This doesn't happen often, Erick, but we're in 100% agreement.
If conservatives are serious about the federalism, the 10th Amendment and the rule of law such as Posse Comitatus, then Trump should not be sending federal law enforcement or military or National Guard unless requested by the governor.
Mayor Wheeler is up for reelection this November, and the people will soon decide if they're okay with his leadership or want a change.
Erick’s logic here—with which I agree, by the way—remind me of Justice Roberts comments in the Sebelius case that upheld ACA in 2012(?). Basically, if the people don’t like their situation, the people need to change their elected representatives.
If the Fed does not go into the area, because they do not have permission. I would think the state or city should be responsible for damage done to the Federal Property. What about private property? Money always talks. Hit these governments where it hurts.
Let it burn. They blame Trump for everything bad anyway, and the further he is away from it the better. We need to show the direct relationship of what's happening now to a failed "progressive" leadership in all of the effected cities.
Trump, although immeasurably better than Clinton or Biden, is hardly a core conservative. He’s an opportunist. Had the Democrat party been cratering like the Republicans were, then Trump would have happily been willing to seize them. Now, all things considered, I think Trump is B- president who really does care about America. But his crisis management skills are lacking. And we all know who’s never going to let a good crisis go to waste.
He is in no way "better" than either Clinton or Biden. He is stupid, unable to learn, insecure, a bully, and way, way in over his head. The fact that millions voted for him, does not speak well for those people. They cannot seem to recognize real talent, real manhood, and real ability.
Trump is a conman, and yes, an "opportunist" as you put it. He should have been recognized as such and not rewarded with the presidency. Trump is an F- president. He has handled everything poorly. From foreign relations, to "making great deals" to making Mexico pay for the wall (or even just getting them to lie about it, which they refused to do) to Corona to the George Floyd protests...he has failed in every single way.
Those that continue to give him credit expose themselves as not be realists. No, the government is not a business, but if you were going to elect a "businessman" to run the country, then actually elect a truly successful one. Mark Cuban would have been far better.
Of all the people you had in the Republican primary, you all picked Trump. I think you guys should not be allowed to vote ever again, until you can take a test and pass it that you can recognize reality.
And you're going to stand behind that comment after "you guys" chose Biden??
Stop being baited into the divisiveness. The sooner we ALL recognize that Washington is the WWE on steroids, the better. Opponents enter the ring pounding their chest and talking smack about each other, then go at each other with gusto. Someone flies off the top rope, someone else breaks a chair, and a winner is declared. But at the end of the night they throw an arm around each other's neck, have a beer, and laugh because we think it's real. They WANT us divided, because division and fear and anger motivate us to do what they want.
No one is baiting me into divisiveness. I came of voting age during the Reagan years. His administration's desire to make ketchup a vegetable on school lunches was what launched me politically. THAT affected me, personally. I was 17. I decided to look into what the Republican party was, who was behind it, the philosophy behind it.
What I discovered was abhorrent, and the party has only grown worse, with the rise of hate radio and FOX news. A philosophy steeped in "objectivism" (not even conservatism, which is bad enough) brought on by a bunch of Goldwater losers who were never the cool kids in school and it bugged the hell out of them, who had read Ayn Rand. We have had 40+ years now of "conservative" courts, and rule, and we are much WORSE off, by any standard, than we were all those years ago.
That some on the left bought into the stupidest, most selfish philosophy ever to come down the pike to stay in political power is bad. But not nearly as bad as anyone bringing this "greed is good, pave your own roads, expect no help" philosophy into any kind of policy.
Liberalism, and the age of reason, is what we were founded in. We succeeded, above and beyond, when we followed those prescriptions...bringing more people into the promise of America, providing a strong safety net, massive spending and care for public education, (instead of denigrating education and the "elite", as if we don't want our own children to be the elite in everything they do) pushing science and technology, expecting the people to rise (not enabling them by telling them things like "coal is coming back) and promoting RATIONALITY.
We did not give crazy parents a choice...we vaccinated in SCHOOL. We said, we believe in science. We put our trust in reason.
Then the right wing, seeing its own shrinking base, decided to reach out to the racists and to the crazy, what we used to call, "HOLY ROLLERS". And ever since that day, the right has taken us BACKWARDS.
I have lived it, and seen it. The Right wing has broken the federal government and done it ON PURPOSE. The worst thing they ever did was get Americans to turn against their own people. THAT is the cause of ALL of the division. Have liberals sometimes played along, or played by the new rules the cons have set down? Yes. But what started it all? A bunch of dorks who were mad that they were never the cool kids in the 60's.
You have written seven paragraphs to distance yourself from my assertion yet every one of them reaffirms what I stated. Perhaps no one baited you into divisiveness but you're certainly epitomizing it. There are so many holes in what you've said here that it's very difficult for me to resist the temptation to take you to task point-by-point, yet I simply don't have the time. REREAD MY ASSERTION: ALL politicians want us to remain divided so that they can continue this Roman orgy of spending and power on our tax dollars. If you and I sat down and had a beer together, I guarantee you we could find a fundamental point of agreement for 75% of those issues that currently divide us. That's the leader we need for this country right now, someone who's going to begin with those fundamental points of agreement and unite this country rather than divide it.
You have no argument from me that we need that kind of leader. Which I do think Biden is, and which Obama was at first until Republican fractiousness. Obama was naive to think that Republicans WANT to work with the Dems.
That is my point. The REPUBLICANS are the ones who do not wish us to come together, and they have done actions that prove this, like getting rid of the fairness doctrine, in which BOTH sides were heard. They did not want "both sides" heard.
That is just one example. I can give you literally hundreds.
You want to work with us on the left? Then bypass your party or better yet, vote your party out until they listen to you.
You cannot, in any way, put any of this on the political left. The political left (such as it is in this country, which is really just center) has reached out time and time again. YOU have to decide to come to the table.
I was a cool kid in the '60s. I guess you weren't. None of the cool kids got angry. We discussed. And we disagreed. Like, uh, well, I was on the debate team, not the food fight team. But that was before you were born.
I was born in 64. So my "cool years" were later, in the late 70's early 80's.
But you can read Barr, or Rove, or several of them that have written about those years. Furious that the left was winning the culture, that they were laughed at and derided, they just wanted revenge. On the culture. On their fellow Americans. They wanted to punish them for going left.
Instead of winning people back by appeals to their philosophy, they appealed to their racism. And their religion.
In other words, they have never been honest about what they were actually doing. And they were dirty about doing it.
This is exactly true. The battle isn't the Left against the Right, or the liberals against the conservatives, or the Democrats against the Republicans. The battle is the elites against the prolies.
If you want to say that this is a battle between the rich and the poor, then yes, I am with you. Those who pursue economic policies who help fatten the already fat are abhorrent and that philosophy should be destroyed.
However, there is a difference between those educated elite who know much more than our rabble, and in fact, are what we all want our own children to become, and the wealthy elite who just want to fatten their own purse at the expense of the rest of America.
Those who are scientists, engineers, astronomers, doctors, etc, are exactly who we need to get behind. The educated...and educated with a broad, LIBERAL education. Those are exactly the kind of "elite" I want my own children to be. As should we all.
I agree with you on this one Erick. People have to live with the consequences of their decisions whether bad or good. My understanding is that the mayor if overwhelmed by violence they call the governor of the state and that person can send in help. But what happens if the state cannot handle their own people and violence breaks out all over? It that area declared a war zone? Can the governor ask the feds for help them? Would love and answer for this.
I think that's correct -- the governor asks the feds for help controlling a situation, like asking the National Guard to help during disasters. Seems to me though that in the past it's been used to (depending on your viewpoint) to nip a rapidly-escalating situation in the bud, or to make a fast, violent point. Thinking here of using federal troops to break up a strike in one limited area. (Maybe the rationale was that US Steel or whatever it was, is so vital an industry that the employees can't be allowed a work stoppage? I don't remember.)
There are laws they could be breaking, but generally even then the feds leave it to the states except for civil rights violations and damage to federal property. They are doing the latter, which allows a federal response.
In general local police are responsible for policing their areas. However, I don't believe this applies to federal buildings or federal property. For example, if you try to enter a federal court house and behave in ways the federal guards deem unacceptable, I believe federal officers will arrest you without blinking. I just heard that last night the Portland rioters continued to damage a federal building removing plywood that was put up to protect it, breaking glass to enter it illegally and starting fires inside. That is certainly a federal crime and it should be prosecuted by federal law enforcement officials. If the Democratic politicians want to allow rioters destroy their own cities, I agree Trump should stay out of it, unless governors request the national guard be sent in. But even if protecting federal property is not the right thing to do politically, it is the right thing to do by the rule of law, and that is what principled conservatives and moral citizens are supposed to support, regardless of how much they dislike Trump.
This doesn't happen often, Erick, but we're in 100% agreement.
If conservatives are serious about the federalism, the 10th Amendment and the rule of law such as Posse Comitatus, then Trump should not be sending federal law enforcement or military or National Guard unless requested by the governor.
Mayor Wheeler is up for reelection this November, and the people will soon decide if they're okay with his leadership or want a change.
Portland needs to be left alone to deal with whatever happens.
Erick’s logic here—with which I agree, by the way—remind me of Justice Roberts comments in the Sebelius case that upheld ACA in 2012(?). Basically, if the people don’t like their situation, the people need to change their elected representatives.
Amen, Erick.
I agree, this is a local issue...if that's what Portland wants, let 'em be.
If the Fed does not go into the area, because they do not have permission. I would think the state or city should be responsible for damage done to the Federal Property. What about private property? Money always talks. Hit these governments where it hurts.
Let it burn. They blame Trump for everything bad anyway, and the further he is away from it the better. We need to show the direct relationship of what's happening now to a failed "progressive" leadership in all of the effected cities.
Would President Abraham Lincoln have allowed Fort Sumter to burn without a fight? Certainly not.
But wasn't Fort Sumter a military fort, therefore part of the federal government? If the military starts shooting, isn't that an act of war?
Sometimes the greatest judgment is to receive what we want to have.....
It would just be nice to have republicans actually believe in local control, like they are supposed to.
Trump, although immeasurably better than Clinton or Biden, is hardly a core conservative. He’s an opportunist. Had the Democrat party been cratering like the Republicans were, then Trump would have happily been willing to seize them. Now, all things considered, I think Trump is B- president who really does care about America. But his crisis management skills are lacking. And we all know who’s never going to let a good crisis go to waste.
He is in no way "better" than either Clinton or Biden. He is stupid, unable to learn, insecure, a bully, and way, way in over his head. The fact that millions voted for him, does not speak well for those people. They cannot seem to recognize real talent, real manhood, and real ability.
Trump is a conman, and yes, an "opportunist" as you put it. He should have been recognized as such and not rewarded with the presidency. Trump is an F- president. He has handled everything poorly. From foreign relations, to "making great deals" to making Mexico pay for the wall (or even just getting them to lie about it, which they refused to do) to Corona to the George Floyd protests...he has failed in every single way.
Those that continue to give him credit expose themselves as not be realists. No, the government is not a business, but if you were going to elect a "businessman" to run the country, then actually elect a truly successful one. Mark Cuban would have been far better.
Of all the people you had in the Republican primary, you all picked Trump. I think you guys should not be allowed to vote ever again, until you can take a test and pass it that you can recognize reality.
And you're going to stand behind that comment after "you guys" chose Biden??
Stop being baited into the divisiveness. The sooner we ALL recognize that Washington is the WWE on steroids, the better. Opponents enter the ring pounding their chest and talking smack about each other, then go at each other with gusto. Someone flies off the top rope, someone else breaks a chair, and a winner is declared. But at the end of the night they throw an arm around each other's neck, have a beer, and laugh because we think it's real. They WANT us divided, because division and fear and anger motivate us to do what they want.
No one is baiting me into divisiveness. I came of voting age during the Reagan years. His administration's desire to make ketchup a vegetable on school lunches was what launched me politically. THAT affected me, personally. I was 17. I decided to look into what the Republican party was, who was behind it, the philosophy behind it.
What I discovered was abhorrent, and the party has only grown worse, with the rise of hate radio and FOX news. A philosophy steeped in "objectivism" (not even conservatism, which is bad enough) brought on by a bunch of Goldwater losers who were never the cool kids in school and it bugged the hell out of them, who had read Ayn Rand. We have had 40+ years now of "conservative" courts, and rule, and we are much WORSE off, by any standard, than we were all those years ago.
That some on the left bought into the stupidest, most selfish philosophy ever to come down the pike to stay in political power is bad. But not nearly as bad as anyone bringing this "greed is good, pave your own roads, expect no help" philosophy into any kind of policy.
Liberalism, and the age of reason, is what we were founded in. We succeeded, above and beyond, when we followed those prescriptions...bringing more people into the promise of America, providing a strong safety net, massive spending and care for public education, (instead of denigrating education and the "elite", as if we don't want our own children to be the elite in everything they do) pushing science and technology, expecting the people to rise (not enabling them by telling them things like "coal is coming back) and promoting RATIONALITY.
We did not give crazy parents a choice...we vaccinated in SCHOOL. We said, we believe in science. We put our trust in reason.
Then the right wing, seeing its own shrinking base, decided to reach out to the racists and to the crazy, what we used to call, "HOLY ROLLERS". And ever since that day, the right has taken us BACKWARDS.
I have lived it, and seen it. The Right wing has broken the federal government and done it ON PURPOSE. The worst thing they ever did was get Americans to turn against their own people. THAT is the cause of ALL of the division. Have liberals sometimes played along, or played by the new rules the cons have set down? Yes. But what started it all? A bunch of dorks who were mad that they were never the cool kids in the 60's.
You have written seven paragraphs to distance yourself from my assertion yet every one of them reaffirms what I stated. Perhaps no one baited you into divisiveness but you're certainly epitomizing it. There are so many holes in what you've said here that it's very difficult for me to resist the temptation to take you to task point-by-point, yet I simply don't have the time. REREAD MY ASSERTION: ALL politicians want us to remain divided so that they can continue this Roman orgy of spending and power on our tax dollars. If you and I sat down and had a beer together, I guarantee you we could find a fundamental point of agreement for 75% of those issues that currently divide us. That's the leader we need for this country right now, someone who's going to begin with those fundamental points of agreement and unite this country rather than divide it.
You have no argument from me that we need that kind of leader. Which I do think Biden is, and which Obama was at first until Republican fractiousness. Obama was naive to think that Republicans WANT to work with the Dems.
That is my point. The REPUBLICANS are the ones who do not wish us to come together, and they have done actions that prove this, like getting rid of the fairness doctrine, in which BOTH sides were heard. They did not want "both sides" heard.
That is just one example. I can give you literally hundreds.
You want to work with us on the left? Then bypass your party or better yet, vote your party out until they listen to you.
You cannot, in any way, put any of this on the political left. The political left (such as it is in this country, which is really just center) has reached out time and time again. YOU have to decide to come to the table.
I was a cool kid in the '60s. I guess you weren't. None of the cool kids got angry. We discussed. And we disagreed. Like, uh, well, I was on the debate team, not the food fight team. But that was before you were born.
I was born in 64. So my "cool years" were later, in the late 70's early 80's.
But you can read Barr, or Rove, or several of them that have written about those years. Furious that the left was winning the culture, that they were laughed at and derided, they just wanted revenge. On the culture. On their fellow Americans. They wanted to punish them for going left.
Instead of winning people back by appeals to their philosophy, they appealed to their racism. And their religion.
In other words, they have never been honest about what they were actually doing. And they were dirty about doing it.
This is exactly true. The battle isn't the Left against the Right, or the liberals against the conservatives, or the Democrats against the Republicans. The battle is the elites against the prolies.
If you want to say that this is a battle between the rich and the poor, then yes, I am with you. Those who pursue economic policies who help fatten the already fat are abhorrent and that philosophy should be destroyed.
However, there is a difference between those educated elite who know much more than our rabble, and in fact, are what we all want our own children to become, and the wealthy elite who just want to fatten their own purse at the expense of the rest of America.
Those who are scientists, engineers, astronomers, doctors, etc, are exactly who we need to get behind. The educated...and educated with a broad, LIBERAL education. Those are exactly the kind of "elite" I want my own children to be. As should we all.
Let it burn and give the devil his due.
I agree with you on this one Erick. People have to live with the consequences of their decisions whether bad or good. My understanding is that the mayor if overwhelmed by violence they call the governor of the state and that person can send in help. But what happens if the state cannot handle their own people and violence breaks out all over? It that area declared a war zone? Can the governor ask the feds for help them? Would love and answer for this.
I think that's correct -- the governor asks the feds for help controlling a situation, like asking the National Guard to help during disasters. Seems to me though that in the past it's been used to (depending on your viewpoint) to nip a rapidly-escalating situation in the bud, or to make a fast, violent point. Thinking here of using federal troops to break up a strike in one limited area. (Maybe the rationale was that US Steel or whatever it was, is so vital an industry that the employees can't be allowed a work stoppage? I don't remember.)
You stated the Fed can protect its properties and Laws. Question: what laws? Are the rioters breaking any Federal laws, just destroying Fed property?
There are laws they could be breaking, but generally even then the feds leave it to the states except for civil rights violations and damage to federal property. They are doing the latter, which allows a federal response.
In general local police are responsible for policing their areas. However, I don't believe this applies to federal buildings or federal property. For example, if you try to enter a federal court house and behave in ways the federal guards deem unacceptable, I believe federal officers will arrest you without blinking. I just heard that last night the Portland rioters continued to damage a federal building removing plywood that was put up to protect it, breaking glass to enter it illegally and starting fires inside. That is certainly a federal crime and it should be prosecuted by federal law enforcement officials. If the Democratic politicians want to allow rioters destroy their own cities, I agree Trump should stay out of it, unless governors request the national guard be sent in. But even if protecting federal property is not the right thing to do politically, it is the right thing to do by the rule of law, and that is what principled conservatives and moral citizens are supposed to support, regardless of how much they dislike Trump.
Your perspective identifies you as a consistent Constitutionalist. Too bad there aren’t that many “conservatives” saying this out loud.