Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Sugarcoats 1: No Peace with the Alt-Right

Folks talk about many on the Alt-Right as if they’re merely being naughty little boys, those scamps. Now I can understand the wish not to have the new emphasis on putting misogyny, racism and other bad behavior in the past become so stifling that it takes the playfulness out of society or our lives. That said, in the name of preserving that forgiving gray area of social behavior, we shouldn’t promote the bigoted sort of beliefs and ideologies that our fathers and grandfathers fought against.

When you talk about the Alt-Right, you're using a label created by the man who was just hailing Trump like some emperor or Fuhrer. Germany could be excused for falling into this trap, given that they were a Monarchy until the end of WWII. We've never been a Kingdom, only a Colony, and we threw off that yoke.

Steve Bannon's appointment in Trump's White House should concern people, because he was the general in the ranks of the Sugarcoats, what we should call those in the ranks of the Alt-Right who have made it their mission to make racism, sexism, and anti-semitism mainstream again, despite how harsh they seem to those of us born in better times.

The First Amendment means that we must tolerate even the most ugly lawful expressions of hatred and bigotry, legally speaking. But there is no obligation for private businesses or private individuals to maintain relationships with those who stand for such hate. There is also no obligation to tolerate their unlawful behavior, and we certainly should look for how the Trump White House deals with civil rights issues.

My Grandfather landed in Normandy on D-Day. He considered his service in that war as the pinnacle of all he did in his life. This is a guy who went on to become an executive in what became Exxon. He lived a pretty good life, economically speaking. Near the end of his life, he became very concerned for where the country was going. I don't think he was a huge fan of the people in the Tea Party.

I think hearing about Bannon, an apologist for Neonazis, for racists and bigots of all stripes, would have angered him deeply. He didn't fight the Nazis to have them vindicated here at home.

Now, 95% of Trump voters didn't jump up and yell shouts of joy to the Fuhrer. I think most of them didn't even realize the grave, subversive nature of Trump's association with those people. Their party really was never straight with them about it, much less their candidate. It's one of many things that the GOP failed to tell prospective Trump voters about.

But it's no use doing as Bannon does, and sugarcoating the truth. Bannon and his people are White Nationalists. They are people who are reacting to the demographic changes in this country with terror, and have no compunction of spreading their cowardly fear of their fellow Americans and immigrants, rather than leading people to do the difficult, but more courageous, more virtuous thing: learning to live with their new neighbors. America is not a nation based on tribes, on languages, on some specific race or nationality.

Some, claim the Alt-Right's attitudes are more traditional, and in one sense they're correct. But some traditions die for a good reason. I think the Holocaust was just the kick in the ass of people's consciences needed to end the ugly practice of antisemitism as a mainstream belief. There was long prejudice against Catholics and against the Irish, and being both, I'm thankful the traditions that once marked us as separate died.

America's glory is, in part, the steady decrease of the hypocrisy of it's founding ideals.

What? I'm accusing the Framers of being hypocrites? You mean the guys who talked about freedom while owning slaves, including George Washington? Yes. I'm talking about people who often thought women were inferior human beings, and that blacks, asians and others were subhuman, if they weren't objects of orientalist curiosity.

But did they just up and decide to be so hypocritical? No. Their shortfalls on their ideals came in part from their context in history. Those that thought women incapable lived in a time where they would rarely see women in positions of authority, where society hadn't really fully explored their potential. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it more obvious why they could come to such a foolish conclusion.

If you lived in the 1700s, and the only black people you encountered tended to be illiterate slaves or illiterate former slaves, and you, again, never tended to see them in positions of authority or whatever, it would be much easier to convince you of the prejudiced that they just couldn't do what a white man could.

The limits of our perspective can explain a lot of our hypocrisy, a lot of where our high ideals fall short. But with modern Americans like ourselves, it's far less excusable. A misogynist or racist these days has to contend with a plethora of examples, from world leaders to politicians and business leaders in our own country. What remains of old prejudice is often little more than a bias, a thumb on the scale rather than a wholesale denial of a balance.

That, though, can change, if some get their way, and the old prejudices are reinforced, reintroduced. Germany is a prime example. It went from a haven of modern progressive thought to a den of raving insanity within the space of a couple generations. It went from a place that produced the pride of Europe, that was renown for it scientific and cultural magnificence, to a nation that became the byword for the worst possible cruelty and prejudice.

The people who would bring this all back on our side of the Atlantic, who would fill our heads with this junk, know that their philosophies and beliefs are deeply disfavored, in their raw and unsweetened form. They know people can taste the foulness if it isn't thickly euphemized and rationalized. So, quite frankly, they lie. They hide the connections until they're in a position to force others to their beliefs. They compartmentalize knowledge of their real intentions until people are unable to stop them.

It was all out there, but it didn't get half the coverage it should have. Why? Because people were afraid of scaring off viewers over charges of bias. Facebook pulled back on managing its content because of such charges, and ended up getting flooded with more fake news than real, news that could have changed the course of the election.

And that's the real issue here: The viral nature of the internet, the way things spread exponentially rather than linearly, means we're hit with a lot of BS before good information even gets out the door. People like this man took advantage of that non-linear, social-networked structure to get past people's defense, with the result that they essentially believed the most obvious of trash. When everything is about who can be trusted, not what can be trusted, there's no accountability, there's no defense against being misled.

I'm a big believer in the fallibility of human cognition and reason. That's not merely of the hoi polloi, that's everybody, leaders and led alike. That's part of the reason why we have a system like we do, part of the reason why we have a Constitution, with multiple layers of constraint and condition on the actions of government. It gets frustrating, I know, but if you're serious about government power being limited, you must accept limitations on yourself as well as others.

I believe in government of, for, and by the people. I believe that what benefits most people should be what we govern by. I believe in the general interest, the public interest over the special interest. I believe in equality, and equal protection of the law. I believe that discrimination has no place in our democracy.

I take very seriously the values I was taught as a kid in a Texas Elementary. But I have to deal with those values in terms of the real world, and I have to deal with the fact that many things I believed about the history of my country just weren't true. That comes with a lot of heartache and headache, a lot of sadness where there was once pride. But it also comes with a greater appreciation of what we rightly celebrated ourselves for. The Framers may not have been perfect about slavery, but at least they struggled with its morality, as a group. The Framers may not have had a place for women in their politics, but their ideas were the seeds of that liberation, and also that of non-whites. Many of the Framers may not have looked at their slaves or servants as being just like them in many or most respects, but they were anyways, and looking at the principles of our country's founding, others took the Framer's vision that next step that even they did not imagine it would take.

So many lament what has happened with labor in this country, the extent to which they've seen anti-corruption measures corroded, and so on and so forth. But if you read enough about American history, you'll realize that the exceptional country you have today wasn't the result of these perfect figures having perfect ideas that were perfectly carried out without trouble. The story of this country since it's start has been struggle with its high, idealistic principles, and typical, harsh reality, between loyalty to traditions and religions, and loyalty to enlightenment principles of free thought, of people reasoning for themselves, believing for themselves, rather than obeying some self-satisfied authority.

This nation has rarely ever been exactly what any of its citizens intended or wanted, but that was never the point. The Framers understood something critical about the nature of political power: that broken apart, split among many different sorts of people, among different independent branches, it would better reflect the citizens of this country, yet at the same time avoid the pitfalls many democratic states suffered from.

I think Trump has let in some pretty dark and nasty forces into our politics, but it wouldn't be the first or even the second time we've faced it. There were many Americans who unfortunately aligned themselves with the Germans, who shared their hostilities. There were Americans later who joined fringe groups like the John Birch Society, or who joined up with the first of the Neo-Nazis.. Before them, there have been all kinds of racist and bigoted organizations, from the KKK to the Know-Nothings.

We can pretend we're somehow above these things happening, tell ourselves that Trump couldn't possibly be this sociopathic, this bigoted for this that or the other reason, but when the leader of the Alt-Right movement, the one who gave it its name is hailing Donald Trump like his own personal fuhrer, I'm interested to know just when Trump will stomp that bug flat, if ever. I'm interested to find out how much Trump knew, and when he knew it about the people he was putting himself in bed with.

There is one thing I know. I don't think I have it in me to be merciful. Democrats have long been troubled by the Republicans over having even the slightest resemblance to the Commies we fought in the Cold War. They've long been faulted for the things that their most radical elements did. Meanwhile, though, Republican leaders have hypocritically engaged in greater and greater departures from America's cultural mainstream, legitimizing folks like Richard Spencer and others like him.

Nobody's going to openly admit this until there is nothing to be done about it. It needs to be dealt with harshly, and by that, I mean, identified for what it is and identified as wrong for what it is. These people are willingly allying themselves with the spirit of a movement that was one of our most hated enemies. They despise what is best in America, what makes us different than a million other arrogant little countries that play with the standard patriotic tropes.

We're better than this, and unfortunately because of how things have turned out, we're going to have to prove it. Better to prove it now, then have to prove it later, after things have gotten much, much worse.

Oh, and before you tell me that such movements might make this country great again, I seem to remember that those movements generally ended up creating the darkest chapters, the most disastrous wars in their nations' histories. They grabbed plenty of power for themselves, but in general exercised no better judgment in the end than anybody else. They could just bully others out of holding them accountable. That's not the same as avoiding the terrible trends and disastrous decisions, though.

This country is justifiably proud of the fact that our system lets us correct these mistakes. For some, who have no patience with such accountability, or who deeply fear what will happen if anybody but their own rule, this is a fearful outcome, but then, the system is designed to operate despite their lack of faith in it.

But I don't believe that system cannot be broken. I would much rather we avoid that outcome, but it is a possibility when folks value keeping their own power more than keeping the oaths of office that ask them to uphold the laws and the constitution even when it's inconvenient to them.

The time for this kind of divisive and hateful politics is over, this constant attempt to use conspiracy theory and bitter racial politics to substitute for doing good by the people and leading well is reducing our politics to a useless mess, with gridlocked institutions unable to function like they're supposed to.

A great deal of the way these people wormed their way back into prominence centers around bias. They accuse others of it constantly, use the guilt and uncertainty surrounding that to stifle outrage at what they're actually saying or doing, and convincing many of their own that the ugly truth is merely somebody giving the movement, the people, a hard time. Here, though, in this case, even Republican-run election boards are being accused of helping to steal the office for Pat McRory's rival, the Democrat. They, of course, deny this vociferously. But the real ugly thing here is what McRory is trying to do, by putting the election in uncertain territory: Literally steal the election:

McCrory can, and probably will, still ask for a statewide recount. But he must know that a recount will not close such a sizable gap. His real goal appears to be to delegitimize the results to such an extent that the state legislature--which holds a Republican supermajority--can step in and select him as the winner. North Carolina state law states that when "a contest arises out of the general election," and that contest pertains "to the conduct or results of the election," the legislature "shall determine which candidate received the highest number of votes" and "declare that candidate to be elected." By alleging fraud, mishandling of ballots, and irregular vote-counting, McCrory is laying the groundwork for the legislature to proclaim that a "contest" has arisen as to "the conduct or results of the election." At that point, it can step in, assert that McCrory received "the highest number" of legitimate votes, and "declare [him] to be elected."

For the past eight years, Republicans have decried Obama and the Democrat's leadership as tyranny. But what do you call it when fewer and fewer Republican voters are given more and more power over many more Democratic voters? What do you call it when the ideology and policies of a minority of all American voters is given power not earned through honest majorities?

The Framers went out of their way to make the agreement to the Constitution unanimous, even including the Bill of Rights out of a desire to make the Constitution palatable to it's opponents. They put so much thought and effort into making changes in the Constitution, Treaties, Veto overrides, and other incredible shifts in political and governmental power subject to the necessity of broad consensus. They even engineered our legislature to where there was a balance between the states with lots of land, and lots of people.

They did a lot to encourage government by consensus, government in which citizens dealt with each other more fairly. It wasn't perfect, but theirs was a step in the direction of a Republican that would not be so easily torn apart by civil conflict, because the differences within the country would balance themselves out, and the movements without staying power and popularity would die out.

McRory doesn't care about that. Like many Tea Partiers, he sees his people and his people alone as the heirs of Constitutional traditional government, the only people who, in his eyes, have legitimacy to rule.

That's not what the system was designed to encourage, but it seems like they're doing their best to force themselves on the state of North Carolina.

On and on it goes. The question that's not asked, nor answered by them is this: at what point should the sentiment that they do not deserve power, that their power is not legitimate counterbalance theirs? At what point does a population that does not want to be governed by them, in that way, get the government that it deserves to have?

On a national level, we are going to be getting a President here that lost the Popular vote by more than Richard Nixon did in 1960. Yet this President and his supporters and fellow party members are going to pretend, it seems, that they washed in on a mandate.

They didn't. They're in even a worse position than Bush. Bush at least had a very, very close decision, and lost the popular vote by around a half a million. Trump is going to lose that vote, at this point, by three times more voters. He's going to enter Washington with a Republican Senate maybe two or three votes from being a Democratic Senate, with a House where the Republicans have lost eight votes.

The popular notion is that he won this incredible victory, and it is half true: nobody expected him to win. But other than that, I would say that this has more the shape of a near miss at a disaster. If Comey had not intervened, knocked the election off its trajectory, we could have been dealing with a Senate and White House in Democratic hands. If people like McRory hadn't been busy violating the voting rights of millions of minorities, these states would have likely gone against Trump.

Take a look at the last few elections. If you had to pin me down on occasions where the Republicans went all out in Presidential elections, I would point to 1994 and 2016. Look at 2008, 2016, then. When Democrats win, they win by huge margins. Three of the last five elections went Republican, but when they did, two out of those three times, the popular vote was lost, and the electoral college afforded them their victory. They won the votes in the right places, and those critical placements of votes afforded them their victory. Even the one victory, by three million, was smaller than Truman's victory in 1948.

First term Presidents that don't win the Popular vote start out weak from the start. If Trump lost a few percent points of support, a small degree of enthusiasm from supporters, or galvanizes a counter-response of sufficient power, he's toast. Trump stands on the threshold of a critical mass.

He's already walking back his most famous promises, offering healing to "Crooked Hillary," firmly condemning the Alt-Right he was so wishy-washy about when he was running, and so on and so forth. The Wall is becoming more metaphorical, and Obamacare isn't quite the toast that the eager Republicans were promising.

The question is, how many voters is he trading for how many others?

The problem for Trump, and Republicans in general, is that I'm not sure that their left hand knew just how fricking terrible the things the right hand was getting up to. They sugarcoated and soft-pedaled the magnitude of fringiness of their Alt-Right colleagues, and perhaps didn't realize just how [screw]ed they were until they saw their friends sieg heiling Trump with the founder of the Alt Right helping to translate, saying Hail Trump, Hail Victory, etc.

He can tell the Alt-Right to get lost, but the Alt-Right is sort of like a stalker ex. They know their basic views aren't anywhere near acceptable to the mainstream, so they're willing to accept a level of private support to soften the blow of public denunciations. But the rest of us aren't stupid. You put Kris Kobach, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions in cabinet positions, and put Steve "Fly the Confederate Flag High with Pride" Bannon in the West Wing, and people will, for some strange reason, think you're lying to them when you say you want nothing to do with the Alt Right. Ah, but if you do what you need to do, Mr. Trump, to convince the mainstream that you're not bigoted against Minorities, that your people aren't Crypto-fascists or Crypto-Nazis, you will earn as enemies those who likely helped you step onto that critical electoral margin, rather than fall off the cliff.

As long as they think that they have a friend in the White House, as long as they think they're star is on the rise, you will see more videos of Trump supporters doing what Richard Spencer's supporters are doing. That's a guarantee. These are people in the doorway of their particular closet, and they've wanted out for generations! But if you don't discourage them, then they will ensure that plenty of Republicans and Independents of good conscience won't come back to vote for Trump, and that many in the minority community will make a much more firm showing in 2018 and 2020 than they did the last time. That will especially be true if Trump and company put their foot in it with some policy decision or another.

Republicans these days seem to be doing everything they can to shake people from the complacency that the GOP's conservative message depended upon. People were willing to hear messages loosening up business regulations because they had so much faith that business had learned their lessons after years of such norms. They had faith that Wall Street would police itself. Thirty years ago, nobody had any idea how those big tax cuts would work out, no nine-digit budget deficits to give the average American stomach cramps about the debt. Thirty years ago, barely a generation had grown up under the civil rights laws, and the integration they led to. Thirty years ago, Republican foreign policy, in part, meant stability, meant freedom on a roll, Democracy winning over totalitarianism, American firepower unquestioned. Thirty years ago, we were recovering from One war that went bad, but back on our feet again. Thirty years ago, nobody had any idea the kinds of job losses that were going to come. They were used to careers lasting all their lives in the businesses they signed up with.

Now the GOP has become less a conservative party than a radical one, in any meaningful way. In the eighties, at least, the old world of the twenties was within living memory, so there was an excuse for people to want to go back. Now the people of today have no idea the way things were there, apart from theme-park history, free of all the [crap] and the disease and the pollution and injustice that pervaded that day and age. I mean, if the descendants of the immigrants of that time had to put up with the crap that their ancestors had to stomach, they'd become liberals overnight!

America is different and better than it once was, in many ways. But there's still work to do, and it's time we stop sugarcoating the situation we are in.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2016 1:32 PM
Comments
Comment #410386

Stephen,

You’ve written a lot of great stuff here, but much gets lost in verbosity. You could easily have split this into two or three separate essays. Just something to keep in mind if you want to improve your writing. My take is that the Alt-Right issue and the situation in North Carolina are both important, but needn’t be forced together like this.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 22, 2016 6:11 PM
Comment #410387

Daugherty writes; “Now, 95% of Trump voters didn’t jump up and yell shouts of joy to the Fuhrer.”

What a callous, nonfactual, despicable thing to write. You can prove your 5% comment? The link you provided mentioned 200 people.

I did manage to read through the remainder of your screed as it is interesting to plumb the depths of Lefie/Socialist partisanship.

As a Constitutional Republic, we have withstood attempts to undermine our founding by many much more dangerous than Mr. Daugherty and his Libbie Pals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 22, 2016 6:24 PM
Comment #410389

As always, I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. God has blessed me and my family. God has blessed our nation since our founding. May God bless you and yours.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 22, 2016 7:48 PM
Comment #410393

Trump has condemned racism and about the Alt-Right he said, ‘I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group.”

On the left we had BLM, which Hillary and Bernie courted. There are racists on both sides.

The problem with Trump is that he is too much like Clinton.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 22, 2016 10:52 PM
Comment #410394

BLM is racist? Oh reeeeally. Is this like ‘the NAACP is a bunch of communists’? That can be taken on the good authority of Senator Jeff Sessions! Hey, I heard Martin Luther King was a communist too. Guess today’s ‘BLM is racist’ meme is just the 2016 version of the same old racist crap we heard in the 60’s.

Spend a little time on the farthest fringes of the far right. There is a lot more of that ‘BLM is racist’ stuff. The white supremacist sites are chock full of it.

Posted by: phx8 at November 22, 2016 11:08 PM
Comment #410397

The Democratic party is in the toilet because all they can do is name calling and slander. Then Stephen Daugherty writes a book full of name calling and slander and, what does he expect it to do? Does he really think casting his hate and bigotry will win him some support? Does he think this behavior will reverse the downward slide his party is on? It’s pathetic, the noises of the dead still creating a stench of hatred. I can’t wait till the dead corpse of the Democratic party is buried so it will quit smelling up the place.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2016 4:39 AM
Comment #410400

BLM is racist. Not all members are racist, but the main part is indeed racist. Recall that they object to the “all lives matter” modification.

You can try to conflate this idea with struggles of the 1960s, but that is not valid. A measure of intelligence is the capacity to make reasonable distinctions. BLM is not MLK.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 23, 2016 8:21 AM
Comment #410402

phx8, why are you going to white supremacists sites, or are you just talking out your ass again? Can you even name a white supremacist site without having to search for one to answer my question? Can you name the source of your claims? Are you wrong again?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2016 10:08 AM
Comment #410403

You guys really need to stop believing your own hyperbole and start paying attention to the actual results of the election.

62 million Americans did not vote for Trump because there is some super secret racist movement that decided to come out of the shadows. They voted for him because they are not better off financially, and because the targeting and attacking of those who disagree with far-left extremist definitions have pushed them to their limit.
Supporting traditional marriage does not automatically make one a bigot. Not wanting your 7 year old daughter using the restroom or shower with males does not automatically equal hate. Supporting the 2nd Amendment does not mean one supports violence and murder. Believing in personal responsibility does not make someone a racist. Being against illegal immigration does not make one xenophobic.
When you use government to force your political agenda onto people who have already rejected it, you will get backlash.

The popular vote means nothing. We are not a direct democracy and the candidates ran their campaign as they have from our founding: on winning electoral votes.

“I believe that what benefits most people should be what we govern by.”

That is not a government of, by and for the people, it is government of and by some, who think they know what is best for all. That is government based on the desires of society, not the rights of the individual. That is a socialist democracy, not a Constitutional Republic.

I am no Trump supporter, he is nothing but a slightly more moderate version of the 2016 Clinton’s. Those on the right are going to be disappointed in him as President.
This far-left hissy fit you guys are having has nothing to do with actual racism, sexism, homophobia or bigotry, it’s ALL about him not being far-left enough to please the extremists who have run roughshod over the country for the past decade.

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2016 11:30 AM
Comment #410408

kctim,

nothing to do with actual racism, sexism, homophobia or bigotry

So, the meeting Richard Spencer organized in DC last week had nothing to do with actual racism, sexism, homophobia or bigotry?

The popular vote means nothing.
It means the electorate is center-left. Hillary Clinton’s 64 million voters are not going anywhere and they will be voting in the next election in even greater numbers than before. Trump secured the Presidency on the barest of margins. He would do well to reconcile his policies with what a plurality of Americans support.

C&J,

Recall that they object to the “all lives matter” modification.

No significant person from BLM has ever said “all lives matter” isn’t true. The rhetorical point they are trying to make is that the phrase “All Live Matter” distracts from the most salient problem (unjustified killing of Black people wrongly suspected of violent criminal activity).

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2016 1:53 PM
Comment #410410
Trump has condemned racism and about the Alt-Right he said, ‘I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group.”

Trump has said and did a lot, most of it contradictory. The proof is in the pudding though C&J, Trump used their support during the election process before he started his string of broken campaign promises.


BTW neo-Nazi or far right extremist is much more descriptive than “alt-right” don’t you think?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 23, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment #410413

1) The BLM movement is not racist. The basic concept can be summed in the statement “my life matters!”

I think if I were them, I would be sick of being pulled over on the slightest pretext. I would be sick of being treated like a thief before a damn thing I didn’t buy was put into my pockets. I would be sick of being treated like my entire race was having to earn my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as if they weren’t rights, but privileges afforded to somebody on probation.

It annoys me to no end to see it happen over and over again. I think it’s an insult to the very concept of a right, especially an inalienable right. They shouldn’t have to be on their best behavior to be afforded the rights of a full citizen, because no white person had to be a saint to be given their full rights. If there is a case to be made in a given circumstance that there was real need for self-defense, so be it, but when there is that gradient of unarmed victim or unthreatening victim versus armed officer or civilian, the burden should be on the person using lethal force to justify their actions. Good intentions or not, somebody has died. If all lives matter, then all the more reason not to sweep anybody’s life under the rug, simply because some cops don’t want their actions questioned.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2016 2:50 PM
Comment #410414

Royal Flush-
I wasn’t quoting a literal percentage. I was actually trying to be quite generous there. There were quite a few people who bought into that Kenya nonsense about Obama, quite a few who use terrible rhetoric about BLM.

As for the rest?

Christ, give me strength. You know how that actually comes across to me? I take that accusation deadly seriously! I can’t seem to disagree or dissent with you guys by even a hair without you claiming that I want to tear up the Constitution and destroy the Republic!

But you know what? I guess that’s par for the course. You need bitter enemies in order to justify a never-ending political war without any kind of compromise. If you had to see us as even the least bit human, if you had to give us even the smallest bit of respect, you might find common ground, and then the strength to keep the GOP together despite all the differences, all the failures would founder.

It is a mark of the weakness of the GOP that it has to be so melodramatic and defensive about everything, that it needs to dominate so much. It’s a mark of your fear, your terror, that you feel we’re such a threat.

In truth, I have no desire to destroy our economy. I’m not rich enough to feel I could weather a recession with impunity. If there was a minimum wage raise to 15 dollars? It’d be a raise for me. I have to fight every day to keep things together.

I have no desire to harm the country that I love. If it turns out we’re wrong, we try something else. That is how our system works best. Too much ideology creates paralysis in the face of plans that turn out to be defective.

As for your good wishes? The same to you and yours, and everybody else’s.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2016 3:02 PM
Comment #410415

Unfortunately Mr. Daugherty, your rhetoric does not match your professed love of country. I can not ignore your false assessment of our Founders or the nation creating documents they produced.

I take particular umbrage with this comment…

“What? I’m accusing the Framers of being hypocrites? You mean the guys who talked about freedom while owning slaves, including George Washington? Yes. I’m talking about people who often thought women were inferior human beings, and that blacks, asians and others were subhuman, if they weren’t objects of orientalist curiosity.”

That is no more true that claiming God is racist and sexist.

Our Founders produced a Constitution in the face of nearly insurmountable resistance from various delegates.

Our friend Mr. Daugherty writes frequently about his yearning for government that works, rather than an imaginary and unworkable vision of some dreamer. The Founders were realists and for that Mr. Daugherty suggests they were less than honorable in their intentions.

Hypocrites he writes. Bah, Humbug.

Mr. Daugherty is the real hypocrite. He proclaims his Catholic faith and yet writes frequently against its teachings.


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 3:34 PM
Comment #410418

RF,

I wonder, were the founders of the Confederacy hypocrites or were they realists?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2016 3:56 PM
Comment #410419

Warren

When Martin O’Malley said all lives matter, they shouted him down. Hillary never even tried to use that term at all after that.

BLM is based on a lie. The problem for the black community is homicide. Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men, accounting for almost half the total, as opposed to 8% for whites and Asians. The cops are NOT doing the killing. An innocent young black man has no greater risk of being killed by a cop than anybody else. It is a myth, not supported by data. What BLM does is conflate the horrendously high homicide rate with the relatively rare cop shootings. It is dishonest.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 23, 2016 3:59 PM
Comment #410420

Weary Willie-
Slander? Bias? Find me where I misspoke, please! Do me the favor of picking out actual places to argue against my case, rather than just sweeping your arm and declaring all my entry discredited!

The Alt-Right got considerable airplay and elevation in their political position, and felt considerably safer stepping out into the open, and the very guy who coined the emblematic name is the very man in the video hailing Trump, hailing our people, hailing victory. And in case folks didn’t get what that mean, plenty of folks threw those Hitler salutes, and nobody, least of all Spencer himself, corrected them.

As for us dying? Yes, Hillary got defeated. In the Electoral College. But she’s going to win the popular vote by more than many elected Presidents won it. If gaining two seats in the Senate and eight seats in the House is the worst election result I get in the next decade… okay, I’ll take it. Obama crushed the Republican in two separate elections. Trump and Bush? They underperformed in their elections. Trump may end up losing the popular vote by a greater percentage than any man who still managed to become President.

If that is your killing us dead, we’re not impressed. Trump’s victory was a shock, but it was nowhere near as profound as Obama’s.

kctim-
Look, you guys have repeatedly been spooked by dangers that have proved nowhere near as true or urgent as you alleged. Voter fraud, despite the fact you’ve hardly proved it at a million to one scale, is your explanation for how millions more votes were cast for Democrats in several elections, than Republicans. Girls getting molested in bathrooms is your fear, when it comes to transwomen, but you’ve hardly proved that threat, either.

It seems to me that we’re constantly having to walk on eggshells around opinions that are, based on the evidence, absurd!

That, my friend, is not the American way. Restricting people’s freedoms, their rights, based on absurd, poorly proven fears, is what tyrannies do.

As for the rest? No, we’re not a direct democracy. In fact, the Electoral college was meant to be able to just decide on its own to rebel at the people’s choice! Our own system is actually a bit of a democratization of the old one, both in how candidates are selected, and how they’re elected.

Even so, for many voters, explaining the Electoral College to them is somewhat like explaining the infield fly rule to those who don’t follow baseball. Whether they, by the rules, should actually be pissed off or not, is actually rather irrelevant to if they are.

Trump’s win will not justify the devastating degree to which he will take the wrecking ball to the executive branch, nor justify the ethics violations and other stuff his history tells us he’s bound to get into. Your political movement put a man in charge of this country who has no real grasp of the Constitution, nor any real idea of how the system will work He also has no real respect for the rule of law, and that will be his downfall. He’s too interested in exploiting his office to run it well.

I can’t be really sure how serious Trump is about the racism that has surrounded him, whether he’s a casual or a dedicated bigot. I do know one thing, though: he’s opened a door I want SLAMMED on the lowlifes trying to crawl through. If that means a few fingers end up on the floor behind that door, so be it. America didn’t beat the Nazis to fall to ideological saboteurs like this several decades later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2016 4:36 PM
Comment #410421

Mr. Daugherty is special as he has a crystal ball to fathom the future regarding exactly what Mr. Trump will and will not do. Much the same as phx8 and his dire predictions on the equity markets, Mr. Daugherty merely sees his hatred for the country and those who actually make it work in his hazy ball.

My biggest concern in this election was the candidate picking Supreme Court nominees. Both Hillary and Donald told us what they would look for in mading their choice. The Left loves the Left. The Right love the Right.

Right has won. The Constitution will be protected. It will not be bastardized in my lifetime.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 4:48 PM
Comment #410423

Royal Flush-
You need to stop assuming that your folks are some kind of authorities on things, and that by disagreeing, I’m being false. If you’re going to disagree, disagree with substance, not this arrogant dismissal.

As for what I’m suggesting? You need not get so flustered. I understand the difference between theme park/motion picture history and the real kind. Yes, the Framers were hypocrites. So are we, on all sides! People struggle to match the upper level principles with the meaning and effect of what goes on in practice. Some struggle, knowing that matching one with the other is difficult. Others blindly insist that their beliefs are consistent with their actions, even as one contradicts the other.

What separates the framers from others of their era is not their idealism, for many had that in spades, it was their pragmatism, their willingness to concede that in a nation, even then, as diverse as it was, that they wouldn’t convert everybody to their personal faiths, or create a government that suited their personal idea of how power should be wielded. Some wanted to keep a distributed, decentralized government, others wanted a more centralized government than we even have today.

What they did was more than just compromise in the immediate present of their time. What they did was create an engine for consensus-driven, necessity constrained government, government that could be powerful enough to get done what the Articles of Confederation were unable to support, while not being so unchecked in its power that the people couldn’t draw it back.

That, unfortunately, is the design that your people keep trying to break, insisting that you’re saving it. Trump will likely end up being one of the most profound tests of our system’s ability to endure. I can only hope people like yourself recognize that good intentions can go awry, that people who believe one way, can end up doing things that result in sharply ironic outcomes.

As for my Catholic Faith? I believe my faith is for God to judge. I think faith has been politicized for far too many people, and as a result, many in my generation look on demands such as yours with grave cynicism. They don’t want to be told what is right and wrong by those who seem to think their faith absolves them from maintaining the bounds of right and wrong. That’s what makes the Priest molestation scandal so damaging.

My faith is informed by an understanding that God transcends cultural imperfections. But others? They see just words. They see somebody claiming to be charitable, but cutting folks off from food stamps designed to prevent hunger. They see somebody claiming to be helping people, even as they leave them to drown in financial misery. Modern Christian politics, unfortunately, seems more concerned with ministering to political ideologies than actually expressing actual religious principles in policy. Folks are so worried about encouraging moral hazards that they forget that poverty itself is one of the most terrible of them. If you haven’t been poor in a while, you really can’t grasp how it breaks down your ability to fulfill basic obligations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2016 5:15 PM
Comment #410424

I wonder, were the founders of the Confederacy hypocrites or were they realists?
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2016 3:56 PM

Hmmm…can you identify these “founders”…by name? Can you link to their writings about their “founding”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 5:20 PM
Comment #410425

I have no crystal ball. What I typically do is look in the direction of where human motivations naturally lead. Back in 2004, I was predicting that predatory credit practices would land us in a huge crisis. I was right. How did I predict it? Well, I didn’t predict the specifics, but I knew one thing: a system built on speculative wealth, rather than actual appreciation of investment, one built on endlessly leverage debt financing MUST eventually come back down to Earth.

What I predict for Republicans is based on the following simple observations:

1) When one party gets all the power, it no longer has to concern itself quite so much with defeating their rivals.

2) With that focus on the outside reduced, the primary obstacles to policies going through congress will come from within the party. Now that they have power, the debate within the GOP will be how to use it.

3) With Democrats defeated, each faction in the coalition will want its due. Christian Conservatives will want one thing, Alt-Right sympathizers another, neocons another, etc. Democrats suffered similar issues in the 2008-2010 period, but we had a much more flexible leadership to absorb the stress. Republican leadership is anything but solid on that count. The election actually showed some pretty severe cracks, and if those evidence themselves in the new majority, they will be breaking points that could hamper the smooth progress of the GOP’s overall agenda.

4) The Tea Party remains a significant faction within the GOP, capable of defeating legislation if they balk at it. Other factions could function similarly. If it doesn’t reach the President’s desk, having a GOP President won’t help.

5) President Elect Trump’s conduct will cause significant controversies for the GOP, and there are plenty of Republicans who will take a side against him if he gets bad enough, I think.

So, based on all that, I think Trump’s winning coalition stands a good chance of breaking down, and his dependence on the Alt Right is probably going to turn out to be a problem, as their association with him has been strengthened by months of negligent, benign disregard. His racial-tension mongering choices aren’t helpful in that regard, either.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2016 5:28 PM
Comment #410426

“Trump will likely end up being one of the most profound tests of our system’s ability to endure.”

A Daugherty prediction based upon nothing more than crystal ball gazing. Does Mr. Daugherty actually believe it is the Right that wants to destroy the Constitution as written?

I agree with Daugherty, the Founders were “pragmatic” not hypocritical.

Regarding his faith, Daugherty wrote; “They (he and his generation) don’t want to be told what is right and wrong…”

That’s it in a nutshell. The Catholic Faith is rooted in the Bible and Tradition. Your writing defies both. And, if Daugherty is honest, he feels the same about our Constitution not being the source of “right and wrong” for him and the Left.

Would Mr. Daugherty tell us how much more God wants us to tax working people to pay for his poverty programs? Has God placed any conditions on receiving welfare? Does God encourage man to work for their food? Is there a quote by Jesus that commands government to take from some to be generous to others?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #410427

Stephen,
Your response is a good example of what I am talking about and why your main post is pointless.

An individuals freedom isn’t being restricted because somebody else doesn’t endorse or support their choice. It is being restricted when government forces others to endorse and support what they do not believe.
An individuals rights are not being restricted because others do not wish to take a shower with those of the opposite sex. They are being restricted when government forces them to shower with those of the opposite sex.
That is true tyranny my friend.

The left using government to strong-arm their agenda onto the people against their will, is why Trump is President elect.
The people had enough and they stood up to the leftists snowflake agenda. They were the ones who were ‘walking on egg shells.’

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #410428

Stephen,
Your response is a good example of what I am talking about and why your main post is pointless.

An individuals freedom isn’t being restricted because somebody else doesn’t endorse or support their choice. It is being restricted when government forces others to endorse and support what they do not believe.
An individuals rights are not being restricted because others do not wish to take a shower with those of the opposite s-x. They are being restricted when government forces them to shower with those of the opposite s-x.
That is true tyranny my friend.

The left using government to strong-arm their agenda onto the people against their will, is why Trump is President elect.
The people had enough and they stood up to the leftists snowflake agenda. They were the ones who were ‘walking on egg shells.’

Posted by: kctim at November 23, 2016 5:56 PM
Comment #410429

SD
” If you haven’t been poor in a while, you really can’t grasp how it breaks down your ability to fulfill basic obligations.”

Tell that to Social Security recipients who have as their sole income SS. I know many SS recipients who are in that position. They know how to get along better than you do. Your materialism does you no favors. When the COLA is announced as a .4% increase that is criminal in nature. Would you accept a .4% wage increase?

You speak of knowledge when talking about the founding fathers. You know nothing about their characters. They spoke and carried out their work as principled men. Your history books deceived you with their writings. Your lack of training in the prophetic field is sore. You do not know what tomorrow holds for the citizens of this country. When you and a few others on this site speak and attempt to use big words and flowing phrases that you try to show how learned you are just shows your hypocrisy.

Posted by: tom humes at November 23, 2016 5:59 PM
Comment #410430

Mr. Daugherty predicted; “…a system built on speculative wealth, rather than actual appreciation of investment, one built on endlessly leverage debt financing MUST eventually come back down to Earth.”

My goodness how prescient.

Any predictions about a government that is $20 Trillion in debt and has billions more red ink in its budget every year.

1) When one party gets all the power they will try and keep it. Correct

2) Those who have power will use it. Correct

3) Political Parties are comprised of disparate interests. Correct

4) Party politics can be divisive. Correct

5) If a political party leader is not in sync with party members he has trouble. Correct

Summary by Daugherty; “I think Trump’s winning coalition stands a good chance of breaking down…”

Back to crystal ball gazing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 6:04 PM
Comment #410432

kctim…I appreciate your comments on individual freedom and government tyranny. Thanks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 6:10 PM
Comment #410436
When Martin O’Malley said all lives matter, they shouted him down. Hillary never even tried to use that term at all after that.

O’Malley wasn’t shouted down because people believed he was false. He was shouted down because he was being unhelpful to their cause.

BLM is based on a lie. The problem for the black community is homicide. Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men, accounting for almost half the total, as opposed to 8% for whites and Asians. The cops are NOT doing the killing. An innocent young black man has no greater risk of being killed by a cop than anybody else. It is a myth, not supported by data. What BLM does is conflate the horrendously high homicide rate with the relatively rare cop shootings. It is dishonest.

I believe conservatives are the only ones who conflate the problems regarding black homicide with killings done by law enforcement. After all, you guys keep bringing up the high rate of black homicide as if it justifies the gunning down of innocent black men by the police. The fact of the matter is that the police are not treating young black men the same way they treat you or I. It probably isn’t the result of intentional racial animus, but there is still racism and implicit bias present in the hearts of even the most honorable people. Prejudice dug itself deep in the human soul during the millennia when oppression reigned. It’s going to take more than a few decades to reverse that.

RF,

can you identify these “founders”…by name? Can you link to their writings about their “founding”?

Does it matter? Both you and know our history well enough to know what these people believed. Many of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers founded the United States. These people embraced slavery as an ideal, as a brilliant thing. The lofty words of Jefferson, proclaiming every man an equal endowed with unalienable rights, apparently excluded nonwhites in the minds of these people. And they were not alone in their hypocrisy. I admire the Founders of the United States quite dearly, but I understand the limits of their deeds. These guys were not angels and they had their flaws as well. Only a few noble minds in the 18th century had the courage to fight against the great evil of slavery. The others displayed cowardice on the issue.

Does Mr. Daugherty actually believe it is the Right that wants to destroy the Constitution as written?
Has the Right not been trying its best to destroy the Constitution for centuries? From my vantage point it has been pissing on individual rights and freedoms for a very long time. The Right is only interested in protecting incumbent powerbrokers and hierarchies. Whenever the Constitution and its lofty goals of equal protection under the law get in away, the whole thing always gets tossed aside as if it were nothing other than a flimsy piece of paper.

kctim,

An individuals freedom isn’t being restricted because somebody else doesn’t endorse or support their choice

Who argues that it is? This is a strawman that you have constructed. The Left is upset at the loss of individual freedom in the face of punitive behavior.

An individuals rights are not being restricted because others do not wish to take a shower with those of the opposite s-x. They are being restricted when government forces them to shower with those of the opposite s-x. That is true tyranny my friend.
Is it tyranny to “force” someone to shower with those of another race?
The left using government to strong-arm their agenda onto the people against their will

Boo hoo. What next? Will we be hearing sob stories from thieves about the horrors of government to strong-arming them into compliance with an anti-stealing agenda against their will? It is and always has been a primary responsibility of government to ensure that one citizen does not abridge the unalienable rights of another.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2016 7:12 PM
Comment #410437

Asked: “Has the Right not been trying its best to destroy the Constitution for centuries?”

Answer: NO

Warren must have been energized by his party’s loss of the presidency and the total fracture of the Left’s vaunted electoral “Blue Wall”. He now openly, and apparently unashamedly, “boo-hoos” a father’s concern for the safety of a young daughter being forced to share private feminine acts with a male.

What great compassion Warren.

Your stinking thinking and obvious GUILT-ridden psyche Sir, is a major part of America’s problem.

Just imagine the mindset of one who cries and laments the ousting of an illegal in this country because we need new “citizens” while hailing and saluting the government sanctioned death of over 60 million unborn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 23, 2016 7:36 PM
Comment #410439

Warren

If we counted all shootings by cops so far this year 860 people have been killed by cops. Of them 199 were black. Most of these were in process of committing crimes and/or shooting back. Anytime anybody gets killed it is too many, but in comparison it is not much.

So far this year 59 cops have been killed in the line of duty. ALL of them were innocent. And blacks kill around 40% of the cops killed, according to the FBI.

So BLM just has no case. We could well argue that all lives matter and so all police killing are important, although rare. But blacks are shot LESS often in comparison to their involvement in violent crime would indicate.

BLM is either ignorant or racist. Of course the two categories are not mutually exclusive but supporting BLM is shameful.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 23, 2016 8:22 PM
Comment #410440

And speaking of shooting by police, only 37 of that 860 were women. Is there a police “war on men” or maybe do behaviors vary as they do among whites & Asians and black on average?

Posted by: Christine & John at November 23, 2016 8:23 PM
Comment #410441

I have never claimed to be compassionate. I am only interested in fulfilling the ideals put forward by our nation’s founders. Namely, the fact that people have the right to do whatever they want with their lives so long as it doesn’t abridge another person’s rights. I will never surrender the cause of liberty to placate the prejudice of working class white people in the Midwest. The country remains center-left as demonstrated by the plurality of votes won by Hillary Clinton as well as Democratic Senatorial candidates and it will be sooner rather than later when the pendulum swings back to the left.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2016 8:26 PM
Comment #410442

C&J,

The ultimate problem, when you boil it down, is that the Black community does not trust the police to do their jobs fairly. This is why the crime rate among blacks is so high and it is also why they are sometimes less cooperative in their encounters. The BLM movement is prefaced on restoring that trust.

Look at the solutions, these do not appear to be that radical. Instead of spending time delegitimizing these people, why don’t we discuss how we can rebuild confidence in our law enforcement?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 23, 2016 8:35 PM
Comment #410449

I guess, Stephen Daugherty, people who blindly use other people’s words can’t be guilty of slander. Ignorance may describe it, yes?

Hillbilly said half the country’s population is a basket of supercalafragilisticexpeledociousses and you and your mind-numbed robot herd can’t get yourselves to quit repeating it. It’s a new list of buzz words you can’t seem to let loose of!

First you focused on Trump and said he was supercalafragilistic, and that didn’t work.

Then Bannon was guilty of being a supercalafragilistic, the worst expeledocious in modern history, and that didn’t work.

So now it’s some guy named Spencer, who I’ve never heard of, who is the new supercalafragilisticexpeledocious of the Expeledocious Of The Month club!

You are being used, Stephen Daugherty. You’re being taken advantage of. You are a willing dupe. They count on your intelligence and your unwavering loyalty to make sense of what they make you believe.

It took Warren Porter a full day to start projecting identity politics onto the right. j2t2 and phx8 latched onto the supercalafragilisticexpeledocious mantra from the moment it left Hillbilly’s lips and hasn’t let loose of it yet. You, for some reason, expect us to believe the founding fathers founded a democracy!

Your party lost this election because it gave us nothing but doom and gloom and a huge helping of hypocrisy. You’re going to need a much more productive stance, Stephen Daugherty. Name calling your way to success, if you are paying attention you would know, doesn’t work.

Name one thing Trump can accomplish, Stephen Daugherty. Just one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2016 9:56 PM
Comment #410450

You should start off by saying Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2016 10:02 PM
Comment #410453

Let’s start calling Trump the 45th President instead of the president-elect.

Obama gave up playing president some time ago. He even said it.

Trump is the 45th President of the United States.

Make it so, Number One!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2016 10:15 PM
Comment #410456

Warren

It is a problem of a subset of black culture, where crime in rampant and distrust of the police is common, connected to that crime thing.

BLM does not address this. Instead of addressing the culture of violence and distrust, they want to change the police. And they promulgate the myth of police shootings. Is that a way to build trust?

These attitudes are the result of racism, but it is fossilized now. The change that would help would be to change the culture. Culture and behaviors can be changed. It is perhaps not the fault of those affected but it is their problem and only they can change it.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 23, 2016 11:50 PM
Comment #410458

I had an opportunity to eat lunch at Burger King with a friend. I asked her if she remembered, “Who were the local officials you voted for?”. She studied her bowl of salad, spearing her cauliflower, and rubbing it in a puddle of Ranch Dressing, and then answered, “No.”.

I asked her, “How can less than 600 people solve the problems caused by 350 million people?

I asked; “In a city of 3500 people, where 25 of them are black, is the racial tension equal that portrayed by the MSM?”

She thrust aside the carrot shavings and the cabbage to find another morsel of cauliflower. She got the attention of the person responsible for our satisfaction and asked for more Ranch Dressing. She waved her fork in the air and looked at me until our attendant arrived with her order.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2016 3:25 AM
Comment #410461
BLM does not address this. Instead of addressing the culture of violence and distrust, they want to change the police. And they promulgate the myth of police shootings. Is that a way to build trust?

Changing the police is the only way of restoring that trust. The police are responsible for the distrust and as agents of the law, they have higher moral obligations than average day citizens. Thus, the burden of changing the relationship between law enforcement and this subset of the Black community falls upon the police. This is why changing police culture is a top priority for the BLM movement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 24, 2016 6:31 AM
Comment #410464

Royal Flush-
I think the past pattern of behavior helps to predict the future pattern of behavior.

Exhibit One: Behavior during trifecta periods. Both parties. When the Republicans had power, many of the public fights were between them, about what conservative policy would be. The Hardliners were tired of waiting, the more moderate souls were concerned the Hardliners were taking things into unsustainable territory. When the Democrats had power, it didn’t help that the Republicans were filibustering everything, but that could have been easier to surmount, their base easier to maintain, if they could match the unflinching 40 with an equally united 60.

A corollary to that: it is always easier to get people to agree on a “no” than to get them to agree on a “yes” 95% of Americans don’t want to imitate Soviet Russia. That doesn’t mean they’re all libertarians, or all uniformly opposed to any sort of social welfare policy.

Point is, though, when you no longer have to worry about the other side telling you no, when you no longer have to face opposition from them to get what you want, your most significant, in fact most galling opponents will be within your own party. Believe me, many Democrats were not pleased with the Conservative Democrats who put their little bargains into the ACA. That said, the fact that the ACA passed at all is a testament to the fact that Democrats could surmount their divisions to get something done.

Republicans could do that, too. But Republicans haven’t demonstrated the social skills that would make me believe that would be likely. In fact, they’ve been quite willing, even during this very election, to go into circular firing squad mode.

Witness the last six years. Republicans could have easily dominated policymaking if they could do one thing: negotiate as a block with President Obama. That, though, would have required compromise, and the Tea Party didn’t want that. Now, I trust that there will be things passed now, since Trump is President, that wouldn’t have been passed otherwise. That includes some seriously stupid budgets. That said?

That said, I can imagine situations where Trump, afraid of the public backlash, vetoes something, or signals he won’t sign it. I can imagine a situation where Senate Democrats, returning eight years worth of favors, start filibustering legislation, meaning that the bills in question basically die. Senate Republicans reformulate the bills, pass them back to the house… and the Tea Party Caucus, large enough to prevent passage, balks. They did that plenty during Obama-Era negotiations, forcing many votes where Republicans had to get Democratic help to get anything passed. What happens if such a chain of events occurs? It’s galling enough under Obama, but understandable. What if Senate Democrats force a negotiation? Or what if some Republicans, concerned about their own hides, find themselves opposed to some plan that Trump wants.

In essence, the question is, how do the Republicans deal with somebody telling them no, telling them they will have to negotiate? So far, not well. So far, their response is to turn on those who get in their way, the same way they turned on Democrats. You already have the faultlines between Tea Party and Establishment, between Trump Supporters in the party, and Trump critics. My guess is that Trump is going to be shy about making waves with those people, rallying other Republicans against them. This isn’t going to be like with Obama, with Obama meeting behind closed doors to deal with disagreements. Trump has a way of airing these kinds of disagreement in public, and if that happens, if he starts putting them on the spot like that, it could be quite a mess.

So, put that together, and my basic case is that the Republican majority in at least the Senate is unstable. If he manages to deliver three or four seats to Democrats in the next midterms, the Senate is ours, and the perfect trifecta goes down in flames

That’s point one.

Point two? Point two is that after ten years out of control of the lawmaking process, Republicans have gotten flabby in terms of policy-making. It’s basically been reduced to an instinct towards wish fulfillment, checking off agenda items. The last time the Republicans got into that situation? Well the last time that happened, it was a bloody disaster, not just for the country, but for the Republican Party.

I think it can be agree that if you are at the top, there’s no place to hide. If the deficit begins to rise again, it’s Trump’s deficit. If we start getting news of corruption, of bad deals getting made, Trump Administration folks doing bad crap, but nobody in Congress holding hearings on that, after God knows how much dead-horse-beating on Benghazi… that will be on the Republicans. If oversight is only for Democrats, then who can Trust the Republicans to run the show?

Also, though, the politics as priority policymaking has been a disaster, too. The Financial Crisis was made worse by that stunt they pulled in 2008, where they decided to belatedly demonstrated their libertarian street cred by refusing to do the bailout. Oh, they changed their minds rather quickly when the markets took a collective nose-dive… but by then, it was too late.

The Republicans keep painting themselves into corners, corners they basically have to go nuts to get out of. Trump is an example. Far from a doctrinaire Republican, he was their alternative to many of the Party leaders, like Cruz and Rubio, who arguably provided a purer conservatism to lead with. But Trump is little better, because in order to win, he basically promised Republicans the moon on each and everything. Prosecuting Hillary (Though that wouldn’t be his decision), Building a Wall, Deporting all the undocumented immigrants, etc. He pushed his promises to the limits.

So, how does he move forward, and when do people realize that he was not only acting like a dirty old politician, that he’s actually been behaving like the most clichéd stereotype of a corrupt politician in decades?

People were worried about Hillary not having a secured e-mail server… Trump tried to get his son-in-law into a meeting with highest level security clearance required. This is troubling for multiple reasons. Trump isn’t divesting himself of his businesses… the list goes on, and the only thing that Republicans can count on to protect them from all out collapse if worst comes to worst, is apathy or ignorance.

In my experience, people can be smarter, more sophisticated than you give them credit for. But people mainly reserve that for where they’re motivated to be such, and the GOP just hasn’t been a prime motivator for people to really think over policy. It’s become a kind of echo chamber for chanted policy dogmas, everything capable of being summed up in nice, neat little bumperstickers. But life doesn’t operate with the simplicity of a bumpersticker.

We all agree that folks in the market who take big stupid risks should end up paying for that with their failure. But what if you, following another simplistic principle, let the banks consolidate? What if you, letting them self police, allowed them to tangle each other in a network of counterparty obligations, not unlike a room full of strings wrapped around each person, all tied to hand grenade pins? Suddenly, it’s not so simple to let even one bank fall, because it would put all of them in serious trouble, and they would take the economy with it.

What happens the next time that we face a financial crisis? Do we let another Great Depression occur, so we can appease the gods of capitalism? What happens if we basically KILL capitalism in process of operating it so idealistically? People were talking about the end of Capitalism before Obama stepped in and took over. For all people called him a socialist, for all his people expected him to be the second coming of FDR, he instead took a different path. It’s arguable he made some mistakes, but what’s not arguable is that he didn’t simply follow some dogma. People can still buy Fords and Chevys because of that, and millions still have their jobs in the North, because of that.

Would the same thing happen with Trump?

I look at that, and I can’t say yes. He might. But if he does, he’ll get punished for it.

If your party will tend to reward people for being correct in their politics, even if their policies fail, it must decline. If they cannot work together when there are differences of opinion, if they can’t negotiate with their rivals to get things done, they must decline. If Trump can’t maintain his winning coalition, he must decline. It’s easy to predict downfall when a party has everything to lose. That’s gravity. Everything flows downhill from the top, and if people aren’t suited to the balancing act, they’ll tumble down, sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2016 9:25 AM
Comment #410466

As far as my faith goes?

I think God would prefer that we not treat a government that is of us, by us, and for us, as if it isn’t an extension of us. I believe that if I oppose my government doing something organized and effective about hunger, poverty, the condition of prisoners in our jails, etc., then I’m really not fooling him.

I also believe, though, that this government doesn’t belong to Christians like us. It belongs to all Americans, regardless of which faith they choose, or whether they choose to belong to a faith at all. That is what the Constitution says, and if we follow Paul and Jesus’s teachings, we must honor that, because our Kingdom is of a different realm, not this one. We take this country over, and all we will really have is men obeying men, not men obeying God. You can’t force faith at the point of a gun or at the end of a rope.

As far as the Constitution goes?

You keep on making the same mistake, keep on assuming that only your interpretation, your point of view on what it means is true and real. It’s a contract, though, a charter. It can’t exist just in your mind, just in your interpretation. It has to be a meeting of the minds.

But we aren’t telepaths. So we write something down. We right down a set of rules by which our government operates, by which people are elected, by which they are handed certain authority, and then certain restrictions on that authority.

But we aren’t telepaths. We’re individuals who look at this document and come to our own conclusions about what it means, based on experience and personal opinions.

We have things like courts because people can’t agree on ordinary level law and how to carry it out. Why should the Constitution have only one interpretation, if no other law does?

You can say that there better and worse, more faithful and less faithful interpretations of the Constitution out there. But you can’t say there’s only one. And you can’t insist that only yours gets to Triumph, because the rest of us have our own opinions on what good and faithful interpretations are. In my opinion, the interpretation of the Second Amendment that doesn’t allow for gun control fails to account for the responsibility its preface implies.

That said, my opinion alone is not what matters, and this is another clear difference: we are bound to the decisions of the courts, the Supreme Court most finally of all. And their law is not so simplistic as your politicians would have people believe.

I have my own opinion of what is right and wrong, both in my faith life, and in the realm of civil politics. What you need to realize is that if America stays true to itself, you can only get me to lay down these opinions of my own free will. Any final defeat, any forceful vanquishing of my opinion for all time would likely come at the cost of breaking the very Constitution you claim to love. If you would be a true Christian, you must learn how to deal with a world permanently out of whack with what you’d like to be true, which you can only improve by degrees.

kctim-
If I get an order for a wedding cake from a gay couple, the only thing that cake endorses, in real terms, is the fact they paid me. That the law says they must bake it, regardless of their feelings, gives them that way of reconciling things. It’s the same as if they were an interracial couple and the baker doesn’t like a white man marrying a black woman, or vice-versa.

Your problem is that you don’t see tyranny in the reverse of your decisions. You don’t see gay couples who love each other, but who the state for the longest time told couldn’t express that love with a public commitment, and couldn’t draw the benefits that other couples did by making it official. You don’t see the freedom they lost.

Folks like you… you’ve been on top for so long that you think that your particular situation is your personal right. You don’t see that others have their rights, too, and your perceived rights are conflicting with their actual ones. If you’re a transman, you should be able to use the restroom as such. Same with a transwoman. You complain that this endangers others, but we’ve hardly seen the sort of incidents on a regular basis that would justify that fear.

And that is one of many fears that are more hype and hysteria than actual hazard. I’m sick of having to accommodate fake fears, of having folks like you blast forth ignorance and slander without having to answer for your errors, your lack of evidence. This country needs a sanity check, a reality check. Policy guided by illusions will only succeed by pure chance.

tom humes-
I am the last person who would argue against a more profound increase! Maybe if you and put our foot up the right people’s backsides together, they might do something to help that. But the problem is, you’re politically aligned with the people who would make that situation much, much worse, because they believe somehow that we should run our country by the law of the jungle.

As for the Framers? I know they come from many different places, had many different agendas. They were not a monolithic group, nor were they somehow all temperamentally libertarian, as folks like you all too often allege. They were of a different time.

You can say what you want, but you need to realize that the truth and everything else is bigger than you. We need a government like ours not because each and every person is individually capable of knowing everything they need to know to rule the nation rightly and righteously, keeping everybody’s interests in mind…

But because nobody, by themselves, is. They figured out something screamingly obvious, but often confounding to the opinionated and the true believers: that the only real way to make peace and keep peace between a nation of people of different interests is to bring everybody, to some degree, into the decision making process. And as it’s turned out in practice, a critical part of maintaining our nation’s best interests is having that robust variety of opinions and viewpoints to draw from. If one set of people, with their limited knowledge and perspective, can dictate everything, then we’re screwed, because when they’re wrong, we won’t have the flexibility to switch to something else.

I believe that you undervalue that flexibility, that you’ve become arrogant in your politics. That arrogance won’t prevent the worst from happening. You’ve decided you want total control, so the left is going to raise their hands up and say, “Okay, give it a whirl,” knowing that you will likely vindicate them, as you vindicated them before. That should concern you. That should prompt you to consider some of their ideas, to figure out where you might moderate and modify your opinion to take advantage of where they might be right. Me, I often consider that with the market, using that, instead of some diktat to make regulation or whatever works.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2016 10:07 AM
Comment #410467

C&J-
I would be very careful about using statistics like that, if for no other reason than the fact that policing policy puts police officers into more interactions with black people and latinos than they do with White People. I mean, if you roll the dice more often, on weaker pretexts, and in similarly crime-ridden low-income white neighborhoods, you might see the same numbers.

Statistics mean nothing outside of context.

Even if you’re right, and there isn’t really that issue, wouldn’t allowing a process of review, reducing the unfair double standard of scrutiny, among other things, contribute to a sense of relief? Wouldn’t it tell them that their lives do matter to authorities? I mean, the way you treat BLM with such contempt only serves to reinforce the sense that black lives don’t matter to you. People don’t dwell in the land of statistics, they live in the real world, where they get stopped by cops more often, where they are given a talk when they grow up that tells them to be extra careful with cops who might shoot them, where they are watched like hawks in commercial establishments.

If you tell them, no, everything’s fine, it’s all in your head, and you’re just playing the race card… take it from their point of view. What would be your response? I’d argue they’re responding to that as you could expect. I’d argue that they’re meeting your contempt for their concerns with their own contempt for your policies. You can’t unilaterally tell them that their concerns are invalid, even if you are right about the statistics. You have to bring them into the fold, make sure they know that their concerns are not ignored, that when some cop shoots somebody, anybody, that the nature of that shooting is properly investigated and put under due scrutiny. If all lives matter, you don’t communicate this by saying, in each and every case, that the victim was a thug who got what they deserved.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2016 10:18 AM
Comment #410468

Weary Willie-
Hillary said a good portion of Trump’s voters are a basket of deplorables. Well, look at the people populating his administration. A gift basket of Islamophobes, homophobes, racists, and enablers of anti-Semitism. It’s not an accident you have Neo-Nazis sieg heiling Trump, it’s the product of a deliberate campaign strategy which flirted with them, normalized them. Bannon’s a dead giveaway on that.

Bannon is guilty of letting his site become a hotbed of hatred. Spencer is just one of a number of figures he’s enabled. This isn’t about strategy, these people honestly disturb me.

What can Trump accomplish? Fill some of your wish-list items, let you have a little Scalia on the bench. What he can also accomplish is the downfall of the GOP as a part for another generation or two.

As for what you asked? If you want to pretend like everything works on an individual level, fine, but what government does most is keep people out of each other’s way. People need to know what’s expected of them, in agreements, in day to day life. Too much uncertainty in that creates time-wasting, wealth-wasting, attention wasting conflict.

You act like you’re some sort of genius asking these questions, so I’d as you this: as you drove through whatever city or town you live in, did you have to worry that some idiot might try to set up a checkpoint and ask you for a bribe to let you through? Did you have to worry that the people you bought your internet service from would leave that service off for extended period of time, even when you paid your bill on time? Without law, obligations become a private matter, subject to private enforcement, which turns out to be unworkable in many situations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 24, 2016 10:54 AM
Comment #410469

Stephen

The statistics are very clear. Even if ALL the blacks shot by police were innocent bystanders (which they are not) the total number is small, 199 out of a country of 300 million. So this is the context.

BLM is a dishonest and racist organization. Members have engaged in violence and some have called for the murder of police. Democrats should distance themselves and condemn this hateful organization.

I have such contempt for BLM because I think that black lives (as a subset of all lives) DO matter. BLM is doing exactly the wrong thing if they want to save black lives. Good policing saves black lives. To the extent they make this harder and create even more distrust, BLM takes lives.

Indeed, there are legitimate complaints. But seeing everything through racist lens is not helpful in resolving them.

Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, almost half of ALL deaths in that age group, as compared to 8% for whites and Asians. Blacks make up only 13% of the population but are responsible for half of all murders. THIS is the problem. It is true that homicide tends to be a local matter. White kill mostly whites and blacks kill mostly blacks, but it is not an urgent issue for whites and it is for blacks.

If black lives matter, save those lives by cooperating with police.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 24, 2016 11:59 AM
Comment #410488

Mr. Daugherty asks; “Why should the Constitution have only one interpretation, if no other law does?”

Many of the Founders took the time to write about the meaning of much of the Constitution. It didn’t take them hundreds of thousands of pages to write our governing document unlike much of the legislation coming out of congress to day.

Mr. Daugherty must begin to understand the difference between Constitution and Law.

Our Founders were very concise with all the articles and especially the first five amendments. And, they took great pains to explain much in their private and public papers.

For some time after adopting the Constitution, while many of the Founders still lived; if questions arose about meaning, the authors could be consulted. The first ratification by amendment occurred in 1795 and concerned judicial limits. The next dealt with choosing a Vice-President in 1804 and the next abolished slavery in 1865.

It is notable that much of the original intentions of the Founders remain unchanged despite all the attempts to change it. No one told Jefferson and others what they “really meant” or what they should have written.

So called “modern-man” is no more capable of writing a better document than the one which exists. Tampering with well known meanings and intentions of the Founders by politically motivated justices is dangerous and must not be practiced.

Grievances can be address in many ways less damaging than reinterpreting our Founding Documents.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “I have my own opinion of what is right and wrong, both in my faith life, and in the realm of civil politics.”

Sigh! And that is the problem Stephen. God’s Law, concerning right and wrong, as given to us in the Bible can’t be changed to suit mankind. To change God’s Law, one must assume equality with God.

The Constitution is not open to opinion. To interpret is not to opine based upon popularity. Please understand the difference.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “I’m sick of having to accommodate fake fear…”

For your information Mr. Daugherty, so are we. Stop it.


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2016 2:38 PM
Comment #410496

C&J-
To make those charges, you are having to imply that those who do commit violence, who riot, who loot or whatever, are the responsibility of those who did not. You have to imply because some lie, some manipulate using the charges, or that because the victims aren’t all angels, that none of their concerns are legitimate.

This is what gets you in trouble. You’re so busy playing this game about who is trustworthy and who is not, that you define yourself out of the responsibility to create a dialogue, and thereby remain in a nice, neat little bubble.

When I see video of some guy getting shot despite the fact that he has been wrestled to the ground, I see a deliberate, unnecessary homicide. Now, that may not be the whole truth. But so long as some guy can toss a gun or claim that something was reached for, or otherwise justify their homicides by dishonest means, minorities are right to distrust the police. When less violent behavior prompts more violent response, they are right to see a bias.

You have an opportunity here, one that nervousness about admitting fault, nervousness about validating what some radicals may claim, is keeping you from taking.

What we need is an assertive, but open-minded way of dealing with things. Evidence-based. The expedient and corrupt practices need to go, because they are at the root of the problem, the problem relating one side to the other.

So long as people see their priorities being swept under the rug, their concerns discredited and discarded, they have no reason to go about their daily lives as if they have a stake in OUR society. If the rights and the benefit of the doubt are not shared, if police enforce the law differently based on how you look, then the actions of the authorities themselves represent a segregating force, one that hides itself in the invisibility of the unwritten rules of human interaction.

I keep up with news about how states dealt with voting, and I was very much dismayed to see the Republican Party repeatedly use policy to disadvantage turnout for minority voters. Yes, they were likely to vote Democrats, but that was their choice, not the governing official’s. So long as they don’t feel their influence on that government, why, they feel, should they have to respect that government?

The more this goes on, the more your idea of colorblind interaction becomes a farce, a wishful, sugarcoated bit of thinking that demands that people pretend that they’re equals in society, when Society brazenly demonstrates a double standard to them! Like I said, whatever your statistics say, the peaceful, law-abiding protestors out there, the peaceful, law-abiding minorities, should not be on probation for their rights because not everybody in their racial or social class is behaving properly. Our rights belong to us as individuals and our loss of those rights, under the Constitution, must be the consequence of due process following a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, itself founded on evidence that was properly gathered.

If you want to hold back the power of government, this is a necessary constraint. and it’s a constraint that must equally for all, even if people fear that doing so might make us vulnerable to the criminal element among those minorities. Otherwise, your practice is dividing those your words are not.

Royal Flush-
Reason by itself cannot suffice to create good judgment or proper interpretation. No law, no bible, no anything written or spoken can mean anything without reference to reality, without reference to well-calibrated fact, and properly understood situations.

You say the Constitution is not open to opinion. In what way did you close it off from it? If all you mean is, “nobody can apply any other opinion but my own on it…” well, good luck trying to force people into agreeing with that.

Interpretation requires that facts, knowledge, and understanding be applied, hooked into the law being interpreted. As those change, as those shift, as people become wiser, as old sentiments die out, the interpretations MUST change to suit. It is as much inevitable as a muddy slope sagging when it is soaked by too much rain. As people die, as the memories and attitudes of old die with people, everything is considered anew, looked on again by new eyes.

Personally speaking, it’s my theory that there are constants in human character, elements of how we are, and who we are, that biology, economy, and other forces repeatedly cause to emerge, time and again. Conservativism works best when it says, “what has happened before will happen again, so we must be careful in how we advance.” It works worst when it says, “That was an accident the last time, this time, we will escape fate, and all these bad things that happened when we last tried something similar will not occur.”

You can insist that you know best, but that’s your insistence. I did not come to my faith by your path. I see elements of ancient story, the laws of an ancient society within the first books of the bible. That doesn’t mean I consider all of it inapplicable or meaningless, but I understand that we have been blessed with understanding that the people of those ancient times could only dream of.

I also understand this: that the sins of yesterday often carry within them the same frailties of the sins of today, so broadly speaking, issues about forgiveness and mercy, about how the elite treat the rest of us, how we treat each other, remain important questions. If we think about it in mythological terms, from a Joseph Campbell sort of perspective, many of the same stories have repeated much the same way from the beginning of human existence. If you want to know what happens when you choose the wrong leader, read about King Saul. If you want to know about what happens, even if you pick the right leader, Read about King David. If you want to know how even with Wisdom and knowledge, how things still can go wrong, read of King Solomon, and what happened after him.

As for accommodating fake fears? There were no Death Panels. The insurance companies were free to raise their rates. The website for the market had a terrible start. It’s gotten better over time. The mandate was an attempt at compromise with Conservatives, but conservatives accepted none. Your guns weren’t taken, and likely won’t be taken any time soon. Obama was an American citizen all along. He is not possessed by a demon, nor an agent of the “New World Order.” Lizard people are a figment of somebody’s fevered imagination, and there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that Hillary Clinton has thrown open the vaults of national security secrets. We still live in a Democracy, and somehow, despite the fact that all our elections were supposedly rigged, Obama and Clinton somehow forgot to win every election for the past eight years, especially this one, where only a few more votes would have been necessary to shut Trump out.

Facts. I like facts. They’re there whether you’re calm or not, right or not. They keep you from falling flat on your face when you pay attention. They bring you back to reality when you’re not. They have a solidity, a concreteness I prefer. So when somebody starts telling me the BLM are terrorists, I’m saying, prove it. Make the logic work for me so I don’t feel like my intelligence has been insulted by the appeal to my fears.

I don’t like being wrong. I invest myself in what I believe, and it’s very jarring to discover my facts are wrong. So, I’m guarded when it comes to those who just flatly contradict me. I neither want to give up what I firmly believe, nor come to believe something fatally flawed in its evidence or its reasoning.

I believe in building my understanding of things from the ground up. I won’t be beat down into a point of view.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 25, 2016 5:29 PM
Comment #410497

Stephen, since you didn’t respond to what I wrote, I will write it again…”The Constitution is not open to opinion. To interpret is not to opine based upon popularity. Please understand the difference.”

I will simplify for you; opinion based upon what may be currently popular is not a basis for constitutional interpretation. Bending words to afford them new meaning is simply a sham designed to further a political or personal purpose.

Daugherty writes; ” As people die, as the memories and attitudes of old die with people, everything is considered anew, looked on again by new eyes.”

Please, get a grip on yourself. That is why the Constitution is a written document, not oral tradition. Our forefathers in the individual states all agreed to abide by what was written in that document. We today are bound by that document also unless we; collectively, change it in a manner prescribed by that very document. Amendment, not judicial activism.

Regarding fact and fear Stephen, I was referring to much of what you have written since the election. Take a look at all the fear you express with no basis in fact.

No one is trying to “beat” you down Stephen. Paranoia sucks I’m told.

I wonder how many translations of the bible exist. I have seen some that pretend to know what are the actual words of Jesus and which are not. Some bible translations contradict others. Theologians disagree and laymen choose what is appealing to them. What then is God’s word? How do we choose or even know.

The answer for me is quite simple. Read what those who lived during the time of Jesus wrote. Testimony from an actual witness rarely needs interpretation. If you can find what you believe supported by those who knew Christ…go with it.


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 25, 2016 6:12 PM
Comment #410514

Democratics have been abusing the constitution since Woodrow Wilson decided it was “too difficult to follow”. Roosevelt stacked the deck with the SC to get his hands into every person’s and every business’s pocket. The supreme court has to add things to the constitution, like choice, and privacy, and ignore things like the state sovereignty to justify what progressives want to force on the American people.

If we actually followed the constitution, the progressive movement at the federal level would be holding an empty bag full of wishful thinking.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2016 9:04 AM
Comment #410522
The Constitution is not open to opinion. To interpret is not to opine based upon popularity. Please understand the difference
I will simplify for you; opinion based upon what may be currently popular is not a basis for constitutional interpretation. Bending words to afford them new meaning is simply a sham designed to further a political or personal purpose.

I can only speak for myself, but the interpretations of the Constitution that I present here on WatchBlog are not based on what is “popular” or some personal agenda of my own. Rather, they are my best ability to tease what our founders meant when they wrote those sacred words 240 years ago. I study and read their writings as well as the writings of many esteemed thinkers that have come and gone in the intervening years such as Oliver Wendell Holmes. Only by amalgamating the diverse array of opinions can the correct interpretation is discerned.

The meanings of clauses can evolve as technology progresses. The First Amendment protects journals and periodicals published online even though no printing press is ever involved. Article I gives Congress the ability to fund an Air Force even though the text itself only concerns an Army and a Navy. No one in their right mind thinks that the meaning of the Constitution would remain static in light of changing technology. Instead, it changes and adapts to the times while maintaining fidelity to the intentions of the founders.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 26, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #410523

Agree Warren. I will add that the Framers didn’t contemplate or believe necessary any “new rights” of individuals.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 26, 2016 4:53 PM
Comment #410525

I wonder which one of the founding fathers, the one’s who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, believed the word “choice” was in the constitution, and how many of them thought “choice” meant “kill an unborn baby”?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #410526

I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a “new right”. Our rights are unalienable as they are endowed by our Creator. Mere human institutions cannot make or unmake any of these rights.

That said, human institutions sometimes fail to protect certain rights. It is in those cases that we must be willing to change those institutions in order to be in accordance with liberty and justice.

For instance, from 1896 until 1954, our institutions failed to protect Black Americans’ right to equal protection under the law. The Courts rectified that with newfound fidelity to an “old” right. As you can see, the Courts can establish recognition of rights that should have been acknowledged long ago.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 26, 2016 5:28 PM
Comment #410527

Following and enforcing what is written in the Constitution is a conservative goal.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 26, 2016 5:33 PM
Comment #410528

LOL Royal Flush, that was a funny one.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 26, 2016 5:56 PM
Comment #410530

Warren, I have more. How about the constitution calling for limited government?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 26, 2016 6:44 PM
Comment #410531

Of course, the Constitution limits the power of our Government, but you are delusional if you think Conservatism is prefaced upon respecting those limits.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 26, 2016 7:03 PM
Comment #410533

WP
Progressivism sure does not respect those limitations.

In my opinion the only “ism” is Constitutionalism. Or in other words what the Constitution says absolutely, not relatively.

Posted by: tom humes at November 27, 2016 1:58 AM
Comment #410536

I am not a progressive, nor have I ever claimed to be. I am a liberal, which means I believe in the fundamental principle of liberty as defined by Thomas Jefferson:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

This is a Lockean notion and Jefferson’s peers held it to heart when they crafted our Constitution. This conception of liberty colors my interpretation of the Constitution. I don’t know how that fits into your parlance of “relative” and “absolute” interpretations of the Constitution. As far as I am concerned, the Constitution says only one thing and that is what I believe.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 9:04 AM
Comment #410550

Liberty was bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. One should know that Christian Abolitionists created the campaign to liberate the slaves.

We bought liberty in the Civil War, the World Wars and during the Cold War.

Jefferson’s words ring true to me today and I know that Liberty is worth fighting and dying for.

Individual liberty and freedom are enshrined in our Constitution.

The “rightful liberty” defined by Jefferson would not recognize the authoritarian and tyrannical federal government involvement in our schools, health care, interstate commerce, work place and religious institutions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 27, 2016 4:18 PM
Comment #410552

RF,

Yet, you advocate an ideology that seeks to force people against their will into behaviors that you prescribe. This is completely divorced from Jefferson’s “Rightful liberty”. You are a confused man, as indicated by your tirade that “tyrannical federal government involvement” is at play in various places. We rely upon that Federal Government which you detest in order to protect our freedoms.

When the government coerces a citizen so that he refrains from violating the liberty of another, that is an incontrovertible good. When you rail against “excessive government”, you are invariably defending the right of one citizen to infringe upon the equal rights of another.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #410553

No confusion here “man”. The delusional world you live in, and would have me live in as well, is one in which the central government intrudes into my personal freedom and liberty. Jefferson would have no part of that.

Your confusion conflates my belief of “limited government” into “destest”(ing) government.

Mealy-mouth liberals and progressives find no conflict of individual rights in forcing a business owner to obey government edicts that contradict deeply held religious beliefs with no harm to others.

These same fork-tongued liberals and progressives find Jeffersonian liberty in foisting horrendous health care changes upon tens of millions of Americans for the benefit of a few million.

My morally challenged Pals on the Left claim abhorrence of violence; only to support it when done for the “proper” reasons. Our great institutions of higher learning are filled with VIOLATORS OF FREEDOM and protected by the Left.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 27, 2016 5:11 PM
Comment #410555
Mealy-mouth liberals and progressives find no conflict of individual rights in forcing a business owner to obey government edicts that contradict deeply held religious beliefs with no harm to others.

More ignorance and confusion are on display in the above comment. The only government edicts that “Mealy-mouth liberals and progressives” support are those that protect other citizens from harm, namely the loss of their equality. Just because you refuse to open your eyes to the said harms does not mean they do not exist. Just because you’d rather spin yourself into a pretzel than show your true colors as a supporter of demagoguery and prejudice doesn’t make you a Constitutionalist. Jefferson and his peers would spin in their graves if they knew of the oppression you advocate in their name.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #410556

Poor guilty Warren…still in denial. Can’t win elections that support his views so he must fantasize.

Many warriors have fought and died to defend freedom and liberty. Please raise your hand if you will do the same for Warren’s beliefs.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 27, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #410560

Poor Royal Flush, he can’t win an argument so he must trade insults and fallacies.

If a business owner refuses to do business with another person on account of that person’s race, creed, gender identity, sexual orientation or other such attribute, that business owner has harmed said person. Period.

It is government’s fundamental responsibility to prevent one citizen from harming another. If this means infringing on a murderer’s right to kill or a thief’s right to steal, so be it. In any case, devoutly held religious beliefs are no excuse for harming another citizen.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 6:10 PM
Comment #410561

Warren is on the wrong side of history in his Liberal/Progressive beliefs and proclamations of perverted freedom and liberty.

I understand that recent judicial rulings, and presidential edicts, regarding social issues have favored the Left. Success based upon judicial activism or presidential decree, and not on the constitution, generally fades and disappears leaving supporters confounded.

The Left is experiencing the political decline that is inevitable when a cause focuses narrowly on the desires of some at the expense of the many.

The Left has merely a shadow presence remaining in the governments of our cities, counties and states. Leftism is strongest in the bastions of social unrest supported by unwarranted government largess. This is changing.

Soon, even conservative speakers will be welcome on our college campus’s as evidence of a healing nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 27, 2016 6:35 PM
Comment #410565

You fundamentally misunderstand my position. The fact that the Courts and Executive Orders agree with me is not the reason why they are right. You made the same mistake in Comment #410488, dismissing Stephen Daughtery’s interpretation of the Constitution as merely “opining based upon popularity”.

narrowly on the desires of some at the expense of the many.
Protecting individuals’ rights is not some mere “desire”. It is the most fundamental premise upon which our Constitution is based. Under your formulation, the minority would be oppressed by a tyranny of the majority.
The Left has merely a shadow presence remaining in the governments of our cities, counties and states. Leftism is strongest in the bastions of social unrest supported by unwarranted government largess. This is changing.

Instead of calling names, why don’t you actually defend what you write? Tell me why a person’s sexual orientation is justification for abridging their rights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 7:34 PM
Comment #410566

LOL…Warren is really losing it. Tell me why anyone’s “thoughts” about what gender they are is protected?

Thoughts change all the time DUDE! Thinking isn’t speech.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 27, 2016 7:40 PM
Comment #410568

So, it’s OK to abridge someone’s rights just because they have “bad thoughts”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 9:23 PM
Comment #410571

Hypothetically, what harm does a sign on the door of a business do if what the sign says is not enforced? Let’s say a business owner hangs a sign on the door of his business that says, “You must be this ______ tall to be able to enter”. However, no one stops short people from entering and patronizing the business.

Now, someone walks by the front of the business and sees the sign. They take offense and feels it is a violation of the 14th amendment and files a law suit for discrimination against short people. The business owner is subjected to court costs and lawyer’s fees, and basically punished for having the sign in his door even though no one was “injured”.

Who is harming whom in this scenario?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2016 10:20 PM
Comment #410573

When I was young, I sometimes pointed my finger mere millimeters from my brother’s face and yelled, “I am not touching you!”. Needless to say, my parents were never amused by this and I always received a punishment identical to what I would’ve gotten if I had actually punched him in the face.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 10:58 PM
Comment #410583

Are you saying the 14th amendment covers bad manners and practical jokes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 10:48 AM
Comment #410586

The 14th amendment protects ALL Americans from unjust discrimination.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 12:06 PM
Comment #410590

Royal Flush-
You trust words and language much more than I do. You think that just by sticking to what YOU think a set of words mean, you can freeze that meaning in place.

While it’s true the written word is not as unstable as oral tradition is, the harsh truth is that people are just as unstable and unreliable as ever, and perception of something written is always conditional on whatever else you know.

Words and language are an interface that allows others to reconstruct what is inside our heads, a way for others to know our thoughts, or what we would want people to know as our thoughts.

This interface is not arbitrary, but it’s built on constantly updated informal agreements. What’s more, the framework is preserved in the unstable substrate of fallible, mortal human minds.

That it’s written down is not always helpful. Some elements have endured over the centuries, but much of it hasn’t. If I told somebody in the middle ages that if this person shows up and asks to come in, don’t let them, They’d let them right in. “let” used to mean prevent, hence the archaic legal phrase, “without let or hindrance”

Look at the treadmill of emphatic terms, literally, actually, really, or the rather unfortunate tendency for words we create to be sensitive about those with developmental disabilities (Retarded, Idiot, Moron, Mentally Challenged, Slow, Special, etc.) being adopted, only to get slotted right in among the other now insulting terms.

The problem with literally interpreting the Constitution, at the start of things, is that merely literal interpretation of the text does not guarantee accurate recovery of the intended meaning. The Constitution was written in the plain language of the time, so that the average American of the time could understand it, what it meant. Same thing for the Bill of Rights. Plain language isn’t as strict as legalese, where everything is defined down within an inch of its life, thanks to generations of lawyers making their living off of splitting hairs.

The words themselves are not arbitrary, but they are most meaningful within a context, and the idea, once properly understood within that context, still has to be applied to a society like ours, over two hundred and twenty years later. If you’re not cracking open the nut of the law to get at the meat of the idea, you can’t really effectively interpret the law of the Constitution.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 1:43 PM
Comment #410591

Let me put this in another way. Let’s say you have a set of IKEA instructions. In our day, right now, you have a box of parts, immediately available, and you can reproduce a version of the prototype of the piece of furniture.

This is sort of the way language works. I’ve got this idea that I share with you. This idea isn’t just there, or often times, even mostly there in the words alone. The words are just key to reconstructing the idea from the available contexts.

So, what happens if that set of instructions gets buried in a file, an a hundred years passes before some guy retrieves the plans? The year is 2116!

If they don’t crack the secret to immortality, then the truth is, even the baby born today will likely be dead by then. If IKEA is destroyed in the Great Trump Depression to come (I keeed, I keeed) then they may not be able to ask IKEA what their intentions were.

That man with the plans is not guaranteed success. If he doesn’t use the right fasteners or materials, his BJORNIP sofa might break the first time he sits on it. He’d probably need to do quite a bit of research to find the appropriate parts to recreate the sofa.

However, if he’s smart enough, he can reinterpret the directions, substituting better, stronger fasteners, wood, metal, taking what was good about the original desired interpretation, the central working ideas, and giving them stronger support, lighter construction, more efficient mechanics. It won’t be what was originally intended, but then even today, folks take IKEA’s original models, and repurpose them.

That’s part of what America is about. We don’t just mindlessly accept some past interpretation of things as an obligation. We take the central ideas of things and improve and innovate. The freedom to see things for ourselves, including the Constitution, lets us improve things, shape things more to our liking. That doesn’t mean, say, that the Constitution is meaningless. It’s just that we have a certain amount of choice as to how we let its rules and ideas interact, with varying results accordingly.

It’s important to keep to a number of those central ideas, because some things about our world, our people, and our country don’t change. Powerful people still don’t like to be criticized, and might misuse power to silence people. Governments still cover-up their deceptions and failures, so a press is needed to do more than distribute their propaganda. Police officers, even today, may stretch, bend, or even violate people’s liberties, because it suits some corrupt agenda, or even more insidiously, because their good intentions might blind them to the implications of their actions.

The Framers didn’t create protections out of some noble prophetic spirit. They dealt with the violation of these rights in their day and age.

It’s also important to realize that the spirit of the violations might remain the same, but the means and the character of them will change. That means you either change the interpretation to reflect that, or you end up effectively gutting the protection.

We do not know all ends, and neither did the framers. It is not wrong to ask for reasonable, relatively faithful interpretations of the Constitution, for things not to get stretched too far. But there is no perfect interpretation, nor privileged one, and it is neither necessarily good nor practical for us to try and force one on the situation. The laws will change, their interpretations will change, and the way people regard the law will evolve. For the best, for the worse? ours is a system that can go in either direction, but recover if it heads in a direction that doesn’t work.

Personally, I think reinterpretation is a better, wiser option for the most part than amendment. I think Amendment should be a last resort for dealing with constitutional issues, because each Amendment carries with it potential implications, interpretations, and interactions with other constitutional and statutory laws.

If we can only operate according to the rigid interpretation of one party and one faction, An interpretation that they have unilaterally declared to be the one true interpretation, then whatever failings of their logic they produce will break the whole system. If we can shift our interpretation to something that better fits things, then our system survives. Having more than one opinion about how things can work, how they can be interpreted gives us the flexibility to deal with a complex world where not everything can be cleanly rationalized or foreseen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 2:35 PM
Comment #410594

Stephen,

I wouldn’t suggest “hacking” the Constitution like one does with IKEA furniture. All interpretations of the Constitution should be congruent with the intentions of America’s founders. Despite their flaws, these are some of the best minds who have ever created a framework for government. Only in the most extreme circumstances should we reject their insight.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 3:41 PM
Comment #410595
Personally, I think reinterpretation is a better, wiser option for the most part than amendment.

There you have Progressive ideology in a nut shell. The left thinks, by following Woodrow Wilson, it’s just to difficult to follow the constitution (article 5) therefore the court will use interpretation to establish faux changes to the constitution without the states being troubled with the task of amending and ratifying the constitution properly.

Then, when the left wanted to extend the federal government’s control over the states, FDR just added Supreme Court justices who thought alike to get their way.

So, what Stephen Daugherty is saying, and what the left believes is, the founders were antiquated, the constitution is flawed, and the left is supreme in their opinion. They would never consider what Stephen Daugherty is saying if the changes made by a conservative court took the left’s positions to task.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 3:48 PM
Comment #410598

So, it’s OK to abridge someone’s rights just because they have “bad thoughts”?
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 27, 2016 9:23 PM

I must laugh and cry at the same time at Warren’s conflicting statement. How can thought be abridged? LOL
OH, Wait…perhaps Warren believes in “thought” police. Yup, they operate out of the same precinct as the “memory” police.

Simply because a human wakes up believing his/her gender doesn’t match the genitals born with, affords that human no special rights or accomodation others don’t possess.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #410600

Maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension. I spoke of abridging a person’s rights, not of abridging their thoughts.

affords that human no special rights or accomodation others don’t possess

Agreed. So, why do you insist on treating them differently than other people?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 4:43 PM
Comment #410601

They’re treating themselves differently, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 4:52 PM
Comment #410602

Should Warren be more careful in his writing, we wouldn’t believe he was claiming a “right” to thought protection.

Contrary to what Warren would like, the gender of men and women has been, and will be, determined by their genitalia and chromosomes.

Warren advocates some men and women be treated differently due to mental confusion of their gender. That is unlawful.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 4:56 PM
Comment #410604

Religious Jews treat themselves differently than other people. Should we treat them differently than other people?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 5:32 PM
Comment #410605

I want ALL people to be treated the same. Regardless of $ex or gender identity.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 5:34 PM
Comment #410607

AWwww…poor Warren. He is upset ‘cause there are no women players in the NFL, no white people in the Congressional Black Caucus, and most of all, a White Male Santa at the North Pole.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 5:43 PM
Comment #410609

Does affirmative action favoring some over others upset our equality loving progressives/socialist/liberal buddies?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 6:08 PM
Comment #410610

Again. I want every treated equally whereas you apparently believe in preferentially treating people on the basis of race or $ex.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 28, 2016 6:14 PM
Comment #410613

Warren Porter-
Intentions can be confounded in a law, if it is written poorly. It’s not just a matter of getting in the wayback machine and researching the primary intentions. The real question is what does the law say? Republicans love to harp on us for judicial activism, but look at many of their recent decisions, their very attitude towards bringing lawsuits and using them against legislation and policy they hate.

It occurs to me that maybe we’re getting conned here, that they’re basically throwing the charge that we love interpreting things willy-nilly in order to get us to inhibit our behavior. I think there’s a lot the GOP does to encourage us to inhibit our political behavior.

My sensibility on the Framer’s intention is that it’s important where it reflects a more or less timeless concern. It’s also a matter of conscience. Slavery and Suffrage for both women and former slaves are examples. We have no need for obedience to intentions that undermine the full and intellectually honest, unhypocritical expression of people’s rights as citizens.

Also, though, let’s be blunt: the Framers weren’t big on obedience to tradition. They were big on people figuring things out for themselves. That is an iterative process, because people always have an initial idea of how things are supposed to work that reality works rather quickly to disillusion them of. Ideology and propaganda have a way of blithely ignoring the counterexamples, of insisting that no matter how badly something works, the shortfalls are stemming from some external force.

The Republicans want to insist that no matter how badly their interpretation of the constitution works that we have to follow it because (they say) the interpretation they’ve got is the one and only right one.

Neither of those approaches strikes me as a very reasoned way to approach a system like our constitution and its interpretation. Royal Flush’s approach is authoritarian and unilateral, and I really don’t appreciate that. We have other choices. It’s not, for example, just a choice between socialism and laissez fair capitalism. We used another choice when I was a kid, we won the cold war under its auspices.

Weary Willie-
Flawed? Anything created by people will be flawed. Obsolete? By no means. Much of it still applies, and in fact, I would argue we liberals apply it more systematically, more thoroughly than Republicans do. We don’t pander to the police by helping to cover for racial profiling and other civil-liberty violating constitutional shortcuts.

Here’s the thing, though: every time you add another amendment, you add interactions with other laws, you add potential problems. Revision of a fundamental set of laws should never be taken lightly.

What I mean when I said that we should reinterpret before we amend is quite simple: we should do our best to make the Constitution work in practice before we make changes to it. If it takes a little bit of creativity to do what we need to do with our government, so be it, but even so, the point is to remain adherent to the Constitution. The point is to govern less by the kind of ugly exceptions I so often see conservatives employ, excusing a boundless surveillance state, torture, unequal protection of the law, especially aimed at minorities, and more by an intelligent consideration of what the Federal Governments legitimate powers are, and aren’t.

Royal Flush-
I’m a happily non-transgendered male, but if I was one of those rare individuals who were transgendered, I would not see the right to use the bathroom of my own perceived gender as an EXTRA. I would see it as a given right of the gender I claim, and would likely shun the other bathroom as inappropriate for me.

Put another way, a gender-appropriate bathroom is not a special right. We’re just arguing over whether a person who wears certain genitals, but has a given perception of their gender, qualifies as that gender for the purposes of the law. The truth is, many already have used that bathroom anyways, just without the protection of the law to do so, and yet we have not seen waves of sex crimes stemming from that. Transgender people are not typically predators, anymore than the rest of us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2016 7:01 PM
Comment #410615
Here’s the thing, though: every time you add another amendment, you add interactions with other laws, you add potential problems. Revision of a fundamental set of laws should never be taken lightly.

That is exactly why amending the constitution is to be difficult. However, Progressives have bypassed that difficulty in favor of granting wishes to people for votes. Social Security should have been an amendment to the constitution, not a law passed by less than 600 people. Look how many times the Civil Rights act had to be written and still it isn’t solving the problems of racial “inequality”. Racial inequality has become an excuse, not a problem. Health care’s problems were caused by government, yet they continue to write laws and interpret those laws to suit their goals and still we have the problems.

The federal government has no business dictating any of those issues because the constitution was not amended to grant that right. It has no business regulating Education, public housing, public transportation, national parks, health care, social security, the economy, none of it.


I’m a happily non-transgendered male, but if I was one of those rare individuals who were transgendered, I would not see the right to use the bathroom of my own perceived gender as an EXTRA.

Use of a bathroom is not an extra. What is extra is in the description of yourself. You call yourself a non-transgendered male. The extra is the non-transgendered part of that description. Totally unnecessary, yet you added it to make a point, whether it’s solidarity with those you’re pandering to, or a confidence building technique you use, or whatever, it’s still extra. It has no business in the formulation of laws that are supposed to apply to all of us.


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 7:37 PM
Comment #410616

Mr. Daugherty unbelievably wrote; “. I would see it as a given right of the gender I claim…” He, she, and it all have the same rights.

First, I find no Constitutional “rights” that are protected because of, and by gender, do you?

Men and women participate in our constitutional rights equally.

Second, how can one “claim” what one does not, and can never, naturally possess? How does one “claim” and then possess genitalia they are not born with?

Third, what other physical human attributes may I claim for my own without being born with them. May I claim blue eyes, blonde hair, height, weight, skin color, number of fingers and toes, and intellect as well as genitalia preference?

Fourth, if I determine, in my mind only, to be something that I am not, are others obligated to concur; and not believe their lying eyes and ears which see and hear me as I am?

Fifth, how do I recognize what persona the other person is projecting with their mind? Will they dress or act a certain way as to give me a clue as to what gender they are thinking they are today?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2016 7:38 PM
Comment #410618
First, I find no Constitutional “rights” that are protected because of, and by gender, do you?

I don’t. In fact, I see a constitutional amendment that demands the opposite, that no one can be discriminated against because of their sex.

How then, can the left even justify the foundation of their argument? How can they attempt to write laws that specifically separate a person because of their sex? And then expect us to justify more laws written based on the person’s perception of what sex they are?

Such is the mind of a liberal, I guess. They completely ignore the foundation and attempt to build on a fantasy.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 7:53 PM
Comment #410619
First, I find no Constitutional “rights” that are protected because of, and by gender, do you?

I don’t. In fact, I see a constitutional amendment that demands the opposite, that no one can be discriminated against because of their s3x.

How then, can the left even justify the foundation of their argument? How can they attempt to write laws specifically for a person because of their s3x? And then expect us to justify laws written based on the person’s perception of what s3x they are?

Such is the mind of a liberal, I guess. They completely ignore the foundation and attempt to build on a fantasy.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2016 7:57 PM
Comment #410630

That is because as is noted in the writings above the southpaws have a fantasy world view. It is really easy to understand. When the writings as mentioned are what they turn out to be, then wherever those of the fantasy world that want to pee in place reserved by people of the proper gender will find it to be a major problem with their mental capacity to understand that zippers on the clothing of men have a purpose. This concept has been around for decades even for those who don’t understand it.

Posted by: tom humes at November 29, 2016 1:57 AM
Comment #410632

Stephen,

Most importantly, the goal of the founders wasn’t to create a bunch of rules and arbitrary mechanisms to be followed. They sought to create a liberal republic, a place where each and every person’s liberty would be protected from both the State as well as their fellow citizen. The US’s founders sought to demolish the hierarchies that predominated British society. Before the US, we had ridiculous ideas such as “virtual representation” whereby wealthy peers in England were supposed to “represent” American interests despite being elected by constituents on the English side of the Atlantic. Because they were not electorally beholden to their subjects, these MPs had no incentive to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. Hence, the rebellion and subsequent forging of a new nation that guaranteed the rights of all.

The Republicans want to insist that no matter how badly their interpretation of the constitution works that we have to follow it because (they say) the interpretation they’ve got is the one and only right one.
This is the flaw in the Republican brain in a nutshell. It is with the utmost arrogance that they even refuse to consider the possibility that their reading of the Constitution might be fallible.

Royal Flush,

He, she, and it all have the same rights.

You prefer a framework whereby he and she do not have the same rights. In particular, she has the right to marry me under your system, but not he. He has the right to use the bathroom on the ground floor while she does not. Taboo and cultural custom may continue to separate the $exes in certain functions, but Uncle Sam’s cudgel should never be employed to enforce those traditions.

How does one “claim” and then possess genitalia they are not born with?
If you ever bother to take the time to speak to a transgender person, you will discover that they are not delusional about the genitalia they were born with. Instead, there is a belief that womanhood or manhood are states of mind rather than physical states. Now, I am not privy to what actually goes on inside the mind of such a person, so I am not going to express personal judgements on the phenomenon. All I know is that no matter what goes on inside the mind of a person, that person’s rights ought to be respected just like anyone else. Man, woman, transman, transwoman, everyone needs to be treated the same.

WW,

I don’t. In fact, I see a constitutional amendment that demands the opposite, that no one can be discriminated against because of their s3x.

This is precisely the position that I have argued. The Constitution forbids discrimination because of someone’s $ex.

How then, can the left even justify the foundation of their argument? How can they attempt to write laws specifically for a person because of their s3x? And then expect us to justify laws written based on the person’s perception of what s3x they are?

The Left isn’t writing laws specifically for a person because of their $ex. Nowhere in Charlotte’s Ordinance are their different rules for men for women, nor are their different rules for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Cisgender and transgender people follow the same rules, likewise.

Tom Humes,

That is because as is noted in the writings above the southpaws have a fantasy world view. It is really easy to understand. When the writings as mentioned are what they turn out to be, then wherever those of the fantasy world that want to pee in place reserved by people of the proper gender will find it to be a major problem with their mental capacity to understand that zippers on the clothing of men have a purpose. This concept has been around for decades even for those who don’t understand it.

People could be wetting their pants because they think they are dogs for all I care. As long as you and I aren’t subsidizing the behavior, people are free to do whatever they want with their lives so long as they don’t harm anyone else (Remember Jefferson?)

If you think that transgender people are delusional, mentally disturbed or immoral, it is your right to have that belief. However, possession of such a belief does not grant anyone the liberty to restrict another person’s right to do live his or her life as he or she pleases. Just let things be and stop trying to govern how other people live their lives. If you feel strongly enough about the topic, then there are a variety of legal methods to express yourself such as using the First Amendment to broadcast your opinion.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 7:47 AM
Comment #410637
The Left isn’t writing laws specifically for a person because of their $ex.

Then you are selectively reading Charlotte’s law, Warren Porter. In that law there is twice mentioned a list of people the law pertains to. When you have lists, you are automatically discriminating against those not on the list.

The mere existence of a list is the “EXTRA”, Warren Porter.

I didn’t see hermaphrodites on that list. A hermaphrodite is a person with both sex’s genitalia. Whether it is an actual occurrence or a product of teenage sexual fantasy, we must err on the side of them existing and therefore Charlotte’s law is discriminatory. Are you now going to claim the left is discriminating when passing Charlotte’s law, or are you going to simply dismiss what I say because you disagree with it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 10:09 AM
Comment #410638
The Left isn’t writing laws specifically for a person because of their $ex.

Then you are selectively reading Charlotte’s law, Warren Porter. In that law there is twice mentioned a list of people the law pertains to. When you have lists, you are automatically discriminating against those not on the list.

The mere existence of a list is the “EXTRA”, Warren Porter.

I didn’t see hermaphrodites on that list. A hermaphrodite is a person with both s3x’s genitalia. Whether it is an actual occurrence or a product of teenage s3xual fantasy, we must err on the side of them existing and therefore Charlotte’s law is discriminatory. Are you now going to claim the left is discriminating when passing Charlotte’s law, or are you going to simply dismiss what I say because you disagree with it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 10:10 AM
Comment #410641
there is twice mentioned a list of people the law pertains to

I see a list of attributes (race, gender identity, sexual orientation), not a list of people. These attributes apply to EVERYBODY. Everyone can have a race, everyone can have a gender identity, everyone can have a sexual orientation, etc…

I didn’t see hermaphrodites on that list. A hermaphrodite is a person with both s3x’s genitalia. Whether it is an actual occurrence or a product of teenage s3xual fantasy, we must err on the side of them existing and therefore Charlotte’s law is discriminatory. Are you now going to claim the left is discriminating when passing Charlotte’s law, or are you going to simply dismiss what I say because you disagree with it?

Intersexed individuals DO EXIST and they have their own gender identities just like everyone else.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 12:50 PM
Comment #410644

Fashion Designer Sophie Theallet Refuses to Dress Melania Trump

“New York-based, French-born designer Sophie Theallet is taking a stand against President-elect Donald Trump by refusing to dress his wife, future first lady Melania Trump.”

My Leftie Buddies will no doubt find some hypocritical reason to support Ms. Theallet’s decision while calling the cake-maker, florist and others who refuse their services for conscientious reasons criminals.

Somehow Ms. Theallet believes her discrimination is correct.

Warren, are boys allowed to pee and shower with the Obama girls? Please check that out for us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 3:24 PM
Comment #410645

ooops…here’s the link for my post directly above.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fashion-designer-sophie-theallet-refuses-dress-melania-trump-948573

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #410646

ACLU wants to force Catholic health care system to sterilize women

“Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter Monday to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that asks the agency to reject an administrative complaint that the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed on behalf of a woman who insisted that a Catholic health care system sterilize her.”

“In April, a federal court threw out an ACLU lawsuit that sought to force a different Catholic hospital system and its staff to commit abortions regardless of their religious and pro-life objections.”

More hypocrisy from the Lefties mouthpiece; “The ACLU”. I can’t wait to read the psychotic defense likely to be used by Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #410647

More evidence of psychotic behavior by the Left. They now have reinterpreted the Hippocratic Oath promise of “do no harm” to exclude “killing” the patient.

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=91948

However, as Mr’s. Daugherty and Porter have informed us; we all get to decide what the constitution and now; the Oath…really means.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 3:45 PM
Comment #410648

RF,

Questions regarding her immigration status aside, Melania Trump ought to have the same right as any other American to purchased goods and services from Sophie Theallet. Business owners do not have the right to police the thoughts and behavior of their potential customers. If Sophie Theallet isn’t comfortable designing Mrs. Trump’s clothes, she needs to find a new occupation.

boys allowed to pee and shower with the Obama girls
There should not be any legal impediment for anyone wishing to use public toilets or showers. However, I would severely question the morality of any cisgender man who chose to urinate or shower with or near cisgender women when other facilities are easily available. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 3:51 PM
Comment #410653

I don’t remember Mrs. Trump ever asking that lady to dress her.

Warren Porter, your last post reeks of hypocrisy. Since you can’t see it we should call it obvious ignorance, also.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 5:52 PM
Comment #410654

The woman’s bathroom is closer to me than the men’s bathroom. I have trouble walking so the woman’s facilities are more easily available to me. Can I use the woman’s bathroom? I pick up the seat. Am I discriminating against women for not putting it down again? After all, I did have to pick it up!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2016 5:59 PM
Comment #410655

WW,

If you wish to use facilities designed for women, it is your right to do so. After all, we do not discriminate against you for expressing a masculine gender identity. However, a decision to use those facilities would compel me to question your psyche. It would be a severely immoral thing to do in my book.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 6:06 PM
Comment #410656

My question is simple. Does the constitution guarantee that what I think about myself must be considered a right, and as such, everyone must yield to my thoughts?

I can find no evidence in our Founding documents any reference to protection by law of what I think.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 6:16 PM
Comment #410657

Choosing a restroom to use doesn’t mean anyone is yielding to your thoughts. One’s right to use a particular facility is not contingent upon one’s $ex, one’s gender identity or any “thought” one might posses.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 6:24 PM
Comment #410658

Warren finds guarantees of equal treatment in the constitution as do I. Equal treatment of men and women in the case of toilet and bathroom facilities suits me. Please tell us Warren of the discrimination you find when one’s gender selection is only in their mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 6:25 PM
Comment #410659

Question Warren. Suppose I own a business open to the public and I post a “Men’s Only” and “Women’s Only” sign on the appropriate toilets. Have I violated the constitution or anyone’s “rights”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 29, 2016 6:30 PM
Comment #410666
Have I violated the constitution or anyone’s “rights”?

Yes. In order to restrict half of Americans’ access from each of your toilets without violating the Constitution, you must satisfy ALL the criteria of “strict scrutiny”:

1. There is a compelling interest in keeping the $exes segregated
2. The rule must be narrowly tailored to achieve only that interest and must address that interest entirely.
3. The rule must be the least restrictive way to achieve that interest.

I do not see how such signs satisfy any of these criteria.

Please tell us Warren of the discrimination you find when one’s gender selection is only in their mind.
I do not understand what you have written here. The discrimination that I have observed comes from the fact that certain laws prohibit certain groups of Americans from using certain public facilities. When evaluating the Constitutionality of these laws, I am not concerned with whatever happens to be in the mind of whoever has been barred from using the facility of his or her choosing. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 29, 2016 7:41 PM
Comment #410685

You’re acting as if there is only one bathroom and someone is trying to keep a certain type of person from it.

That’s not what Obama has decreed. He insists a man can use the woman’s bathroom. He had decreed that a man can force himself into a woman’s bathroom using the violence of the courts. He has mandated local school districts to provide a third bathroom for people based on what they think, even when it goes against obvious facts.

You insist people have a “right” to use an inappropriate facility and then question their mental capacity. Aren’t you saying the entire exercise is abnormal? Why do you think being abnormal is a “right”?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2016 10:12 AM
Comment #410695
You’re acting as if there is only one bathroom and someone is trying to keep a certain type of person from it.

This is the same treatment applied in Brown v. Board of Education. That case was prefaced on the fact that Linda Brown was barred from attending Sumner Elementary School. The fact that she was permitted to attend Monroe Elementary School was not a mitigating factor in that decision.

He had decreed that a man can force himself into a woman’s bathroom using the violence of the courts
There’s no force involved. Peeing is not a violent act. Nobody was harmed by the courts.


He has mandated local school districts to provide a third bathroom for people based on what they think, even when it goes against obvious facts.

I believe the Title IX directive only prohibits districts from forcing someone to use a facility inconsistent with their gender identity. Whether that means constructing a third facility or permitting the individual to use another $ex’s facility is up to the district in question.

You insist people have a “right” to use an inappropriate facility and then question their mental capacity. Aren’t you saying the entire exercise is abnormal? Why do you think being abnormal is a “right”
Discussion of “normal” vs. “abnormal” or “appropriate” vs. “inappropriate” have no bearing on a matter like this. Consider the First Amendment’s protection of free speech rights. Everyday, Americans produce and disseminate a great deal of abnormal or inappropriate media and broadcast it far and wide. Regardless of our opinion of the media, the speech is still Constitutionally protected. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 2:11 PM
Comment #410697

Thank you Warren for answering my questions. I certainly believe you are wrong in your interpretation.

No one is being denied their right to use a public facility. Everyone is being denied their right to privacy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 2:32 PM
Comment #410698
No one is being denied their right to use a public facility

There are many notable examples of transmen not being permitted to use a men’s room as well as examples of transwomen not being permitted to use a women’s room. Each of those people has been denied their right to use a particular public facility.

Everyone is being denied their right to privacy.

People have been sharing public facilities for over a century without any privacy rights being violated.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 2:39 PM
Comment #410699

“Notable examples” Warren?

I suppose this argument is akin to the one about voter fraud. Not enough violations to bother with.

“Sharing public facilities” Warren?

At the same time? Where and when is/was this standard and generally accepted procedure?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #410700

Using Tucker Carlson’s recent words regarding flag burning Warren…I apply them to your defense of bathroom use.

“You are a malcontent who enjoys infuriating decent people.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 2:48 PM
Comment #410701

Talk to any transgender person and they will relate dozens of stories whereby they were prevented from using their preferred facility. This is not the mythical unicorn like voter impersonation fraud.

If you want a particular example, look at the case of Gavin Grimm.

At the same time? Where and when is/was this standard and generally accepted procedure?
All across America, there are public bathrooms being shared by multiple people at the same time.
“You are a malcontent who enjoys infuriating decent people.”

I know. Freedom and liberty can be quite infuriating for an authoritarian mind. Boy am I glad that a bunch of malcontents decided to infuriate a bunch of ‘decent’ Parliamentarians when they founded this country 240 years ago.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #410703

The example you linked is still being adjudicated.

Perhaps Warren is not aware of the danger his advocacy may pose to those who rely upon his urging.

Suppose an adult male trans-person using a women’s toilet facility accidentally, or on purpose, exposes himself to a child who is present. Criminal charges can be filed.

Warren claims; “All across America, there are public bathrooms being shared by multiple people at the same time.”

Opposite gender, children and adults, at the same time? Prove it!

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 3:44 PM
Comment #410705

AOL search for: “man exposes himself at target” has nearly 1.5 million results.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 30, 2016 5:40 PM
Comment #410718
an adult male trans-person
Transmen don’t have male genitalia. Did you mean a transwoman?
accidentally, or on purpose, exposes himself to a child who is present. Criminal charges can be filed.

Yes. Harassment is a crime. Any transwoman exposing herself in a public facility should be prosecuted just the same as a man exposing himself in the same place. I am certain transwomen are aware of this situation and will take extra precautions to respect the sensibilities of others.

Opposite gender, children and adults, at the same time? Prove it!
No, I never said opposite anything. I just said “people”. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 30, 2016 11:12 PM
Comment #410731

Doesn’t anyone see how retarded this conversation is?

You’re trying to dictate who can use a toilet using self esteem as a determining factor!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 10:35 AM
Comment #410732

And you are trying to dictate who can use a toilet based on the genitalia they possess?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 11:06 AM
Comment #410733

You are trying to disrupt society with abnormal behavior.
Why is it so important to you that men, who “think” they are women, must use a safe space designated by society for females?


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 11:36 AM
Comment #410737

I think it is important the people have the freedom and liberty to live their own lives as they see fit without pesky meddling from people like you. Let me return to Jefferson’s words:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

A transwoman using a woman’s toilet facility is an action. You propose that we obstruct that action. Jefferson defines liberty as unobstructed action (so long as it doesn’t violate the equal rights of others). By trying to obstruct that action, you are restricting liberty which violates the ideals laid out by our nation’s founders.

Why is it so important to you that men, who “think” they are women, must use a safe space designated by society for females?
Why is it so important that cisgender women have a “safe space”? Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 12:59 PM
Comment #410738

Warped, Don’t you think a man who thinks he is a woman violates the rights to privacy of women who are using a woman’s rest room if he enters the woman’s rest room?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 1, 2016 1:26 PM
Comment #410739

Does a woman violate the privacy rights of the other women when she enters a woman’s facility?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 1:50 PM
Comment #410740

Let’s start with upper body strength. It’s been used by men against women for eternity. Self preservation tells them not to take their panties down in the presence of potentially dangerous upper body strength.

Women also discuss things in the lady’s room with each other they wouldn’t discuss with men present. What would a woman think if her date went to “powder his nose” with her?

Men piss on the seat. People in my own home get furious when they plop down on a wet toilet seat. Imagine doing that in a public restroom!

None of this has anything to do with someone’s manufactured “rights”. It has to do with the difference between a penis and a vagina, a man and a woman.

Also, the way a man and a woman thinks and perceives their environment are not equal. I don’t care how much a man thinks he is a woman, he can never, ever think like a woman. To believe a man knows how a woman thinks is as fantastical as insisting a man can turn himself into a woman. It’s physically impossible.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 1:59 PM
Comment #410743
Let’s start with upper body strength. It’s been used by men against women for eternity. Self preservation tells them not to take their panties down in the presence of potentially dangerous upper body strength.

Women also discuss things in the lady’s room with each other they wouldn’t discuss with men present. What would a woman think if her date went to “powder his nose” with her?

Men piss on the seat. People in my own home get furious when they plop down on a wet toilet seat. Imagine doing that in a public restroom!

None of these points are about penis v. vagina so why is penis v. vagina your basis of discrimination?

Invariably, transwomen look, act behave and have the same concerns as ciswomen. Transwomen almost always lack upper body strength, just like ciswomen. Likewise, they are also hesitant to lower their panties (or expose their feminine breasts) in the presence of strong cisgender men who can sexually assault them.

Transwomen have the same diversity of orientations as ciswomen. Some are androphilic, some are gynophilic and others still have other orientations. If a woman’s date follows her into a restroom facility, it is up to her to decide how to handle the situation. If said woman is a lesbian, she probably doesn’t mind at all. If said woman is heterosexual, then she may not enjoy it and she would likely end the relationship on account of the broken taboo.

Men piss on the seat. People in my own home get furious when they plop down on a wet toilet seat. Imagine doing that in a public restroom!
Transwomen don’t piss on the seat because they pee sitting down.
Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 2:31 PM
Comment #410749

Warped, If you haven’t noticed there is a difference between a man and a woman, even men who think they are a woman. Both women and men both have the “RIGHT” of privacy when entering a Rest Room even though there are others of the same gender. Would you pull your penis out in front of women? Or do you think a woman would pull down her panties in front of men?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 1, 2016 3:19 PM
Comment #410753
If a woman’s date follows her into a restroom facility, it is up to her to decide how to handle the situation.

Not according to you! According to you she would have to put up with her date in the bathroom with her, because he has a “right” to use that bathroom!

What’s it going to be, Warren Porter? Is it up to the woman to decide? Or is it a man’s “right”?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 4:12 PM
Comment #410763

Yes, it is up to the woman to decide how she handles the situation. I imagine many women would cancel the date right then and there. Unless we were talking about lesbians.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 6:51 PM
Comment #410768

She’d still be in the same bathroom with him.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 7:55 PM
Comment #410773

And?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 9:42 PM
Comment #410776

Is this where we rewind and start over?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2016 10:40 PM
Comment #410777

Why is it a problem if two people happen to be in the same room? Nobody is harmed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 11:18 PM
Comment #410778
Would you pull your penis out in front of women

I don’t expose myself in front of anyone. It doesn’t matter if they are men or women.

Or do you think a woman would pull down her panties in front of men?

I am not going to tell a woman what she can or cannot do.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 11:21 PM
Comment #410782

Yes, it is terrible that anti-Trans activists are invading women’s bathrooms in order to indulge in their sexual perversions. That needs to stop.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 7:53 AM
Comment #410783

Why do you support this behavior, Warren Porter?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 7:54 AM
Comment #410788

Warped, If you don’t expose yourself to anyone. Then why would you support a man or woman using the opposite gender rest room who may expose themselves to the occupants?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 2, 2016 8:58 AM
Comment #410790

Warren Porter is defending his political point of view. The issue doesn’t matter to him. If Obama and the Democratic party wanted to endorse the murder of innocent bystanders using drones, he would support it, and has.

Yes, it is terrible that anti-Trans activists are invading women’s bathrooms in order to indulge in their sexual perversions. That needs to stop. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 7:53 AM
Why is it a problem if two people happen to be in the same room? Nobody is harmed. Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2016 11:18 PM
Yes, it is up to the woman to decide how she handles the situation.
I think it is important the people have the freedom and liberty to live their own lives as they see fit without pesky meddling from people like you.



If you wish to use facilities designed for women, it is your right to do so. After all, we do not discriminate against you for expressing a masculine gender identity. However, a decision to use those facilities would compel me to question your psyche. It would be a severely immoral thing to do in my book.

Warren Porter will always fall back on his personal opinion and change his point of view when it comes to defending himself against criticism. When his party’s position gets challenged, he will simply shift to his personal opinion, which is opposite his party. It’s called hypocrisy.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 9:53 AM
Comment #410791

KAP,

I do not think Trans people will expose themselves because that’s not why they are there.

WW,
I do not support sexual assault or harassment. Perpetrators ought to be prosecuted according to the law. However, I will not use that as an excuse to abridge the rights of the much larger group of law-abiding citizens. It’s just like how the use of firearms to commit various crimes doesn’t mean people don’t have a right to own guns.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 10:03 AM
Comment #410793

Do you support strange men playing with other people’s children in the park? They have a right to play in the park, don’t they?

Or is it socially unacceptable to allow strange men to play with children in the park? Here’s another chance for you to come down on both sides of the another issue, Warren Porter.

We have a 30 year old man passing out candy and sitting in the sandbox with a couple of 5 year old girls. What do you do? It’s not illegal. By the standard you’re setting, the parents should allow it, because a 30 year old man has a “right” to play in any sandbox in any park.

What do you say about this situation?


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 11:51 AM
Comment #410795

WW,

There is an important difference between acknowledging a right exists and endorsing the behavior the right entails.

I acknowledge that people have the right to burn our nation’s flag. I do not endorse that variety of free speech.

I acknowledge that people have a right to express personal bigotry and spew hate speech regarding fellow citizens for being “different”. I do not endorse that speech.

I acknowledge that people have a right to keep and bear arms. I do not endorse that sort of behavior.

Likewise, there are a lot of things men can do that I recommend that they refrain from out of respect for women and children.

Or is it socially unacceptable to allow strange men to play with children in the park

Just to be clear: It is socially unacceptable for men to play with strange children at a park. It is socially unacceptable for men to use restrooms designed for women.

However, there is a difference between legal/illegal and acceptable/unacceptable. There are an entire rash of behaviors which are unacceptable and ought to be taboo, but I will defend people’s Constitutional right to break those taboos even though I do not endorse that behavior.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 12:25 PM
Comment #410796
It is socially unacceptable for men to use restrooms designed for women.

OK then, that should settle it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 12:40 PM
Comment #410804

We were never arguing the social acceptability of anything. Rather, we argued the legality of laws restricting people’s freedom to choose the appropriate bathroom.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 2:19 PM
Comment #410805

Warped, If you are born with a penis you are a man, if you have a vagina you are a woman. What you think you are has no legality you are what you are at birth.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 2, 2016 2:38 PM
Comment #410809

Men and women follow the same laws. We don’t make special rules for each.

If you are born with a penis you are a man, if you have a vagina you are a woman.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 2:52 PM
Comment #410812

Show me the law that says it’s appropriate for a man to use a woman’s restroom.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 2:59 PM
Comment #410813

We’re getting closer. Warren Porter now admits it’s an opinion, not a fact.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2016 3:00 PM
Comment #410815
Show me the law that says it’s appropriate for a man to use a woman’s restroom.

Probably the same place where the law that says it’s appropriate to walk on a sidewalk, swim in the ocean or breath the air. We don’t need government’s permission to exercise our rights.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2016 4:45 PM
Comment #410818

Warped, It’s call “MORALITY” something the left has lost along the years.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 2, 2016 5:49 PM
Comment #410830

I took a look at my copy of the Constiturion and I can’t seem to find the clause that empowers Congress to legislate moral codes. Can you help me find it?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2016 1:37 AM
Comment #410831

It’s called the 9th and the 10th amendment, Warren Porter. I’m surprised you missed it. They’re right after the 8th.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 1:41 AM
Comment #410833

The 9th & 10th Amendments restrict Congressional power. To insinuate that they allow congress to abrogate rightful liberty is absurd.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2016 9:11 AM
Comment #410834

Warped, Moral codes are up to the individual person. Once government steps in and throws those morals out the window they open up Pandora’s box. Restrooms use is NOT the business of government as is other things the government has stuck it’s nose into because of a few whinny individuals.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 3, 2016 9:30 AM
Comment #410835

I’m the one arguing for getting government out of the morality business, not you.

Some whiners complained because did not want transgender people choosing the appropriate restroom and the NC govt intervened unconstitutionally, legislating a moral code.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2016 10:00 AM
Comment #410839

Has anyone read this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 12:57 PM
Comment #410842

Yes. Some people are born with ambiguous genitalia. Doctors assign them to one $ex or the other, which upsets some activists. Others live their entire lives as intersex individuals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2016 1:44 PM
Comment #410843

There needs to be a line drawn between these types of disorders and those who cross dress or get excited by being perceived as being a woman/man or people who pretend to be woman for entertainment purposes. So far, what Obama has done is to group all of these together and force it into our schools and public businesses. He’s stepped way outside the bounds of decency and practicality. He’s trying to mainstream perversion by using people with medical conditions.

That’s sick by itself.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 3, 2016 2:47 PM
Comment #410844

Warped, I agree the NC govt. overstepped, this pandering to a group has got to stop. All this pandering is, is for the VOTE nothing else.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 3, 2016 2:54 PM
Comment #410870
So far, what Obama has done is to group all of these together and force it into our schools and public businesses.

Firstly, there are actually three groups of people:

Transvestites are cisgender people who get erotic pleasure from donning attire from a $ex that they does not match their gender identity. Transvestites never modify their bodies with hormones or surgery.

Intersex people are born with ambiguous genitalia. Some adopt either a male or female identity whereas others identify outside of the binary.

Transsexual people are individuals who have a gender identity that does not match the $ex indicated by their genitals. Most transsexuals transition to a situation whereby they adopt a new gender identity permanently. This often means permanently altering their bodies with either hormones or surgery.

Gender identity is separate from sexual orientation. People from all three of these groups may either be androphilic (attracted to men), gynophilic (attracted to women) or asexual.

Secondly, the Constitution grants rights to individuals, not groups. Therefore, any individual is entitled to the exact same rights, no matter what group he or she belongs too. Legally speaking, the same applies to heteronormative cisgender people like you and I as well. All Americans have the right to choose the restroom facility that they feel is most appropriate. Longstanding social taboos have kept our restroom facilities segregated according to $ex. While, I think those taboos have a good common sense purpose, I will fight any attempt to codify them into law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 4, 2016 8:46 PM
Post a comment