid—a condition it could not possibly survive. The doctor told the Peters to go home and wait for a miscarriage to happen naturally.
But it didn’t happen. They went back to the hospital the next day, and the doctor detected a faint heartbeat. He recommended an abortion, because the fetus still had no chance of survival, but it wasn’t an option due to a hospital policy banning the procedure. So he sent the couple again home to wait for a miscarriage. “The mental anguish someone goes through is intense,” Peters says, “trying to have a miscarriage for a child that was wanted.”
As they waited, Heidi’s health deteriorated. When she returned to the hospital on the third day, after another night without a natural miscarriage, the doctor told her the situation was dire. She could lose her uterus in a matter of hours if she wasn’t able to have an abortion, and if she became septic from the uterine infection, she could die.
"It’s important for folks to understand that these things happen to folks every day."
The doctor appealed to the hospital’s board for an exception to their anti-abortion policy and was denied. “I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying, ‘They refused to give me permission, not based on good medical practice, simply based on politics. I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly,’” Peters recalls.
The Peters were able to get into another hospital right away because they were friends with its chief administrator. Heidi was rushed into an emergency abortion that saved her uterus and possibly her life. The whole experience was “painful and traumatic,” Heidi shared in a statement. “If it weren’t for urgent and critical medical care, I could have lost my life.”
Reflecting on the experience now, Senator Peters says it “enacted an incredible emotional toll.” So why go public with it? “It’s important for folks to understand that these things happen to folks every day,” he explains. “I’ve always considered myself pro-choice and believe women should be able to make these decisions themselves, but when you live it in real life, you realize the significant impact it can have on a family.”
Peters decided to share the story at this moment because the right to make such decisions as a family, free of politics, has never been more at stake. He is alarmed by the threat President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, poses to women’s reproductive rights. The very conservative nominee once signed her name onto a newspaper ad calling Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, “barbaric.” If Republicans successfully confirm her to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, she could reverse legal abortion in America or significantly curtail it. “It’s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell them, especially now,” Peters says. “The new Supreme Court nominee could make a decision that will have major ramifications for reproductive health for women for decades to come. This is a pivotal moment for reproductive freedom.”
"It’s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell them, especially now. This is a pivotal moment for reproductive freedom."
It is also a pivotal moment for his campaign. With so much at stake for Peters in a purple state that narrowly broke for Trump in 2016, it is remarkably bold of him to go public with his own abortion story less than a month before the election. Three members of the House have gone public about having had abortions—California Representatives Barbara Lee and Jackie Speier, and Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington—but no sitting Senators.
Peters' stance on the issue couldn’t be more different from that of his Republican challenger, John James, who supports overturning Roe and has referred to abortion as “genocide.” James openly opposes abortion in nearly all circumstances, including cases of rape and incest, and he won’t say whether he supports allowing the procedure to save the life of the mother. National anti-abortion groups have endorsed James and poured money into his Senate campaign.
But abortion rights activists hope that Peters sharing his story will help put a human face on the sensitive and historically politicized issue, and in doing so, help them in the fight to protect Ginsburg’s legacy. "Senator Peters’s family is an example of countless stories across our nation of the injustice and harm that occurs when we allow politicians who know nothing about our lives to make decisions about our pregnancies,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL. “In breaking the silence, he not only gives voice to what's at stake, but he reminds us of our common humanity and quest for dignity and compassion when we fight for reproductive freedom for everybody.”
United States Senator Gary Peters, a low-key, moderate Democrat from Michigan, is in a very tight re-election race that could decide whether his party wins the Senate. But he’s not the kind of guy who typically makes national headlines. He’s more known for being a dad who enjoys riding his motorcycle and drinking the local beer than he is for saying attention-grabbing things. So it may come as a surprise that with this story, he will become the first sitting senator in American history to publicly share a personal experience with abortion.
“It's a story of how gut-wrenching and complicated decisions can be related to reproductive health, a situation I went through with my first wife,” he told me in a phone interview Sunday afternoon.
In the late 1980s in Detroit, Peters and his then wife, Heidi, were pregnant with their second child, a baby they very much wanted. Heidi was four months along when her water broke, leaving the fetus without amniotic fluid—a condition it could not possibly survive. The doctor told the Peters to go home and wait for a miscarriage to happen naturally.
But it didn’t happen. They went back to the hospital the next day, and the doctor detected a faint heartbeat. He recommended an abortion, because the fetus still had no chance of survival, but it wasn’t an option due to a hospital policy banning the procedure. So he sent the couple again home to wait for a miscarriage. “The mental anguish someone goes through is intense,” Peters says, “trying to have a miscarriage for a child that was wanted.”
As they waited, Heidi’s health deteriorated. When she returned to the hospital on the third day, after another night without a natural miscarriage, the doctor told her the situation was dire. She could lose her uterus in a matter of hours if she wasn’t able to have an abortion, and if she became septic from the uterine infection, she could die.
"It’s important for folks to understand that these things happen to folks every day."
The doctor appealed to the hospital’s board for an exception to their anti-abortion policy and was denied. “I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying, ‘They refused to give me permission, not based on good medical practice, simply based on politics. I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly,’” Peters recalls.
The Peters were able to get into another hospital right away because they were friends with its chief administrator. Heidi was rushed into an emergency abortion that saved her uterus and possibly her life. The whole experience was “painful and traumatic,” Heidi shared in a statement. “If it weren’t for urgent and critical medical care, I could have lost my life.”
Reflecting on the experience now, Senator Peters says it “enacted an incredible emotional toll.” So why go public with it? “It’s important for folks to understand that these things happen to folks every day,” he explains. “I’ve always considered myself pro-choice and believe women should be able to make these decisions themselves, but when you live it in real life, you realize the significant impact it can have on a family.”
Peters decided to share the story at this moment because the right to make such decisions as a family, free of politics, has never been more at stake. He is alarmed by the threat President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, poses to women’s reproductive rights. The very conservative nominee once signed her name onto a newspaper ad calling Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, “barbaric.” If Republicans successfully confirm her to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, she could reverse legal abortion in America or significantly curtail it. “It’s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell them, especially now,” Peters says. “The new Supreme Court nominee could make a decision that will have major ramifications for reproductive health for women for decades to come. This is a pivotal moment for reproductive freedom.”
"It’s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell them, especially now. This is a pivotal moment for reproductive freedom."
It is also a pivotal moment for his campaign. With so much at stake for Peters in a purple state that narrowly broke for Trump in 2016, it is remarkably bold of him to go public with his own abortion story less than a month before the election. Three members of the House have gone public about having had abortions—California Representatives Barbara Lee and Jackie Speier, and Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington—but no sitting Senators.
Peters' stance on the issue couldn’t be more different from that of his Republican challenger, John James, who supports overturning Roe and has referred to abortion as “genocide.” James openly opposes abortion in nearly all circumstances, including cases of rape and incest, and he won’t say whether he supports allowing the procedure to save the life of the mother. National anti-abortion groups have endorsed James and poured money into his Senate campaign.
But abortion rights activists hope that Peters sharing his story will help put a human face on the sensitive and historically politicized issue, and in doing so, help them in the fight to protect Ginsburg’s legacy. "Senator Peters’s family is an example of countless stories across our nation of the injustice and harm that occurs when we allow politicians who know nothing about our lives to make decisions about our pregnancies,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL. “In breaking the silence, he not only gives voice to what's at stake, but he reminds us of our common humanity and quest for dignity and compassion when we fight for reproductive freedom for everybody.”
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks @gianmarco.
In recent years all of the impetus on the abortion issue has come from the “pro-life” side. They’re the ones who have made the Supreme Court a priority issue for conservatives; for progressives it was generally a little lower on the totem poll, and this has had disastrous results- for instance, many progressives in 2016 refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton because they didn’t like her and/or preferred Bernie Sanders, completely ignoring the threat Donald Trump posed to the courts.
I believe that, after Kavanaugh and Barrett, that’s all changed.
In recent years all of the impetus on the abortion issue has come from the “pro-life” side. They’re the ones who have made the Supreme Court a priority issue for conservatives; for progressives it was generally a little lower on the totem poll, and this has had disastrous results- for instance, many progressives in 2016 refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton because they didn’t like her and/or preferred Bernie Sanders, completely ignoring the threat Donald Trump posed to the courts.
I believe that, after Kavanaugh and Barrett, that’s all changed.
timschochet
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Rudy will end up in jail if this laptop story keeps falling apart the way it seems.
timschochet
Footballguy
Unbelievable. Now McConnell says that even if Pelosi and Trump agree on a stimulus deal, he won’t allow it to be voted on.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/10/15/politics/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-stimulus-coronavirus/index.html
Somebody offer a valid reason to vote for a Republican Senator at this point. Because I’m not seeing one. There is no more pressing issue than this one.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/10/15/politics/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-stimulus-coronavirus/index.html
Somebody offer a valid reason to vote for a Republican Senator at this point. Because I’m not seeing one. There is no more pressing issue than this one.
The anti-mask movement seems pretty authoritarian to me. People aren't just saying, "The government shouldn't force us to wear masks." They're saying, "Wal-Mart shouldn't be able to set rules about masks on its own property."
Republicans are more anti-democratic in the sense that they favor more obstacles to voting.
But there's another sense of "anti-democratic" that means something more like "elitist rather than populist," or "favoring judicial activism." Both parties can be selectively anti-democratic in this sense, but over the last few decades, I'd say that liberals have been more anti-democratic than conservatives in this latter sense.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Can't be...all I heard about the other day was Wolf and Nancy and how Nancy didn't care about the people and stimulus and was the one holding all of this up.
timschochet
Footballguy
McConnell, refusing to consider 1.8 trillion (Trump’s proposal) or 2.2 trillion (Pelosi’s compromise offer, down from an initial 3 trillion) is going to put a 500 billion offer on the table, all that the supposedly fiscal conservative Republicans will now agree to.
The Democrats will never accept this so nothing is going to be done. And that of course, pleases certain people on both sides because they think it helps their electoral chances. But that can’t be true; it can only help one side or the other. I believe it will help the Democrats much more, partly because they wanted the higher amount and partly because Trump comes off as ineffective and a pawn of McConnell’s. (One could make a very good argument that the last 4 years have been the presidency of Mitch McConnell, with Trump as a clownish figurehead.)
But I don’t care about that. I don’t care who it helps more. It’s absolutely shameful that they were unable to get this done. IMO the Republicans are more to blame than the Democrats but nobody comes off looking pristine here.
The Democrats will never accept this so nothing is going to be done. And that of course, pleases certain people on both sides because they think it helps their electoral chances. But that can’t be true; it can only help one side or the other. I believe it will help the Democrats much more, partly because they wanted the higher amount and partly because Trump comes off as ineffective and a pawn of McConnell’s. (One could make a very good argument that the last 4 years have been the presidency of Mitch McConnell, with Trump as a clownish figurehead.)
But I don’t care about that. I don’t care who it helps more. It’s absolutely shameful that they were unable to get this done. IMO the Republicans are more to blame than the Democrats but nobody comes off looking pristine here.
timschochet
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
Use some context here. He said he had no plans to bring to the floor any package at $1.8 trillion or above, which is in reference to the consistent 2.2T+ deal that includes these same 2-3 things that have nothing to do with actual money going out to citizens. Thats a big difference. You posted that like he went on record and said "we won't work on this. period." and that's not true. And to be fair, they were willing to do up to that $1.8T mark a long time ago but the Democrats wouldn't move. So, now, after a lot of frustration, he is suggesting a simple (by comparison) package of $500B that is much smaller but it DIRECTLY addresses the issue of using every one of those dollars to people where it matters instead of to cities and undocumented workers, etc.
That same article states that Pelosi had previously rejected the $1.8 trillion effort as insufficient on several major fronts and the talks are once again stuck without a clear path forward. She literally said nothing is better than something. It seems she would rather let everyone suffer if she can't get the entire thing.
And then later, The Trump administration has made several attempts to negotiate with House Democrats, but Pelosi has so far rejected their offers claiming significant differences over a series of key elements, from the size of the funding for state and local governments and how hundreds of billions of dollars for schools are allocated, to the scope of child tax credits and liability protections.
This isn't an issue any of us can really progress at this point. I just wanted to mention a few things in the article that round out how it was presented.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Im not saying you are against such things.
Im not a huge fan of career politicians. I think term limits is something that needs serious consideration in this country. Im all for experience in handling things at different levels...but there is such a thing as too much experience.
Shutout
Footballguy
I agree that it is shameful (on all, not just one side).
The take here should be, but is being left out, This could have been a $1.8t package but Nancy has consistently said no. So now it will be $500B but will directly help people and the Democrats will say no. At what point do the Democrats say "help is help and we have to give something?" I'm not sure it is in them. I don't know how the republicans can be more to blame when they have not said no one single time to as much as $1.8T to money that goes directly to people. They have only said no to the other fortune of money for cities, undocumented folks, schools that the Democrats don't want to open, etc.
None of it matters though, the American people are losing while rich people posture. So, to me at this point, blame Me for all I care because, although that would be every bit as wrong, it doesn't change the result, which is sad.
Speaking of being anti-democratic, this has been a major pet peeve of mine over recent days:
Mike Lee tweeted: “Democracy isn’t the objective. Liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”
Everybody on leftist twitter responded: "OMG that's so authoritarian! He's not even hiding it!"
What Mike Lee tweeted is (a) the precise opposite of authoritarianism, and (b) exactly right on the money.
Democracy is an excellent means to liberty, peace, and prosperity. But not rank democracy. The United States has succeeded in large part because of its doctrines of enumerated powers and constitutionally protected individual rights.
Rank democracy means that the majority rules on all matters.
In a constitutional democracy, certain powers are off-limits to the majority: censorship, theocracy, unreasonably seizing stuff without probable cause, cruel and unusual punishment, yadda yadda... These checks on democracy are good. They help promote liberty, peace, and prosperity. They promote human flourishing.
I can find nothing in Senator Lee's tweet that is objectionable in the slightest.
Mike Lee tweeted: “Democracy isn’t the objective. Liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”
Everybody on leftist twitter responded: "OMG that's so authoritarian! He's not even hiding it!"
What Mike Lee tweeted is (a) the precise opposite of authoritarianism, and (b) exactly right on the money.
Democracy is an excellent means to liberty, peace, and prosperity. But not rank democracy. The United States has succeeded in large part because of its doctrines of enumerated powers and constitutionally protected individual rights.
Rank democracy means that the majority rules on all matters.
In a constitutional democracy, certain powers are off-limits to the majority: censorship, theocracy, unreasonably seizing stuff without probable cause, cruel and unusual punishment, yadda yadda... These checks on democracy are good. They help promote liberty, peace, and prosperity. They promote human flourishing.
I can find nothing in Senator Lee's tweet that is objectionable in the slightest.
dkp993
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
If you want to look back through my previous posts, you will find me quite critical of Pelosi on this issue. I have also complimented Trump (which is pretty rare for me.)
At the current moment however my anger is directed at McConnell. 500 billion is not a serious offer, it’s a number thrown out so that they can argue later (unsuccessfully) that it was the Democrats.
Shutout
Footballguy
I obviously don't live in your neighborhood cause $500 Billion...with a B..cause with that amount you could give every person in American about $1700.00...every single American. And thats important because the $500 Billion is on the table explicitly to go into people's pockets. A lot of people are growing concerned about the economy. that is REAL money to most of us.
To take it a step further, I don't blame McConnell simply because even if I DID laugh at a paltry $500 Billion, I have to keep in mind that that amount was $1.8Trillion but Nancy kept saying $2.2Trillion or nothing, which I find is shameful because she obviously doesn't have the same financial issues the vast majority of Americans do because most people would say "You know Nance, I a appreciate what you're fighting for an all BUT $1.8T is great..fantastic even and that extra .4 Trillion won't mean a thing to me if this drags out for months and I have no house and no table to put food on for my family.
I mean, at some point the only reason you would NOT accept a very fair deal (gift in this case) and live to fight another day is if you KNOW, deep down, that there is no chance in hell that you can justify the rest of it on its own merit...or you simply don't care one iota about the people because it won't hurt you. Think about it. If McConnell had NO desire to help people or intention to help in any way, he wouldn't even offer this. He would be exactly like nancy is and say "nope, all or nothing".
So in this case, we have at least one of these two that are willing to give SOMETHING and, right now, Americans need SOMETHING, even if it isn't perfect.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s nowhere near enough money.
Nonetheless, if it were up to me I would vote for it anyway. It’s better than nothing. I disagree with the Democrats who will vote against. In some ways I can’t blame them, but I disagree with them.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Trump Townhall has just started and it’s a total trainwreck.
massraider
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
I agree, they need more money and I would vote for it also. You have to start somewhere or there is no tomorrow for some people.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I have to say Mr President. You have a great smile!
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Of course you don’t. You’re a thoughtful person that seems fair and balanced in your comments.Maurile Tremblay said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Biden is giving such better answers than Trump did (I’m watching one after the other)- so much more detailed and reasonable. It’s hard for me to understand how anyone watching this doesn’t see the contrast.
The conservative meme that Biden is senile is completely ridiculous.
The conservative meme that Biden is senile is completely ridiculous.
timschochet
Footballguy
Though true it’s a little deeper than that IMO. There’s been a misunderstanding for the last century or so (ever since Woodrow Wilson) that “democracy” is a good thing by itself. But of course it isn’t. Hitler rose to power as a result of democratic elections. And remember when we tried to impose democracy in Iraq? Shiites voted for Shiites, Sunnis voted for Sunnis, and we only made things worse.
Democracy only works with a strong constitution that protects individual liberty, and an independent judicial system that interprets that constitution, and a free media. I think that was Lee’s point.
timschochet
Footballguy
I wasn’t aware of Biden’s idea of $15,000 for first time home buyers. That is an excellent idea. So is his SBA proposal.
These are very reasonable ideas, the sort we absolutely need.
These are very reasonable ideas, the sort we absolutely need.
timschochet
Footballguy
Someone started a thread ripping Diane Feinstein.
There are few senators I respect more than her. Extreme conservatives and extreme liberals have always hated her. I think she’s terrific.
There are few senators I respect more than her. Extreme conservatives and extreme liberals have always hated her. I think she’s terrific.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hey @Shutout I wanted to return to this because I’ve learned some stuff since yesterday: McConnell’s 500 billion proposal includes NO stimulus checks, it’s mainly aid for small businesses and schools. That’s fine but it’s not addressing the main crisis here. In addition I believe it’s political hari-kiri.Shutout said:
Since March I’ve been advocating that Trump should have taken a page from FDR and called on the banks to impose a 30 moratorium on all mortgages, followed by calling on all landlords to give 30 days of free rent to everyone. If we had done that as a nation it would have saved the government trillions of dollars and given us economic security. And Donald Trump might well be on the way to re-election.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Well people talk about unity and civility and then a politician shows it and they blast them. They prefer their racism, sexism or any ism in the dark where it's still there, but we don't have to talk about it or confront it or see it on the news or in sports or on social media 24/7.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree strongly with all of this, but I want to amplify what I see as the most important point, that being that democracy is good only because of its instrumental value. Democracy is a good form of government because it (usually) produces pretty good results. If some other form of government produced better results, then we should ditch democracy and adopt that other form of government instead. The only reason why we don't is because -- to my knowledge -- there is no "other form of government" that works better than highly-truncated democracy with large swaths of life placed outside of democratic control.Maurile Tremblay said:
I see people argue all the time that democracy is good in and of itself, or that it has some kind of intrinsic value apart from its results. That view has always struck me as not just wrong but obviously and blindingly wrong. All types of government should be judged on their results. I don't think I would describe myself as a utilitarian in general, but I'm definitely a utilitarian when it comes to political organization.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
@timschochet If you get time to listen, I'd really like to read your thoughts on Sasse's comments. I think his answer is right down your alley.Juxtatarot said:
timschochet
Footballguy
I heard it, it’s problematic for me, because Ben Sasse was one of those Republicans who heard overwhelming evidence of impeachable offenses last January, yet refused to do his duty in the name of political tribalism.
I have no doubt that Sasse is a good man. But he is one of those who made a Faustian bargain here: he accepted Donald Trump so that he could get his justices (Sasse is about to vote to confirm Barrett) and his tax cuts. He was smart enough and informed enough to know better. He is guiltier than the most diehard Trump fan.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s the desire to vilify our political opponents, to make them out to be evil rather than wrong. Of course Trump is the worst purveyor of this we’ve ever had, but this example shows that all sides engage in it.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
This is of course true, but ironically enough, Trump is also the biggest recipient of it. No one in American political history has been represented as fundamentally evil by his detractors as much as Trump. It isn't close.
rockaction
Footballguy
I would counter by saying that sometimes the process is inextricable from the ends. In other words, by virtue of the fact that people in a democracy people are recognized as agents of their own accord and with powers inherent in their basest existence, it is the only good form of government, because it is the only form of government that recognizes liberty and agnecy of man.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't think democracy automatically views people this way. It's easy to imagine to a more dystopian democracy that expects individuals to be subservient to the needs of "society" as expressed by majority voting.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think democracy is a necessary condition to a good society that promotes liberty and justice. That doesn't mean democracy is sufficient to secure those ends. But, at heart, the system must be democratic if we are to recognize the autonomy and authority inherent in our existence.
Last edited by a moderator:
