Rose Garden and Washington happenings in “new normal” times

nohero said:

lord_pabulum said:

You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists.  I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.

 Sticking with "right wing" and "christian conservative", how would you distinguish them here in the United States?

In US politics today, right and left are often just labels, while christian conservatives are an identifiable group whose values include,  'right to life' and less separation between church and state.  As an example re 'the political spectrum: a Sanders supporter would describe centrists/moderates as right wing.  Unfortunately in the toxic partisan  environment today, Democrats and Republicans alike believe that their stance should be whatever does the most damage to the other side ignoring any damage to the citizenry that elected them. 


I listed carefully on my iPhone and will do so again later on the iPad. Did not catch. the word Dominionist which I can’t recall hearing or reading about before. It doesn’t show up in spell check either.

Is this an example of a Deep State ?

ridski said:

Some more commentary about Dominionist foreign policy in the Middle East.

 


lord_pabulum said:

nohero said:

lord_pabulum said:

You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists.  I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.

 Sticking with "right wing" and "christian conservative", how would you distinguish them here in the United States?

In US politics today, right and left are often just labels, while christian conservatives are an identifiable group whose values include,  'right to life' and less separation between church and state.  As an example re 'the political spectrum: a Sanders supporter would describe centrists/moderates as right wing.  Unfortunately in the toxic partisan  environment today, Democrats and Republicans alike believe that their stance should be whatever does the most damage to the other side ignoring any damage to the citizenry that elected them. 

Witness the perfect "both sides" argument.


lord_pabulum said:

nohero said:

lord_pabulum said:

You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists.  I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.

 Sticking with "right wing" and "christian conservative", how would you distinguish them here in the United States?

In US politics today, right and left are often just labels, while christian conservatives are an identifiable group whose values include,  'right to life' and less separation between church and state.  As an example re 'the political spectrum: a Sanders supporter would describe centrists/moderates as right wing.  Unfortunately in the toxic partisan  environment today, Democrats and Republicans alike believe that their stance should be whatever does the most damage to the other side ignoring any damage to the citizenry that elected them. 

 In other words, "no response".


How do you get 'no response'?  What are you looking for?


mtierney said:

I listed carefully on my iPhone and will do so again later on the iPad. Did not catch. the word Dominionist which I can’t recall hearing or reading about before. It doesn’t show up in spell check either.

Is this an example of a Deep State ?

ridski said:

Some more commentary about Dominionist foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

 A primer.

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


lord_pabulum said:

How do you get 'no response'?  What are you looking for?

 I was looking for what I asked for.  You wrote - 

lord_pabulum said:

You'll find the terms right wing and christian conservative or left wing and christian liberal are not interchangeble for moderates or centrists. I think it's the perspective of where one lies on the political spectrum.

I asked: "Sticking with 'right wing' and 'christian conservative', how would you distinguish them here in the United States?"  (Emphasis added).

I didn't ask how you thought Sanders supporters would do it.


nohero said:

I asked: "Sticking with 'right wing' and 'christian conservative', how would you distinguish them here in the United States?" (Emphasis added).

I didn't ask how you thought Sanders supporters would do it.

See below:

lord_pabulum said:

In US politics today, right and left are often just labels, while christian conservatives are an identifiable group whose values include,  'right to life' and less separation between church and state.  As an example re 'the political spectrum: a Sanders supporter would describe centrists/moderates as right wing.  Unfortunately in the toxic partisan  environment today, Democrats and Republicans alike believe that their stance should be whatever does the most damage to the other side ignoring any damage to the citizenry that elected them. 

ETA: To simplify -  the 'label' in an ideological construct and the group has certain characteristics


lord_pabulum said:

nohero said:

I asked: "Sticking with 'right wing' and 'christian conservative', how would you distinguish them here in the United States?" (Emphasis added).

I didn't ask how you thought Sanders supporters would do it.

See below:

lord_pabulum said:

In US politics today, right and left are often just labels, while christian conservatives are an identifiable group whose values include,  'right to life' and less separation between church and state.  As an example re 'the political spectrum: a Sanders supporter would describe centrists/moderates as right wing.  Unfortunately in the toxic partisan  environment today, Democrats and Republicans alike believe that their stance should be whatever does the most damage to the other side ignoring any damage to the citizenry that elected them. 

ETA: To simplify -  the 'label' in an ideological construct and the group has certain characteristics

As you know, I had asked you about this statement - 

lord_pabulum said:

I wouldn't call mtierney right wing, rather a 'christian conservative'

So it's still, "no response". 


Ok - one can be a right wing christian conservative or a moderate christian conservative depending where one either sits on the political spectrum or defines right wing.  Conservatives in and of themselves are on the right of the political spectrum.  My definition of a moderate or centrist may have leanings either way but not enough for me to label them as right wing or left wing (e.g. I would not label HRC or Biden as left wing)


What's happening in Washington?

After Trump was reminded that the short-legged omnivore was practically synonymous with the Badger State, he'd make a point of bringing it up at seemingly random occasions to his beleaguered chief of staff. "Are they mean to people?" Trump at least twice asked Priebus in the opening months of his presidency. "Or are they friendly creatures?" The president would also ask if Priebus had any photos of badgers he could show him, and if Priebus could carefully explain to him how badgers "work" exactly.

[...]

He wanted Reince—resident White House badger historian, apparently—to explain to him Wisconsin's obsession with the animal, how the little critters function and behave, what kind of food they like, and how aggressive or deadly they could be when presented with perceived existential threats. Trump also wanted to know if the badger had a "personality" or if it was boring. What kind of damage could a badger to do a person with its flashy, sharp claws? An obviously enthralled president would stare at Priebus as the aide struggled for sufficiently placating answers, all the while trying to gently veer the conversation back to whether we were going to do a troop surge in Afghanistan or strip millions of Americans of healthcare coverage.

From Business Insider, quotes from upcoming book, Sinking in the Swamp: How Trump's Minions and Misfits Poisoned Washington


ridski said:

What's happening in Washington?

After Trump was reminded that the short-legged omnivore was practically synonymous with the Badger State, he'd make a point of bringing it up at seemingly random occasions to his beleaguered chief of staff. "Are they mean to people?" Trump at least twice asked Priebus in the opening months of his presidency. "Or are they friendly creatures?" The president would also ask if Priebus had any photos of badgers he could show him, and if Priebus could carefully explain to him how badgers "work" exactly.

[...]

He wanted Reince—resident White House badger historian, apparently—to explain to him Wisconsin's obsession with the animal, how the little critters function and behave, what kind of food they like, and how aggressive or deadly they could be when presented with perceived existential threats. Trump also wanted to know if the badger had a "personality" or if it was boring. What kind of damage could a badger to do a person with its flashy, sharp claws? An obviously enthralled president would stare at Priebus as the aide struggled for sufficiently placating answers, all the while trying to gently veer the conversation back to whether we were going to do a troop surge in Afghanistan or strip millions of Americans of healthcare coverage.

From Business Insider, quotes from upcoming book, Sinking in the Swamp: How Trump's Minions and Misfits Poisoned Washington

 there is so much about Trump that suggests he's in early stage dementia.


BG9 said:

Intimidation.

Trump accused the Stone jury forewoman if bias. If her name ever gets out her life will be hell. Constant social media threats and maybe "visits" to her house. Lots of sickness out there.

Trump knows what he's doing. Creating a chilling effect on future juries.

That and his denigration of the judge and prosecutors is so banana republic.

 just appalling : (


After anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman Trump tweeted:


lord_pabulum said:

After anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman Trump tweeted:

 So what? Laws don't exist anymore. 


ridski said:

lord_pabulum said:

After anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman Trump tweeted:

 So what? Laws don't exist anymore. 

 Neither does a fair and impartial jury apparently


lord_pabulum said:

ridski said:

lord_pabulum said:

After anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman Trump tweeted:

 So what? Laws don't exist anymore. 

 Neither does a fair and impartial jury apparently

So you think Stone was unfairly convicted on all 7 counts? And all 12 jurists were in on it?

Do tell.


I don't know much about the case. But I would prefer a fair and impartial jury and be protected against a juror who might undermine my right to a fair trial.  Wouldn't you?


I read this article on CNBC.com about the juror's social media posts and frankly the ones referenced there aren't that bad.  Is it necessary that any juror on any Trump-related case be a MAGA or a neutral?  I've posted things about Trump or Republicans on social media, and I'm sure I would be able to acquit the likes of Roger Stone if the prosecution didn't prove its case.


I haven't seen any of the tweets, so I don't know why you think this juror could not have rendered a fair verdict.

Though, it's kind of of hard to be an informed person and not think that Roger Stone and Trump are human scum and have unfavorable opinions about them. But that doesn't mean you can't render a fair verdict.


drummerboy said:

I haven't seen any of the tweets, so I don't know why you think this juror could not have rendered a fair verdict.

Though, it's kind of of hard to be an informed person and not think that Roger Stone and Trump are human scum and have unfavorable opinions about them. But that doesn't mean you can't render a fair verdict.

 one of the tweets is a joke that Trump's appearance at a football game jinxed the Crimson Tide.  Another is a retweet of someone saying the people who complained about excessive force when Stone was arrested were quiet when it was the likes of Eric Garner, Philando Castile and other black men who were victims of excessive force.  Hardly extremist stuff.


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

I haven't seen any of the tweets, so I don't know why you think this juror could not have rendered a fair verdict.

Though, it's kind of of hard to be an informed person and not think that Roger Stone and Trump are human scum and have unfavorable opinions about them. But that doesn't mean you can't render a fair verdict.

 one of the tweets is a joke that Trump's appearance at a football game jinxed the Crimson Tide.  Another is a retweet of someone saying the people who complained about excessive force when Stone was arrested were quiet when it was the likes of Eric Garner, Philando Castile and other black men who were victims of excessive force.  Hardly extremist stuff.

Yeah, I've been poking around and found those too. I haven't found anything that would seem to disqualify her, as much as the right-wingers think otherwise.

Anyway, if the Stone lawyers allowed a biased juror onto the case, that's kind of their fault, unless it can be shown that she lied during juror questioning.


The thing is, the way we comment on so many topics here on MOL at the very least means we couldn’t fulfil our jury duty obligations (in either country), by these standards and ethics. It doesn’t take modern democracy - with free & open discussion - into account.


I agree with you, Joanne. Social media research of prospective jury pools might disqualify more jurors than any voir dire in a court room. On one hand, this may prove helpful while making it also very difficult to get enough people qualified to serve as jurors.


  I’m talking about in any case,  ever. We’ve all voiced opinions or recommended/upbraided neighbours, outlets/businesses, town planners, various designers (from graphics to appliances to architects to access to all kinds of services whether for animals or ex-military or widows or children with disabilities to victims of crime to internet services to education and beyond)... If we’re going to trawl back to something you wrote back 25 or 45 years ago and not allow for personal growth nor the ability to objectively compartmentalise personal views to weigh evidence, then we’re lost as a society because everything we’ve been taught since the Enlightenment is a furphy.


Remember that Japanese soldier who was found decades after WW2 ended living on an island in the full belief the war raged on?  Someone like that might be the only unbiased juror in any trial involving Trump and his swampy Republican bootlickers. 


lord_pabulum said:

ridski said:

lord_pabulum said:

After anti-Trump social media posts by Roger Stone jury forewoman Trump tweeted:

 So what? Laws don't exist anymore. 

 Neither does a fair and impartial jury apparently

 Exactly. You should see what @senatemajldr was tweeting before and during the impeachment.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.