Null



Sign in to follow this  
TexasTiger

America needs an intellectual Right

Recommended Posts

It used to have one with some of better political minds in the country. It challenged ideas. We need a more robust debate, not just louder, more strident voices. Jim Jordan? Matt Gaetz? Louis Gohmert? Thought it might come from Ben Sasse, but he wilted under pressure.

 

D3366701-E4B7-43AD-9A64-76FA5F00FE88.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




45 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I dont think anyone on the Right these days thinks about much more than $$$.

Leave out the directional and the the statement still reads true for those that are supposed to be representing us

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bigbird said:

Leave out the directional and the the statement still reads true for those that are supposed to be representing us

There is only one party that is championing our Constitution  and it ain't the GOP.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prime example of how the GOP exhibits contempt for the constitutional duty:

McConnell’s awful Hannity interview shows power of Fox News’s disinformation

It has often been observed that one of President Trump’s biggest allies in the impeachment battle is Fox News — that if Richard Nixon had enjoyed the benefit of such a powerful purveyor of propaganda, he wouldn’t have been driven from office.

You could not ask for a clearer indication of this than the interview that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell just gave to Sean Hannity about Trump’s coming trial.

The interview showcases how Trump’s propagandists have succeeded in creating a universe that is as hermetically sealed off from this scandal’s widely and firmly established set of facts as one half of a divided cell is from the other.

In this universe, it’s simultaneously the case that everything Trump said on his corrupt call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was absolutely fine and that the key elements of Trump’s pressure on Zelensky simply never happened.

And in this universe, it’s not just fully understood that Trump’s acquittal is assured in advance and that the trial will be gamed to Trump’s maximum benefit. It’s also understood that this is how it should be. Indeed, the interview appears designed to reassure audiences of all this.

That was plainly evident in McConnell’s quotes about how this process will unfold. As McConnell said:

Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.

McConnell also said:

We’ll be working through this process ... in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people representing the president in the well of the Senate.

Many have sharply criticized McConnell for telegraphing that the trial will be gamed in advance to assure Trump’s acquittal and to make it as politically painless as possible.

That’s true, but it’s worse than this. Note that Hannity treated this not just as utterly unremarkable, but as how things ought to be.

It’s not. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz write, the framers designated the Senate for impeachment trials to create an “extraordinary court” composed of “the nation’s leading statesmen,” one up to the gravity of weighing “great offenses against the people.” The Senate would not be prone to factional pressure (senators have six-year terms) and would be independent of the president.

But you cannot watch this McConnell interview without coming away convinced that he is trying to reassure the faction known as Trump and GOP voters that the Senate trial will be conducted in full accordance with Trump’s wishes and needs.

“I’m going to take my cues from the president’s lawyers,” McConnell said. “I’m going to coordinate with the president’s lawyers.” And: “There’s no chance the president will be removed from office.”

It has been reported that McConnell wants a quick, un-circus-like trial, whereas Trump wants it to be weaponized against potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden. Here McConnell is plainly trying to put the Fox News audience at ease: The GOP Senate’s interests are 100 percent joined with Trump’s.

Hannity also dramatically misrepresented the evidence against Trump. Hannity said of Ambassador Gordon Sondland:

The one fact witness said, ‘The president said he wants nothing, no quid pro quo,’ That was the only fact witness that I saw.

This is a monumental absurdity. Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” in which a White House meeting was conditioned on Ukraine announcing a Biden investigation, as Trump wanted.

What’s more, Sondland also admitted that he actually did directly inform a top aide to Zelensky that the military aid was conditioned on that investigation.

In other words, the extortion demand involving military aid actually was made of Zelensky, by one of Trump’s chief ringleaders, who also explicitly testified that he understood this to be what Trump wanted, as one understands that 2+2=4.

What’s more, this “no quid pro quo” quote from Trump — which came in a call with Sondland — came after the extortion plot was uncovered. And on that same call, Trump reiterated the demand that Zelensky do his corrupt bidding.

But Trump has magically claimed his own quote, delivered even as the corrupt scheme was being executed, as exoneration. In Hannity-land, the power of Trump’s declared self-exoneration, as a reality-defining force, is absolute. It walls out all contrary facts, rendering them nonexistent.

Hannity also said there was zero “evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever” on Trump’s part:

Did you read that transcript? I read it over and over again. I certainly don’t see what we hear Joe Biden bragging about: “You’re not getting the billion taxpayer dollars unless you fire the prosecutor he knew was investigating his son.”

This is utter nonsense. Biden worked to oust the prosecutor, but this was U.S. policy and supported by international institutions, and the prosecutor actually was not “investigating his son.” Meanwhile, on the call, Trump actually did pressure Zelensky to carry out his corrupt bidding, after Zelensky requested military aid.

The disinformation bubble

McConnell also claimed twice that Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump “for three years.”

ot really. A rump of Democrats supported an impeachment inquiry earlier, but Democratic leaders emphatically and concertedly resisted even such an inquiry throughout most of his presidency, only doing so after the Ukraine extortion plot surfaced.

The important point here, however, is that this nonsense is necessary to reverse-justify McConnell’s naked corruption of the process. In the disinformation bubble that is Hannity’s show, millions of Trump and GOP voters are now reassured that McConnell will shape the trial entirely in sync with Trump’s political needs, and that Democrats have rendered it the correct and justified thing to do.

This interview belongs in a time capsule. It will benefit future generations who study the impeachment and all-but-certain acquittal of Trump, and the degree to which Trump’s defenders corrupted our discourse and political system to make that outcome possible.

We don’t yet know what the future consequences of this corruption will be. But future generations will, and interviews such as this one will help demonstrate to them how it happened.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/13/mcconnells-awful-hannity-interview-shows-power-fox-news-disinformation/

 

And to TT's point in the OP, there aren't even measly four Republicans willing to stand up and do the right thing and treat this in an objective manner that respects both our constitution and their responsibilities.

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There is only one party that is championing our Constitution  and it ain't the GOP.

You're right, the other doest seem to really care too much about the Constitution

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Awww... I got a dislike from ICHY.

tenor.gif

Ichy dislikes everything. If you say that the courts should be involved when there is a dispute between legislative and executive branch he gives it a thumbs down, no explanation just a thumbs down. I was a Biology major not  a History major but I learned enough to know there is a reason for the three branch's and ruling on disagreements between the Executive and Legislative is one of the key reasons for the Judicial Branch.  

Edited by AuburnNTexas
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Ichy dislikes everything. If you say that the courts should be involved when there is a dispute between legislative and executive branch he gives it a thumbs down, no explanation just a thumbs down. I was a Biology major not  a History major but I learned enough to know there is a reason for the three branch's and ruling on disagreements between the Executive and Legislative is one of the key reasons for the Judicial Branch.  

Imagine being so politically biased that you literally disagree with the Constitution. Political Blindness is sad and rampant

  • Like 3
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Awww... I got a dislike from ICHY.

tenor.gif

Yep...that's an affirmation that you have it right....way to go....

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, America does NOT need an intellectual right. The right has an anti-intellectual right that rules the country and moves the world politics to the right. Why bother with that brain shiiiiite? It is useless, and irrelevent.

As one who cut his teeth on von Mises, Hayek, Novick, and all the other right wing and libertarian intellectuals, goodbye, so long, fugoodbye.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, both sides lack intellect because they don't understand that civil liberties and economic liberties aren't mutually exclusive. Stop trying to force people to abide by your particular brand of religion or subjective morality, and stop punishing people for financial success. The government should exist to protect the rights of the individual, not provide the individual their rights.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 2:26 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

Ichy dislikes everything. If you say that the courts should be involved when there is a dispute between legislative and executive branch he gives it a thumbs down, no explanation just a thumbs down. I was a Biology major not  a History major but I learned enough to know there is a reason for the three branch's and ruling on disagreements between the Executive and Legislative is one of the key reasons for the Judicial Branch.  

It must be hard, not being able to hear anything.  😰

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ToraGirl said:

It must be hard, not being able to hear anything.  😰

I bet he's a ton of fun at parties. I'd also place a good chunk of change on him having an anime profile pic on Facebook and a killer bachelor's pad in his mom's basement.

  • Love 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate trying to describe my views. You have to go to a three axis political model to get close, and the liberal-conservative spectrum does nothing for me. I wouldn’t say I necessarily agree with the premise of this, as I’ve moved a from a little right of center to a little left of center (still an oversimplification). I will say that Regan era conservatism was ideologically and economically stronger than any of the predominant political opinions today. The republicans of today have become very populist, and only pretend to be about fiscal responsibility. The democrats have become increasingly impractical. Their concerns are valid. Our healthcare system had problems prior to Obamacare (and still had them). People in this country are suffering financially. But their proposed solutions are economically unsound.   I have a lot of respect for Jeff Flake for trying to bring the Republican Party back to that kind of conservatism, and wish more people in that party would have listened. For the Democratic Party, I get their concerns, but haven’t heard practical solutions from them in a long time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AUFriction said:

I hate trying to describe my views. You have to go to a three axis political model to get close, and the liberal-conservative spectrum does nothing for me. I wouldn’t say I necessarily agree with the premise of this, as I’ve moved a from a little right of center to a little left of center (still an oversimplification). I will say that Regan era conservatism was ideologically and economically stronger than any of the predominant political opinions today. The republicans of today have become very populist, and only pretend to be about fiscal responsibility. The democrats have become increasingly impractical. Their concerns are valid. Our healthcare system had problems prior to Obamacare (and still had them). People in this country are suffering financially. But their proposed solutions are economically unsound.   I have a lot of respect for Jeff Flake for trying to bring the Republican Party back to that kind of conservatism, and wish more people in that party would have listened. For the Democratic Party, I get their concerns, but haven’t heard practical solutions from them in a long time.

Haven't you heard? It's simple. Tax everyone and trust that the government will actually use it to help those in need! Free stuff!

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AUFriction said:

I hate trying to describe my views. You have to go to a three axis political model to get close, and the liberal-conservative spectrum does nothing for me. I wouldn’t say I necessarily agree with the premise of this, as I’ve moved a from a little right of center to a little left of center (still an oversimplification). I will say that Regan era conservatism was ideologically and economically stronger than any of the predominant political opinions today. The republicans of today have become very populist, and only pretend to be about fiscal responsibility. The democrats have become increasingly impractical. Their concerns are valid. Our healthcare system had problems prior to Obamacare (and still had them). People in this country are suffering financially. But their proposed solutions are economically unsound.   I have a lot of respect for Jeff Flake for trying to bring the Republican Party back to that kind of conservatism, and wish more people in that party would have listened. For the Democratic Party, I get their concerns, but haven’t heard practical solutions from them in a long time.

Kind of where I am, but I disagree somewhat about the Reagan era.  For as much good as he did, his administration is the one that really started our downward debt spiral.  I would like to find someone with similar values but with a more Clinton approach to budgets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caleb1633 said:

Haven't you heard? It's simple. Tax everyone and trust that the government will actually use it to help those in need! Free stuff!

For me, it isn’t about what they do as much as it is about how they do it. Our government is loaded with unnecessary and unsuccessful red tape. They attempt to establish bureaucratic processes to stop corruption, and generally do that. But those processes create a lot of wasted money. I once heard a story about  a government agency spending 1 million on a toilet, and the reason was that the government regulations and bureaucracy  ended up driving the price that high.  While this is an extreme example, it shows what often happens with governmental programs. The money is used inefficiently, often due to regulations and processes that are in place. At the end of it all, the money never gets where it is meant to go, or it doesn’t get there in tact. 
I have no issue with governmental support programs. The problem is that they just never work efficiently or correctly. Either a lot of money gets wasted for only a little help, or the program ends up costing more than expected. I’d have no problem paying higher taxes if I believed it would really reach people in need. But I don’t believe my tax dollars will do that.

Edited by AUFriction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HATE the game-playing, character assassination aspect of politics...my life mantra, "live narrowly, love broadly." Tend to be moderate, conservative on some issues, but I take it issue by issue, not blanket. Obviously my Biblical worldview shapes a lot of my black, white, and gray color wheel ("but I will not wear that gaudy orange...").

As a public school teacher, grace and acceptance of diversity are huge, as is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Big fan of TEMPORARY assistance, because we've known lean times in 30 years of marriage. Big into "pay it forward". 

Change the world for the better, leave things better than you found them, overcome darkness with light. Follow your dream/life purpose but help others along the way. Demonstrate and require the best of self and others. Faith and hope rule.

In favor of an others-centered, global and local service-minded, head-and-heart intellectual right...left...and somewhere in between. 

Edited by ToraGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, AUFriction said:

For me, it isn’t about what they do as much as it is about how they do it. Our government is loaded with unnecessary and unsuccessful red tape. They attempt to establish bureaucratic processes to stop corruption, and generally do that. But those processes create a lot of wasted money. I once heard a story about  a government agency spending 1 million on a toilet, and the reason was that the government regulations and bureaucracy  ended up driving the price that high.  While this is an extreme example, it shows what often happens with governmental programs. The money is used inefficiently, often due to regulations and processes that are in place. At the end of it all, the money never gets where it is meant to go, or it doesn’t get there in tact. 
I have no issue with governmental support programs. The problem is that they just never work efficiently or correctly. Either a lot of money gets wasted for only a little help, or the program ends up costing more than expected. I’d have no problem paying higher taxes if I believed it would really reach people in need. But I don’t believe my tax dollars will do that.

Furthermore, do you know why Huntsville International Airport has some of the most expensive prices for flights in the country? Because the majority of people who fly in and out are on the government's dime. They know they'll pay for it, so they feel they can charge as much as they want. It'll be no different with any major service the government takes away from the private sector.

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caleb1633 said:

Furthermore, do you know why Huntsville International Airport has some of the most expensive prices for flights in the country? Because the majority of people who fly in and out are on the government's dime. They know they'll pay for it, so they feel they can charge as much as they want. It'll be no different with any major service the government takes away from the private sector.

Eh, as someone who flies way too much all over this country, I would say it has more to do with the fact that there are very few gates at HSV, making it more expensive to buy a ticket due to supply.

It ain't cheap to fly to Amarillo or Birmingham either, especially when compared to big cities like Atlanta, LA, Chicago, NYC, Charlotte, etc.  Just the nature of the beast that is flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Eh, as someone who flies way too much all over this country, I would say it has more to do with the fact that there are very few gates at HSV, making it more expensive to buy a ticket due to supply.

It ain't cheap to fly to Amarillo or Birmingham either, especially when compared to big cities like Atlanta, LA, Chicago, NYC, Charlotte, etc.  Just the nature of the beast that is flying.

It’s somewhat related to how close you are to a hub. HIA is not a hub, and we have very few direct flights. But I agree, airline pricing here has nothing to do with it being the government’s money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this