quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Policy debate is all we have left and must be engaged. To do less is to surrender the government. To do more is to violate the Constitution.

I would not violate the Constitution even if I thought it needed saving.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

https://theonion.com/america-defeats-america/

Published: November 6, 2024

WASHINGTON—In a historic outcome that promised to halt the rising scourge of the United States in its tracks, America has defeated America at the ballot box, sources confirmed Wednesday. “After 248 years of tense and often divisive conflict, we can finally say, as of this morning, that the nation turned out at the polls and delivered a decisive blow to the nation,” said electoral analyst Kurt Howitzer, describing the results as a remarkable triumph of the democratic experiment over democracy. “It’s a stunning turn of events. But it really shows the power of one citizenry to come together and prevail over themselves. The message was loud and clear: We are sick and tired of our country, and we want it to end.” At press time, millions of emotional Americans had reportedly gathered on the National Mall in an impromptu celebration of their resounding victory over the forces of liberty and equality.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

The political path forward is to address policy: What, Why, Effect, and let the vote be cast and the debate on that issue end save the courts.

If you're waiting for Trump and his cult followers to suddenly support reasonable policies that others can accept, don't hold your breath.

quote:

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately.

Instead of behaving like Putin and invading a neighbor, how about we build a military base there, like we do in Japan and S. Korea, other places where we have vital interests?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

You do realize that taking territory from another Country by force violates literally everything this Country has claimed to stand for, Federal Law and various treaties with the status of Constitutional Provisions, don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Under DOJ regulations any Special Counsel is required to submit a final report to the Attorney General outlining the evidence gathered and justifying the decisions made regarding prosecutions or the lack thereof, which is traditionally released publicly.

It is very interesting that our Republican brethren had no objection to such a report on the investigation of Joe Biden being released, only their Orange God who must be protected from the consequences of his actions.

Almost like they are wholly hypocritical...

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6837956ddc461e&ei=77

Trump seeks to block 'imminent' release of special counsel Jack Smith's report

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...YaS?ocid=socialshare

Donald Trump Urges Jack Smith Be Fired, Stop Report From Being Released

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...56837956ddc461e&ei=9

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Why would a special counsel not resign when the matter is over?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The problem is I need more then your if all Panama is is some old red meat that is past rotten.

That is my position. I oppose all this take Canada, take Greenland, take Mexico foolishness.

In fact, Trump sounds like Putin acts. I oppose Russia territorial expansion.

I suggest you go listen to Nixon’s interview on the Russians and how we were naive in WWII.

I do not like Nixon, but when he is right he is right.

I reject Easter’s politics and find his arguments lacking and rotted w hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Why would a special counsel not resign when the matter is over?

1/20/25 --

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
If it's documented fact and admissible evidence, I would guess Trump would want it buried, deep.
There might be more interested parties among his fellow citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
If it's documented fact and admissible evidence, I would guess Trump would want it buried, deep.
There might be more interested parties among his fellow citizens.

"Documented fact and admissible evidence" - that's redundant.

No guessing about it. Trump distains documented and admissible evidence. If he can't bury it, he'll spin it.

There are many interested parties, hopefully some GOPers in congress.

quote:

these are a congruence between documented and admissible

quote:

that's ALMOST as funny as you stating that you don't consider yourself to be a liberal ....

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


If rational and liberal are synonymous, then I'm okay with that.

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:24
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:28
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:31

quote:

that's ALMOST as funny as you stating that you don't consider yourself to be a liberal ....

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:24
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:28
Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 05:31

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 19:02

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 19:02

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 12 January 2025 19:14

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

I do disagree with you about the part about war, though.

We should pick our wars morally and appropriately. We should fight these existential wars to win. No holds barred. If we are fighting a war where how we kill the enemy is a major concern, or we are concerned about their feelings on the subject, we should not be fighting in the first place.

Like the whole Panama canal thing. If it is a matter of existential national security, I'd be taking it over immediately. If it is not, no way in you know what would I be making said threats.

You do realize that taking territory from another Country by force violates literally everything this Country has claimed to stand for, Federal Law and various treaties with the status of Constitutional Provisions, don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

Alrighty, then let's have policy debates.

First, let's consider our sphere of influence.

My sphere is very limited compared to yours or Dr. Easter's and many others herein.

In politics, your sphrere is roughly equal. We each have one vote.

IMO, it's not productive or satisfying to debate policies when it clearly is futile.
Yet you continually do it, to the point where you annoy folks into attacking you. Maybe you are not actually debating policy, but rather are calling others names, albeit in a more highbrow fashion.

For example, I think the national policy ought to be support the EPA I would say support the purpose of the EPA, not "the EPA" for the good of us all. Protect the environment, and if and since necessary, at the expense of cooperations and individuals who do harm, As Hetm likes to say, with the process of due process of law. and to quit with this climate science denial nonsense. There is the rub. You think its settled science. It isn't. Look at what is coming out from the whole COVID debacle. And that's just for starters.

And it's a null debate when dealing with Rightists.
As a conservative, I would say its equally a null debate with folks like you as well... But debating you shows folks in the middle that your side is not viewed as being absolutely correct or that there are not reasonable people who disagree with you.

So, my first "policy" suggestion is to ban lying and belief thereof in the political arena.
That would be interesting. What would you say if all the sudden all your global warming science needs to be removed because it cannot be proven to be truthful? Who gets to say what is a lie?

What's your "policy" suggestion that would make a difference?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You say we should insist on policy debate.

I not only welcome that, but am more than happy to support that.

Dr. Easter has been wholly stating that is the reason for his support of the GOP and Trump, and I believe him on that.

The Democrats have been supporting unsustainable policies for quite some time. The GOP likewise makes some very poor picks at times.

Alrighty, then let's have policy debates.

First, let's consider our sphere of influence.

My sphere is very limited compared to yours or Dr. Easter's and many others herein.

In politics, your sphrere is roughly equal. We each have one vote. I'm referring to sphere of persuasion.

IMO, it's not productive or satisfying to debate policies when it clearly is futile.
Yet you continually do it, to the point where you annoy folks into attacking you. Oh Honey, look what you made me do. Maybe you are not actually debating policy, but rather are calling others names, albeit in a more highbrow fashion. I'm arguing against belief in fiction.

For example, I think the national policy ought to be support the EPA I would say support the purpose of the EPA, not "the EPA" Same thing. for the good of us all. Protect the environment, and if and since necessary, at the expense of cooperations and individuals who do harm, As Hetm likes to say, with the process of due process of law. Yea, GOPer congress arbitrarily cuts budget based on science denial. and to quit with this climate science denial nonsense. There is the rub. You think its settled science. It isn't. Some very significant aspects of the science on global warming is settled science. Just as in the field of medicine some related science is settled. Look at what is coming out from the whole COVID debacle. And that's just for starters. Much of what came out of the COVID thing, mostly the debacle was from the deniers and antis.

And it's a null debate when dealing with Rightists.
As a conservative, I would say its equally a null debate with folks like you as well... False equivalence. I don't lie and I don't believe in fiction, and I will accept correction. But debating you shows folks in the middle that your side is not viewed as being absolutely correct or that there are not reasonable people who disagree with you. I never made such a claim.

So, my first "policy" suggestion is to ban lying and belief thereof in the political arena.

That would be interesting. What would you say if all the sudden all your global warming science needs to be removed because it cannot be proven to be truthful? Yes it can and yes it is truthful. Claiming otherwise is harping conspiracy theory. Who gets to say what is a lie? The one who provides the proof that it's a lie.

What's your "policy" suggestion that would make a difference?

For one, I would suggest that we insist that government agencies stay within their specific area of authorization. I thought they did that already. Congress states the area of authorization, and the president (executive) ensures that those laws/mandates of congress are carried out to the best of his ability.

Secondly, I would insist that a budget be made, and that it must be balanced.[/color] So, you don't approve of Dear Leader wanting to remove the debt ceiling.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t disagree that there is a loss of common agreement.

On the left the whole trans women are women thing being an obvious one. That they are people is true, but their “truth” isn’t the same as factual reality.

In medicine, I’ve been around long enough to see once established orthodoxy to be changed and then come back again… I’m very reluctant to call anything “established science” and I well remember the crap I got here by pointing out masking was not established science for prevention of viral spread. They trotted Fauci and his claims on the news… and now he’s admitted there was no actual science supporting their claims.

A big part of being a professional is knowing where your certainty lies. Best practices isn’t the same as being right.

I find it rather unlikely that a relatively new field like climatology has anywhere near the experience and study that medicine/biological science does, yet you are expecting folks to bow to their rather broad and overwhelming claims with a pretty solid record of being wrong in detail for decades.

I’m not disclaiming that weather patterns are not changing, but rather not buying the certainty it is CO2 emissions directly causing it.

Personally, I think the crap we are putting in the oceans and the (IMO) unsustainable amount of harvest we are taking from it has more to do with climatic effects than planes, trains, automobiles, and cow farts.