[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 18:37, said:

So, how is that condescension thing working out for you? My take is that the condescension of those who seem to share your outlook is one of the significant reasons Trump was elected. Condescension pisses people off.

Condescension is actually a great way for public message boards to self-moderate themselves. Similarly, it would not be bad to have a "bad posters" or "brains of *****" leaderboard. As a general statement, and obviously there are exceptions, members here are capable of learning from what better and smarter posters say. Don't look for analogies in the real world, because few exist, but this is a community where the meritocracy tends to prevail. Yes, hrothgar's opinion pulls more weight than yours. As does barmar's. As do many others.

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 17:31, said:

Well, if we are going to give authority to the intent of the Founding Fathers ("not to abuse"), then much of modern interpretation of the Constitution is somewhat invalidated, isn't it?

There are two schools of thought on it. "Strict constructionists" just look at the words of the Constitution, and try to interpret them as written. "Liberal constructionists" take into account the papers written by the Founders to understand their intent. Different Supreme Court justices take each approach (usually conservatives are strict constructionists).

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-August-30, 19:09, said:

There are two schools of thought on it. "Strict constructionists" just look at the words of the Constitution, and try to interpret them as written. "Liberal constructionists" take into account the papers written by the Founders to understand their intent. Different Supreme Court justices take each approach (usually conservatives are strict constructionists).

Reading the Grossman ruling, it is clear that they placed great stock in the history of the drafting in interpreting the document correctly. That gives the impression that the concept of "strict constructionism" is a modern one, and indeed my (very) brief perusing of the term suggests that the early strict constructionism would be called originalism in the modern nomenclature. It is also only fair to point out that almost no judges see themselves as strict constructionists regardless of how others wish to label them - textualism is probably a more accurate term. In any case, the concept seems to be more of a political tool to support a specific approach than a logical way of making judgements. On the other hand, a textualistic approach that takes account of the history of the document without necessarily including additional material seems perfectly sensible.

The other approach that seems to have been the prevailing view at the time of the Grossman ruling was comparison with the equivalent construct in Britain, in this case "the king's courts" with the POTUS essentially being given the role of king. Would this approach be considered a little strange this century?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 18:37, said:

So, how is that condescension thing working out for you? My take is that the condescension of those who seem to share your outlook is one of the significant reasons Trump was elected. Condescension pisses people off.

Poor little snowflakes...

My take on things: Trump's supporters are going to be pissed off and scared regardless of what the rest of us say and do...
The precise thing that pisses them off might change, but their only common characteristics is that they're all bitter assholes.

At the end of the day, change isn't going to come about by convincing them of anything.
As Trump proudly brags, he could pull out a gun and shot someone on Fifth avenue and his hard core base would still be with him.

In the long term, there will come a glorious day when the Trump supporters are all dead. In the short term, the only way that we're going to get real change is by isolating his supporters, making them so toxic that no politician will dare associate himself with them, and driving them out into the wilderness...

In short: Precisely the same strategy that William F Buckley used with the Birchers 50+ years ago.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 17:31, said:

Well, if we are going to give authority to the intent of the Founding Fathers ("not to abuse"), then much of modern interpretation of the Constitution is somewhat invalidated, isn't it?

In any case, as has been pointed out, the egregious use of the Pardon is subject to control via impeachment. If the Congress feels that the recent pardon is a serious abuse then impeachment proceedings are imminent. But don't hold your breath.

Anyone believe that Larry has actually learned anything from this little exchange?

Alternatively, how many people think that he'll be repeating his same bogus claims about the Presidential powers to pardon on some other forums within a fortnight?

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-31, 02:43, said:

Anyone believe that Larry has actually learned anything from this little exchange?

He comes here to troll and nothing else. You should know this by now. Laugh at him, pity him, poke fun at him; just don't take anything of what he says too seriously...much like DT.

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-31, 02:58, said:

He comes here to troll and nothing else. You should know this by now. Laugh at him, pity him, poke fun at him; just don't take anything of what he says too seriously...much like DT.

Do enjoy yourselves at my expense. We will see how it all turns out at the ballot box.

[mike777]

Is Mark Zuckerberg preparing to run for President?

Who ever thought trump would win 4 years ago?

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-August-31, 06:59, said:

We will see how it all turns out at the ballot box.

Indeed, less than a month to go before the big vote here. And interesting to see if May makes it all the way to the next election back home...

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-August-30, 18:37, said:

So, how is that condescension thing working out for you? My take is that the condescension of those who seem to share your outlook is one of the significant reasons Trump was elected. Condescension pisses people off.

I have said much the same. You and I do not agree on much, but I do think that there is a lot to this. I will use this as an excuse to rattle on a bit.

I have long thought that people greatly over-estimate the role of logic. For many years I would occasionally hear about Trump and this or that casino. Not my interest. Becky and I once took a road trip to the Grand Canyon, Zion, Yellowstone, etc. We flew into Vegas, rented a car, and leftm going through a casino only to reach our rooms. Then he had this Apprentice show that I would see commercials for with DT saying "You're fired". The show was about him, and there was no chance in hell I would ever watch it. Then he got into the 2016 presidential race and I had to, against my will, listen to him. I found him to be repulsive. Every instinct I had told me that I would never trust this man with my wallet or my daughter, and certainly not with my country. Well, my daughters are well into adulthood and can take care of themselves, they both share my loathing of Trump, but you get the idea. The point here is that I can give a pretty strong idea of why I would never vote for Trump without once mentioning a logical analysis of his position, say, tax reduction. I have no plans to make a detailed study of the economics of tax reform, I have a general idea of what I would like to see, but whatever we do I would like someone other than Trump, practically anyone other than Trump would be preferable, doing it.

I am not saying that logic is irrelevant. But to do it right is time consuming and difficult. It follows that I really cannot have a thoroughly researched and well thought out position on climate change, on health care, on tax reform, on financial regulation and on each and every one of the many issues confronting us. Logic helps a lot, and noting situations where two thoughts are logically incompatible can be very useful, whatever Fitzgerald might say. But we simply have to accept that many votes are cast by folks who have not thoroughly thought out all issues, and in fact it could never be otherwise.

I grew up in a neighborhood that was largely but not entirely Democratic. Blue collar, union, not highly educated. I was back there recently. It is amazingly unchanged. The bar my parents too me to because they could not afford a babysitter is still there, as is the bowling alley where I once set pins. There is still an outdoor skating rink but no longer a hockey rink. But did the residents vote for Hillary? I didn't ask. There is great head scratching as to why the answer might be no. I think condescension plays a larger role in this than is generally acknowledged.

So this is more about my thoughts than about a reply to you, but since we rarely agree I thought I would mention it. I might add that the family and neighbors I grew up wit would think that both you and I have something of a screw loose for doing all of this posting when we could be out fishing on a lake.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2017-August-31, 08:23, said:

I have said much the same. You and I do not agree on much, but I do think that there is a lot to this. I will use this as an excuse to rattle on a bit.

I have long thought that people greatly over-estimate the role of logic. For many years I would occasionally hear about Trump and this or that casino. Not my interest. Becky and I once took a road trip to the Grand Canyon, Zion, Yellowstone, etc. We flew into Vegas, rented a car, and leftm going through a casino only to reach our rooms. Then he had this Apprentice show that I would see commercials for with DT saying "You're fired". The show was about him, and there was no chance in hell I would ever watch it. Then he got into the 2016 presidential race and I had to, against my will, listen to him. I found him to be repulsive. Every instinct I had told me that I would never trust this man with my wallet or my daughter, and certainly not with my country. Well, my daughters are well into adulthood and can take care of themselves, they both share my loathing of Trump, but you get the idea. The point here is that I can give a pretty strong idea of why I would never vote for Trump without once mentioning a logical analysis of his position, say, tax reduction. I have no plans to make a detailed study of the economics of tax reform, I have a general idea of what I would like to see, but whatever we do I would like someone other than Trump, practically anyone other than Trump would be preferable, doing it.

I am not saying that logic is irrelevant. But to do it right is time consuming and difficult. It follows that I really cannot have a thoroughly researched and well thought out position on climate change, on health care, on tax reform, on financial regulation and on each and every one of the many issues confronting us. Logic helps a lot, and noting situations where two thoughts are logically incompatible can be very useful, whatever Fitzgerald might say. But we simply have to accept that many votes are cast by folks who have not thoroughly thought out all issues, and in fact it could never be otherwise.

I grew up in a neighborhood that was largely but not entirely Democratic. Blue collar, union, not highly educated. I was back there recently. It is amazingly unchanged. The bar my parents too me to because they could not afford a babysitter is still there, as is the bowling alley where I once set pins. There is still an outdoor skating rink but no longer a hockey rink. But did the residents vote for Hillary? I didn't ask. There is great head scratching as to why the answer might be no. I think condescension plays a larger role in this than is generally acknowledged.

So this is more about my thoughts than about a reply to you, but since we rarely agree I thought I would mention it. I might add that the family and neighbors I grew up wit would think that both you and I have something of a screw loose for doing all of this posting when we could be out fishing on a lake.

Thank you for sharing this. While we do not agree on many things I do appreciate your thoughtful post.

It seems to me that our polity has become completely polarized. Rather than seek common ground and mutually agreeable solutions to problems, we are at war. At least that is how I feel: you are the enemy and not to be trusted. And a good part of what makes you the enemy is the very condescending attitude that we are discussing.

[Winstonm]

Is this check or checkmate?

Quote

Trump and Manafort get big reminder that pardon power does not extend to state crimes

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2017-August-31, 08:23, said:

I have said much the same. You and I do not agree on much, but I do think that there is a lot to this. I will use this as an excuse to rattle on a bit.

I have long thought that people greatly over-estimate the role of logic. For many years I would occasionally hear about Trump and this or that casino. Not my interest. Becky and I once took a road trip to the Grand Canyon, Zion, Yellowstone, etc. We flew into Vegas, rented a car, and leftm going through a casino only to reach our rooms. Then he had this Apprentice show that I would see commercials for with DT saying "You're fired". The show was about him, and there was no chance in hell I would ever watch it. Then he got into the 2016 presidential race and I had to, against my will, listen to him. I found him to be repulsive. Every instinct I had told me that I would never trust this man with my wallet or my daughter, and certainly not with my country. Well, my daughters are well into adulthood and can take care of themselves, they both share my loathing of Trump, but you get the idea. The point here is that I can give a pretty strong idea of why I would never vote for Trump without once mentioning a logical analysis of his position, say, tax reduction. I have no plans to make a detailed study of the economics of tax reform, I have a general idea of what I would like to see, but whatever we do I would like someone other than Trump, practically anyone other than Trump would be preferable, doing it.

I am not saying that logic is irrelevant. But to do it right is time consuming and difficult. It follows that I really cannot have a thoroughly researched and well thought out position on climate change, on health care, on tax reform, on financial regulation and on each and every one of the many issues confronting us. Logic helps a lot, and noting situations where two thoughts are logically incompatible can be very useful, whatever Fitzgerald might say. But we simply have to accept that many votes are cast by folks who have not thoroughly thought out all issues, and in fact it could never be otherwise.

I grew up in a neighborhood that was largely but not entirely Democratic. Blue collar, union, not highly educated. I was back there recently. It is amazingly unchanged. The bar my parents too me to because they could not afford a babysitter is still there, as is the bowling alley where I once set pins. There is still an outdoor skating rink but no longer a hockey rink. But did the residents vote for Hillary? I didn't ask. There is great head scratching as to why the answer might be no. I think condescension plays a larger role in this than is generally acknowledged.

So this is more about my thoughts than about a reply to you, but since we rarely agree I thought I would mention it. I might add that the family and neighbors I grew up wit would think that both you and I have something of a screw loose for doing all of this posting when we could be out fishing on a lake.

As far as condescension is concerned, I think this quote from a Politico article I saw this morning speaks volumes: (emphasis added)

Quote

Fifty-six percent of voters say they believe President Donald Trump is “tearing the country apart” instead of drawing people together, according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.

While the findings are sharply divided along partisan lines — with 15 percent of Republicans describing Trump as “tearing the country apart” but a whopping 93 percent of Democrats saying he is — only 33 percent of voters overall said they believe the president is “drawing the country together.”


The findings underscore a string of increasingly negative perceptions of the Trump White House, which continues to register low ratings on a wide array of issues, including its handling of North Korea, Russia, the environment, health care and race relations, with a majority of voters registering disapproval of each. A majority of voters did not approve of Trump’s handling of any of the major policy areas covered in the poll.

The president’s general approval rating, which has yet to clear the 50 percent threshold in Fox News surveys since he entered office, remained at 41 percent, the same score he received last month, and is 7 percentage points down from the poll’s first post-inaugural findings in February. Trump’s disapproval rating, meanwhile, reached a high of 55 percent this month.

Despite the findings, more than 90 percent of voters still support the ballot they cast in the November 2016 presidential election.

When a group of people is willing to cut off the nose of the country due to personal spite, condescension is the only valid response.
When a group of people is so blinded by hate that they cannot admit error, condescension is the only valid response.

Try to reason with mad dogs and chances are you'll die of rabies.

[jjbrr]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-31, 09:05, said:

Is this check or checkmate?

RICO would certainly be a fitting conclusion to Trump's emperor-god complex.

[jjbrr]

Oh hey, and while we're on the topic of Paul Manafort

Quote

About two weeks after Paul Manafort Jr. swapped his lawyers from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for Miller & Chevalier, the former campaign manager for President Donald Trump saw another change in his legal representation.

Kevin Downing, a Miller & Chevalier partner advising Manafort in the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia, left the firm Thursday.

The Happy-Go-Lucky Jewish Group That Connects Trump and Putin

Quote

Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two of his closest confidants, the oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich, who would go on to become Chabad’s biggest patrons worldwide, to create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as “Putin’s rabbi.”

Quote

A few years later, Trump would seek out Russian projects and capital by joining forces with a partnership called Bayrock-Sapir, led by Soviet emigres Tevfik Arif, Felix Sater and Tamir Sapir—who maintain close ties to Chabad. The company’s ventures would lead to multiple lawsuits alleging fraud and a criminal investigation of a condo project in Manhattan.

...the same time Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were vacationing in Aspen with her two brothers and their families, Abramovich’s plane flew from Moscow to Denver, according to a flight tracking service. Abramovich owns two properties in the Aspen area.

Quote

According to a 2012 report from researchers at Cornell University, Evraz, a firm partly owned by Abramovich, has contracts to provide 40 percent of the steel for the Keystone XL pipeline, a project whose completion was approved by Trump in March after years of delay. And in 2006, Abramovich purchased a large stake in the Russian oil giant Rosneft, a company now being scrutinized for its possible role in alleged collusion between Trump and Russia.

He owes his fortune to his triumphant emergence from Russia’s post-Soviet “aluminum wars,” in which more than 100 people are estimated to have died in fighting over control of aluminum refineries. Abramovich admitted in 2008 that he amassed his assets by paying billions of dollars in bribes.

Quote

On 17 February 2000 Roman Abramovich attended a meeting in Moscow that would transform his business portfolio and send a man already seriously rich into the league of the Russian super-rich. Those attending were the power moguls of Russia's aluminium industry.

The outcome of the meeting was a mega-deal, the like of which Russia had not seen before. It resulted in the creation of Russian Aluminium, a national champion that would become Russia's largest and the world's third-largest aluminium company.

Deripaska, just 32 at the time, was appointed to run the company as its general manager, while Abramovich and his Sibneft oil major would be a sizable shareholder.

The deal that made a Russian oligarch

Quote

Before signing up with Donald Trump, former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to “greatly benefit the Putin Government,” The Associated Press has learned. The White House attempted to brush the report aside Wednesday, but it quickly raised fresh alarms in Congress about Russian links to Trump associates.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit President Vladimir Putin’s government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”

AP Exclusive: Before Trump job, Manafort worked to aid Putin

Quote

Manafort is under investigation by the DOJ, as well as New York AG Eric T. Schneiderman and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr, all of which are probing payments he received for his work for Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s former pro-Putin president, and whether he laundered those funds through his many New York real estate holdings.

The search for a tax-focused law firm stems from the financial nature of the documents collected in last month’s raid, one source said.

Paul Manafort hiring new legal team amid Mueller probe

Quote

Manafort's case will now be handled by Miller and Chevalier, a boutique firm in Washington that specializes in complicated financial crimes among other issues, these people said.

Manafort switching legal team as feds crank up heat on him

Quote

Deripaska’s company invested with Manafort in Pericles, and Pericles was set to be a prime investor in the Drake Hotel.

Manafort, Firtash, and Deripaska intended to convert the Drake into a luxury office and residential space called Bulgari Tower. Gates, in his July 2008 memo, estimated that the revamped, 70-story Bulgari Tower would generate “over $3 billion in value as a result of the unique combination of retail, smart office space, residential and a luxury hotel.”

Quote

According to ex-prosecutors, a business relationship between a Kremlin-tied oligarch, an accused gangster and the manager of Donald Trump’s campaign is the sort of arrangement currently occupying Mueller’s time.

Paul Manafort Sought $850 Million Deal With Putin Ally and Alleged Gangster

And just for the record, Manafort pushed pency-poo for VP. They're all complicit.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-31, 09:18, said:

As far as condescension is concerned, I think this quote from a Politico article I saw this morning speaks volumes: (emphasis added)



When a group of people is willing to cut off the nose of the country due to personal spite, condescension is the only valid response.
When a group of people is so blinded by hate that they cannot admit error, condescension is the only valid response.

Try to reason with mad dogs and chances are you'll die of rabies.

Let's take a look atthe alst two paragraphs, which I will reproduce only giving it all equal emphasis.

Quote

The president's general approval rating, which has yet to clear the 50 percent threshold in Fox News surveys since he entered office, remained at 41 percent, the same score he received last month, and is 7 percentage points down from the poll's first post-inaugural findings in February. Trump's disapproval rating, meanwhile, reached a high of 55 percent this month.

Despite the findings, more than 90 percent of voters still support the ballot they cast in the November 2016 presidential election.

The first of these two cited paragraphs appears to be emphasizing the decline of Trump's popularity. The second appears to emphasize that his popularity is unchanged. So which is it? I am not saying that the numbers from the first paragraph are irreconcilable with the number form the second paragraph but the general flow suggests that the general claim is that despite a sharp drop in support the people who once supported him still support him. Such a claim requires a bit of work to make any sense out of it. If 10% of his previous supporters become non-supporters then a rough guess would suggest that there would be about a 5% drop in overall support. Eg If from 100 people it split about 5050 on support and then 10% of that support, 5 people, became non-supporters, then the split would be 45% support, 55% non-support. This is a drop of 5% rather than 7% but one could explore other statistical features, for example when these two statistical samples were done. . So I think a fair paraphrase of the argument presented by the article would be: 90% of Trump supporters still support him despite the clear fact that 10% no longer do. I can imagine that this might well be true.

Basically, condescension is a choice. I try to not make it my choice. Not actually a strategy, just a preference.
.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2017-August-31, 10:05, said:

The first of these two cited paragraphs appears to be emphasizing the decline of Trump's popularity. The second appears to emphasize that his popularity is unchanged.

They're different things.

Just because people disapprove of Trump's actions, it doesn't mean they now realize that they would have preferred Hillary. To many voters it was a "least of evils" decision, and they haven't changed their opinion.

And there are many like ldrews who continue to believe Trump will eventually come through on his promises.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-August-31, 10:49, said:

They're different things.

Just because people disapprove of Trump's actions, it doesn't mean they now realize that they would have preferred Hillary. To many voters it was a "least of evils" decision, and they haven't changed their opinion.

And there are many like ldrews who continue to believe Trump will eventually come through on his promises.

For those items directly under his control I believe he has been coming through on his promises. For those things requiring cooperation from Congress, not much success. But then Trump hijacked the Republican Party so it is not much of a surprise.

[barmar]

barmar, on 2017-August-29, 10:58, said:

I raised the issue of why this pardon is being called an affront to the rule of law on Politics Stack Exchange.

Woohoo! my question made it into their Hot Network Questions list.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2017-August-31, 10:49, said:

They're different things.

Just because people disapprove of Trump's actions, it doesn't mean they now realize that they would have preferred Hillary. To many voters it was a "least of evils" decision, and they haven't changed their opinion.

And there are many like ldrews who continue to believe Trump will eventually come through on his promises.

Agreed. And a very important part of what you say is that just because they are souring on Trump it does not follow that they re pro-Hillary or pro any Dem.

I was just taking the Politico numbers at face value. If someone says in one breath that there is a 7% drop in the overall approval and then professes shock that despite this number, only 10% of his early supporters have dropped their support, some explanation is needed as to why the second figure is so astounding given the first.

It is, I think, very worthwhile to ask how DT got elected in the first place, and asking why 90% still support him is a good follow-up question. But saying that his overall support has dropped by 7% and then acting as if it is stunning to learn that 90% of his original supporters still support him seems off the track to me.


At the risk, or maybe certainty, of being tiresome I will repeat. It is unrealistic to think to expect large numbers of voters to base their choice on a deep understanding of the issues. I voted for the first time in 1960. I had gotten married in June, I was working at NASA all the overtime I could get, we needed the money, I started graduate school in the fall and had many gaps to make up since I was a highly erratic undergraduate, and my wife got pregnant (I have not yet bought into "we" got pregnant). I gave my wife a schedule of times when she could talk to me. We did not have a tv, we couldn't afford it yet. Yes I paid attention to the issues, the off-shore islands of whatever they were, and the missile gap, non-existent though it turned out to be, but I was busy. I voted. But I was busy. So were and are many voters. Not stupid, not disinterested, just busy. We should not expect them to be reading Foreign Affairs.