Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford, CNN, D/S/Cs, Donald Trump Jr., Gropin' Joe Biden, Larry King, Nancy Pelosi, sexual assault allegations, Tara read, The New York Times
On April 1, 2020—there’s an appropriate date—I first broached the subject of the accusation of sexual assault against presumptive D/S/C nominee Joe Biden in Gropin’ Joe Biden: Believe This Woman? It is the story of Tara Reade, who, in her 20s, worked as a staffer in the office of then Senator Joe Biden. Reade, a confirmed Democrat, reportedly tried to go through the system, and was in short order fired. I concluded that article thus:
At the least, the media should give Reade the same kind of public exposure they so willingly gave Christine Blasey Ford. They should do it honestly, without spin, and let the public decide. Of course, they’ll be doing that just as soon as pigs fly, so as always, normal Americans will have to judge Joe Biden’s character and abilities on their own. Fortunately, he’s helping them do just that.
Reade has recently made a criminal complaint against Biden, but let us stipulate there will never be an arrest in this case, and the DC Metropolitan Police have said as much. The case is decades old and whatever statute of limitations applies has long since expired. That they, or any law enforcement agency would look into such a case is merely a matter of bookkeeping and public relations. The possibility of a civil suit against Biden remains, but that’s not the current issue. There are two pertinent issues:
1) What is to be the political standard in cases of accusations against political figures? Do we “believe all women” as even Mr. Biden has urged, and if we do, does an accusation disqualify a man, forevermore, from political office?
2) What is the journalistic standard in such cases? Is it any longer possible for the media to report such things honestly and without bias, particularly if the accused is a Republican?
Let us compare and contrast the political/media—they are, circa 2020, one in the same–response to the Brett Kavanagh case and the Joe Biden Case.
Brett Kavanaugh/Kristine Blasey Ford: Blasey Ford is a staunch Democrat, who did not contemporaneously tell her story to others when it occurred decades ago, when she was only 15. She was unable to provide a specific date—she was unsure of the year–time, or even a place where the incident occurred. Her story amounted to Kavanaugh, then also a teenager, engaging in a bit of over the clothing groping, but no penetration, which would render any criminal charge not a rape, but something less, and it would have been a juvenile matter in any case. It was not reported to the police, or apparently anyone else, at the time.
All of the witnesses Blasey Ford claimed were present, participated, or had knowledge of the event either denied it ever happened, denied they were there—wherever “there” was—or had no memory of any such event. Blasey Ford’s life-long friend, who Blasey Ford was sure would corroborate her story, denied she had any knowledge of it, and said she did not believe Blasey Ford. In addition, mutual friends threatened her and tried to intimidate her into supporting whatever Blasey Ford’s account was at any given moment.
There is no evidence Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh ever met.
Blasey-Ford’s account went through many revisions, and she was caught in numerous lies, such as claiming she was afraid of flying. She was eventually forced to admit she frequently flew around the world on surfing vacations.
Kavanaugh, who categorically denied any such event took place, had no reputation for inappropriate behavior with women as a teenager or an adult. Many friends and others—including women–that knew and know him testified his behavior toward women was unblemished. The case brought forward several other women whose outlandish similar claims against Kavanaugh were, after initial breathless headlines, quickly disappeared.
Blasey-Ford was admittedly very concerned about abortion and feared Kavanaugh would help overturn Roe v. Wade. She raised more than $600,000 via GoFundMe.
Joe Biden/Tara Reade: Reade is also an affirmed Democrat, who did contemporaneously tell her story to her brother, mother, and at least one neighbor, all of whom have confirmed this. Reade, at the time—decades ago–was in her 20s, and working as a staffer in Biden’s senatorial office. There is no question they knew each other. Reade’s account is specific as to date, time and place, and included digital penetration, which would render it rape under the laws of virtually every state. Both Reade and Biden were adults; a prosecution would have been a felony. Reade did not report the case to the police at the time.
There were, according to Reade, no direct witnesses to the event, but she did report it, through channels, and nothing was done, other than her demotion and firing. During that time frame, sexual maltreatment of women was common in the US Senate.
While the media, which has barely covered the case, has claimed Reade’s story has changed, but the changes amount to the continuing revelation of details damaging to Biden. As this is written, Reade has not been caught in lies, and continues to demand full transparency, including any documents of her complaint from that time.
Unlike Brett Kavanaugh, Joe Biden does have a life-long reputation of improper behavior toward women, frequently pawing women and girls, smelling their hair, and swimming nude in the presence of female members of his Secret Service detail while vice president. Multiple women, since his run for the presidency, have come forward to express their displeasure with Biden’s unwanted touching.
In 2019, Biden released a video apologizing for his improper behavior toward women. Biden has denied Reade’s allegations.
Reade does not appear to have benefitted financially, and has no apparent overt political motive.
The Reade story continues to unfold, very much to the detriment of Biden, as Fox News reports:
Two more people who knew Tara Reade in the ’90s reportedly came forward on Monday to back the former Senate staffer’s claims of sexual misconduct against Joe Biden.
Lynda LaCasse, a former next-door neighbor of Reade’s and a self-described supporter of Biden spoke on the record with Rich McHugh of Business Insider about past conversations they had with Reade about the allegations.
‘This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it,’ LaCasse told Business Insider, recalling a conversation with Reade that occurred in either 1995 or 1996.
Another past acquaintance, Lorraine Sanchez, a former colleague, also recalled past conversations with Reade, though she said did not recall Reade referring to Biden by name.
‘[Reade said] she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC,’ Sanchez told the publication, ‘and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.’
Also recently revealed is Reade’s mother, since deceased, called in to the Larry King show, then on CNN, in 1993, and spoke about the case, though she did not mention Biden or her daughter’s name. This revelation is much to the chagrin of CNN, which is doing its best to avoid any coverage of Reade’s accusations. The media have spent scant time on Reade’s allegations, and not a single reporter that has interviewed Biden has, to date, raised the issue.
Biden’s campaign has released talking points, claiming The New York Times, which wrote an article favorable to Biden, wrote that the incident never happened. The Times, after a complaint from the Biden campaign after the article was published, sanitized it, removing all mention of his well known groping of women and girls. The talking points forced the NYT to correct the record and the Biden Campaign’s false talking points. The NYT, to put it mildly, is very much part of the D/S/C propaganda arm. When even they feel the need to correct a D/S/C…
Even a few members of the media have begun to decry journalist’s blatant double standard in breathlessly, endlessly reporting on Kavanaugh, and ignoring, or covering up, the accusation against Biden. Michelle Goldberg is a New York Times opinion writer:Even D/S/C political operatives have begun to complain of the media double standard, going so far as to demand Biden drop out of the race:
It should be noted the Daous are advocating for Bernie Sanders:
Nancy Pelosi has recently endorsed Joe Biden, calling him a paragon of leadership, morality and virtue. These clever revisions of her commentary on the Kavanaugh affair reveal her hypocrisy:
I have always maintained that in any accusation against any man, on campus or off, he must be afforded full due process rights. An accusation is merely that, and men must always be considered innocent until proved guilty. Women do lie about rape, and pretty much anything else human beings can lie about. Women making accusations must be treated humanely and with professionalism, but no one should be believed without competent corroborating evidence, and certainly no arrest should be made without probable cause, and no conviction should result without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But we are not talking about criminal cases. Even if these cases were reported to the police when they occurred, it’s unlikely they’d ever go to trial. We’re talking about the political. Of the two cases, there is far more evidence against Joe Biden. There was never any real evidence against Brett Kavanaugh apart from Blasey-Ford’s unreliable account. It’s true the evidence amounts to Reade’s account, and the testimony of those she told at the time that she told them at the time. However, that alone speaks to her credibility, credibility that Blasey-Ford never enjoyed. Also speaking to her credibility are Biden’s own actions over many years.
There is no reason for rational, unbiased people to believe Brett Kavanaugh a molester of women. There is reason for rational, unbiased people to, at the very least, think that possible with Joe Biden, and a cursory Google search will turn up innumerable examples of photographic evidence of just that.
So what of Joe Biden? One might suggest since Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court, no harm no foul. So it should be with Joe Biden. The difference is the Kavanaugh affair was a blatant political hit job against an innocent man, a man with no history of mistreatment of women, an attempt not only to harm Justice Kavanaugh, but President Trump through him. The accusations against Biden will also potentially have political consequences, but there is reason to think the accusations not only possible, but likely.
The media’s reputation is at an all-time low, and deservedly so. They are, with few exceptions, the propaganda arm of the D/S/C party, and as recent events have revealed, the Chinese Communist Party. They cannot be trusted to honestly report the news. Their descent into terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome has not only caused them to cover for Mr. Biden’s dramatic, tragic and sad mental decline, but to treat him entirely differently than Brett Kavanaugh was treated, despite there being great differences in the two cases, differences that should lead honest journalists to show far more interest in the Biden case.
Do I believe Tara Reade? Judging through the lens of my police experience and standards, I would find her credible, where I would not find Christine Blasey-Ford credible. In the Blasey-Ford account, there is only her word, and reason to doubt her veracity. The Reade account is far better supported. Neither case would reach the arrest threshold, and prosecutors would hear of them from me only so they would not be surprised should the press inquire.
Americans should reasonably take Reade’s accusations into account when considering how to cast their presidential votes, though there are, to be sure, far more important considerations, none of which we’re likely to hear on the news, at least not honestly presented. Politicians aren’t popes, though the opposite is being argued in some quarters these days. It’s clear D/S/Cs believe women only to the extent they are temporarily politically useful. The party of and for women has revealed itself to be a party of and for its own power and privileges.
Whether this will have a real effect on the D/S/C presidential race remains to be seen. Many want to do away with Biden, though Party elders want nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. As I’ve often written, I suspect Michelle Obama is waiting in the wings. Whatever happens, we can reasonably expect it to be cynical, corrupt, and to have nothing to do with the welfare of our representative republic, or the American people. D/S/Cs have established new rules, and they absolutely don’t want to live by them. Rules are for the little people: Republicans and normal Americans.
UPDATE, 04-30-20, 1110 CST: In 2012, Joe Biden sent his senate records to the University of Delaware, where members of the Board of the university said they would be released after the end of December 2019, or two years after Biden “retires from public life,” whatever that might mean. Obviously, he hasn’t held any public office since Mr. Trump’s 2017 inauguration. Now, they are refusing to release any records, which might, or might not, confirm Reade’s account of formally reporting the rape. Even The Washington Post(?!) is demanding the release of the records. Fox News reports members of that Board have significant financial ties to Biden. It just gets better and better.
UPDATE, 04-30-20, 2145 CST: Fox News is reporting Biden’s campaign sent operatives to the Library of the University of Delaware in mid-march to “rifle through” Biden’s senate records. Were they there to see what was present on Tara Read? Unlikely. They were probably there because they knew what was present and needed to disappear it. Obviously, Joe Biden, or at least his minions, learned from Hillary Clinton. Perhaps they even believe the FBI is still on their side. Perhaps they’re right…
You left out Trump and all his list of immoral sexual behavior… infidelities, groping liberties, vengeful hookers, and those “nasty” pee tapes Putin is hanging on to. I’d not put a lot of faith in sexual accusations alone, seemingly from credible sources or not, having any sort of election impact, in elections to come. It certainly didn’t matter in 2016 and certainly not in 2020.. whomever wins..
Mike McDaniel said:
One issue at a time. I don’t have unlimited space in each article. I’ve certainly been critical of Donald Trump, particularly in the run up to the 2016 election. Oh, and you know the Russia hoax, including the “pee tapes” is a hoax, right? Russian disinformation? As I noted, politicians aren’t popes, and we don’t expect them to be, which, considering human nature, is inherently reasonable. However, even by that standard, Brett Kavanaugh comes off far, far better than Joe Biden.
One might suggest there’s a big difference in comparing moral attributes of a Supreme Court Justice candidate and attributes generally preferred for Presidential candidate as these things hit public opinion. Personally, if any accusations fall within some statute of limitations then that’s on the person who is being accused. I’m for the law. But historical accusations that conveniently pop out when a candidate seeks public office matter little to me anyway.. and largely because I am a guy, hence not sensitive enough for the broad #MeToo interpretations (pun noted but not intended there). Heck.. when William Clinton dabbled with Monica I was like most guys in America at the time… two consenting adults, the rest is between him and his wife. (Go Bill!) What can I say. Men are scum… or so I’ve been told (to which your readers might assign.. “Oh.. that many have told you that?”). Yes.. in general genderized conversation and not with personal animosity toward me directly (I think…)
Mike McDaniel said:
Painful experience–my own and that of others–has taught how easy it is to make frivolous, serious sounding accusations, and how easy it is for these accusations to destroy careers and lives, even when those accused are exonerated.
As you say, one should always take conveniently timed accusations with a large grain of salt.
No way I would be an educator for just that reason. I am constantly telling social services staffers not to leave minors removed from their parents, especially teen girls, in the lobby with me, while they are ten feet away behind a closed door talking with foster parents. I don’t need some angst-filled kid accusing me of anything cause they are pissed at the world (for good reason generally). Not my job to babysit kids.. and I am not a state employee on top of it.
But to the point… yes… just the accusations are damning for sure.
Mike McDaniel said:
Just so. In my years of teaching, I was extraordinarily careful. I always winced at the sight of any teacher, male or female, who hugged, or in any way outwardly displayed affection for kids. It’s absolutely deadly.
The other Phil said:
So you give Bill Clinton a complete pass for an affair with a 22-year old intern and subsequent perjury (for which he lost his law license), but condemn Trump for the discredited Russian-Clinton dossier? And don’t even try to say it’s credible. Mueller tried really hard to find something on Trump and came up empty.
Everyone knew that Trump wasn’t a saint. I voted for him to be my President, not my priest. And it turns out that he was right all along about a lot of big things, like his ability to quickly deal with ISIS, the importance of border controls, the threat from China, and the need to bring manufacturing back to the US.
As it pertains to morality.. I could care less, as I’ve said often before, what is actually in someone’s distant (or not-so-distant) past unless there was something illegal that can be tried in a court of law. My issue with Trump is his pure incompetence for any sort of leadership in the role as President. The current crisis a perfect example. Even a broke clock is right twice a day. If you want to trade off his incompetence to the typical Conservative, “I know he’s caustic but look at all the good he’s done.” mindset.. then go for justification that his agenda alone justifies his any means to carry them out. For me.. his policies are debatable as being extraordinarily misguidedly biased as are his methods for carrying them out. That’s far separate from my feelings since 2016 on his buffoonery behavioral incompetence leading the nation into the pits and being a laughing stock to the world.
But that’s all likely to change, it seems. He’s his own worst enemy.
How he treats his women, or any women, rumor or fact, is on him and however that ends up in public opinion. I don’t measure it all that important when compared to the other threats he brings to the table. I simply mentioned it to Mike given he was obsessing about comparing the Biden sex accusations to the Kavanaugh sex accusation… and leaving out the Trump accusations.
The other Phil said:
It’s “couldn’t care less”, not could. Unless you’re agreeing with me.
Pure incompetence eh? Name one world leader who did a better job on the virus? Nobody got it “right”. And don’t tell me that he wasn’t perfect. No one is. He was the first one to implement travel restrictions, and caught a lot of flak for it.
He’s stopped ISIS, isolated Iran, got Mexico to exert some control of their own border, got good trade deals signed with S Korea, Australia, China, Mexico, Canada, and more. Got NATO to pay more for their own defense. Talked to North Korea, when all of the experts said that we’d be at war with them. Saved the US steel industry, which is of strategic importance. Is doing all that he can to get us out of the Middle East. Cut needless regulations.
The accusations against Kavanaugh were broadcast non-stop for weeks, even when they were obviously so vague as to be impossible to verify or refute (she didn’t know the time or place, none of her so-called witnesses could recall anything, etc.). Yet now we have a very specific report against Biden, who’s hiding his documents from the time period that could verify that she filed a complaint, and she’s got several contemporary witnesses who have now publicly verified her story, yet there’s complete silence from the media. it’s an obvious double standard.
And are you saying that the allegations against Trump have been insufficiently covered? If so that’s perhaps your biggest whopper yet.
And are you implying that rumors and facts are the same thing in your world? Yikes!!!
hehe.. I like you, Phil.. and that’s not sarcasm.
Actually.. you are absolutely correct about one thing.. I did indeed misuse the could/couldn’t thing.
As for the rest of what you said… makes me reflect back a bit to the days of Nixon, given today marks the Fall of Saigon. Now.. back then I was a young troop and mother taught me well in having a measure of respect for those older than me, a basic respect for the government and the Constitution.. and certain authority figures, like police. fire people, etc. I even had a respect for the presidents.. Democrat or Republican. I was a “my country, right or wrong” kinda guy… and the sitting presidents over the years fell into that wave of emotion I had. I was less pro-war and more pro-government.. and if that meant going to war.. well, made sense to me given my blind devotion. Hence Mr. Nixon was up there on people I supported and whatever he did must be “good”. I wasn’t sold on the man himself as much as I was sold on respect for any sitting president.
My whole point in this boring and mindless trip into my past is to point out that even in the hey-day of my blind commitment to whatever government was in power, it has never, even remotely, surpassed the blind, total obsession Trump people have toward Trump.. where his every move, decision, alleged out-of-context remark, uncouth diatribe, bullying, name-calling, embarrassing acts, and behavioral anomalies.. are defended vehemently to the ends of the Earth, and to the depths of desperation.
Never once in my entire life have I given any single person such reverence and deity (not even my ex-wife, although her mother thought she deserved worship).
The other Phil said:
And, by the way, while Clinton was screwing around with Monica, he wasn’t dealing with Al Qeada and Osama Bin Laden (we could have killed him on multiple occasions but Clinton wimped out), or dealing with North Korea’s nuclear weapons development and their proliferation of nuclear tech to Iran, Pakistan, and Libya, and it was his administration that put up Jamie Gorelick’s infamous “wall” between the foreign and domestic intelligence services that made it was impossible for them to connect the dots and stop the 9/11 attacks. Is that your idea of leadership?
Oh, Phil.. that’s my idea of you spending way too much time on Conservative sources.
“Wimped out” is totally subjective as the opportunities were not acted upon for any number of actual reasons that “felt” important to the administration at the time… timing being everything. I don’t know enough of the internal decisions to arbitrarily second guess Clinton at the time… and I doubt you do either… nor any alleged Conservative “sources” that somehow have an inside on each event. Your statement was just political blaming.. “..while he was screwing around with Monica” killing opportunities for killing Bin Laden were missed. Yeah.. right.
Let’s try another one…
“According to Gorelick’s op-ed letter in the Washington Post she states that: “At last week’s hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft, facing criticism, asserted that ‘the single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents’ and that I built that wall through a March 1995 memo.” However, the report from the 9/11 Commission, co-authored by Gorelick, asserts that the ‘wall’ limiting the ability of federal agencies to cooperate had existed since the 1980s and is in fact not one singular wall but a series of restrictions created over the course of over twenty years.”
I dunno why you brought up Clinton anyway. I am not a Democrat nor a Liberal and he’s irrelevant to the here and now of Trump World.
Mike McDaniel said:
Even Clinton himself admitted he had Bin Laden on a silver platter and passed. Since his administration it is been conclusively proved Clinton had at least two opportunities to take out Bin Laden and did not take them. Considering he was the 9-11 mastermind, it is not unreasonable to believe had Clinton done his job, 9-11 might not have happened.
Monday morning quarter-backing? Did old Bill also indicate.. “If I wasn’t screwing around with Monica I could have prevented 9/11?”
Mike McDaniel said:
No. Fact. Remember also, please, under Clinton, our human intelligence resources were all but obliterated. Also fact. Conflating the Lewinski affair and 9-11 isn’t working. The point is simple: Bill Clinton had multiple opportunities to stop the then most dangerous terrorist in the world, and he chose not to do it.
I didn’t bring up the “conflating” between Lewinski and 9/11… that was Phil trying to be sarcastic by assigning Clinton’s apparent “negligence” to being sidetracked with oral sex.
I don’t happen to disagree with Clinton having missed those opportunities.. but given 9/11 wasn’t predictable how would anyone have known that Clinton’s various apprehensions might dictate the 9/11 tragedy? My contention is that Phil’s point was to suggest that Clinton’s “Liberalness” created 9/11 (gotta make it political, right?) and if the president at the time was a right wing hawk who didn’t care about collateral damage that 9/11 would never had happened… but we’d still never know because all it would have been was just another terrorist biting the dust on page two of the Post. Again.. Monday morning quarterbacking.. which is moot.
You indicated yourself that our intel in the region was fairly diminished… likely following the exit of the Soviets from Afghanistan and we cut off all contact activity funding since the threat assessment in the region had changed. Not too difficult to surmise various missed kill opportunities against a pre-9/11 Bin Laden as a presidential matter of choice at the time.
The other Phil said:
Give me an example of something I said that was false. One thing.
The other Phil said:
You claim that Trump is incompetent, so I present some of his real accomplishments, and you accuse me of being obsessed with him. Nice little deflection game you got going on there. No, I think it you who is consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nothing he can do is good enough for you. The USMCA deal and subsequent China trade deal were solely due to his leadership, and they were directly linked together, as China would not sign a trade deal until the NAFTA backdoor through Mexico and Canada had been closed to them. Trump alone saw the problem and forced through the solution, in spite of resistance from virtually every corner of the political spectrum, from both political parties, the press, world leaders, the unions, the US Chamber of Commerce, etc. This is a major accomplishment, and dwarfs anything done by Obama or Clinton.
Here’s the problem, Phil… my citation sources will never be good for you nor will your sources be adequate for me. The China trade deal has been a total facade.. the farmers are suffering and the taxpayer is paying all the tariffs. You don’t agree because FOX said so.
“Trump alone saw the problem and forced through the solution, in spite of resistance from virtually every corner of the political spectrum, from both political parties, the press, world leaders, the unions, the US Chamber of Commerce, etc.”
Ugh.. ever stop to think all that resistance was correct and Trump was wrong? Trump is a biased real estate guy at best with a huge amount of bluster, ego, and zero credibility, and a poor business record because he lies constantly. He’s a billionaire because of leveraged real estate, TV deals, and his personal branding… not any sort of economic wizardry. I admire his having a schtick to make a bunch of money from his dad’s seed money but it wasn’t any economic skill that got him there.
Now.. if indeed there is such a thing as Trump Derangement Syndrome and it’s not just a sarcastic demeaning Conservative label for Liberals… ok.. I can embrace that because I love my country and hate it being torn about from the abhorrent likes of his blunderings. You love your country and think he’s doing wonders for it. So.. where does that leave us?
Here’s the crazier part, Phil… how Trump is handling this pandemic. We are both watching the same videos.. the same coverage video of those press “rallies” each day.. his same non-truths and nonsense.. and we both come away with entirely different images of Trump.
The other Phil said:
China is paying the tariffs because there’s been no inflation, which had been predicted by the CNN experts, who were wrong again. And “Farmers are suffering”…because of the VIRUS!!!!, not because of the trade deal. Unless you think that China purposefully spread this because Trump had them cornered, politically and economically. Wow! that’s pretty cynical. But if so doesn’t that justify Trump’s efforts to separate us from China?
And if you think Trump is responsible for tearing this country apart, then you’re even more naive that I thought. Trump is a symptom of the greater disease, which is big government. Madison warned us about this exact type of thing 230 years ago, that a large national government would eventually devolve into factions and tear the country apart, which is exactly what is happening. We ignore their council at our own peril.
Actually, government gets its size by the will of the people. It’s not some isolated entity determining its own existence. Also… Madison’s frame of reference for many of his theories was his contemporary times. Population also determines the size of government as the natural demand for increased services and the expanding economic operation of the nation, international commitments with other nations, and a moral will of the population to expand influence in the world stage. No way Madison could have predicted 350 million Americans down the line.
The “enemy” is not larger government of and by itself. We got to our current size specifically and accordingly to the Constitution…. again, the will of the people. If you need to assign an “enemy” then make it the inevitable population growth.. and not just immigration… it’s all about prosperity, health advancements, human longevity, and the human propensity to reproduce.
Nature will find a way to moderate the population.. and humanity itself is part of nature so we shouldn’t presume we are living separately from nature… as this pandemic so illustrates.
It’s totally natural that as the population grows so will man’s relationships between himself become strained, specifically in governing himself. These strains can easily take the form of wars that kill lots of people, violent conflicts, and civil strife. Nature can and will introduce killer pandemics. Trump’s issues are that he is not leader for all Americans and makes zero attempt at hiding it. Hence “his side” will get all the attention.. right or wrong.. and that not only creates the divide and internal conflict but encourages it along. For certain Trump’s persona is not to keep the peace.
And.. I find Trump’s facade about finding yet another blame deflection in trying to investigate China’s involvement in the virus as not necessary at this time. We have far more serious pandemic/economic issues than worrying about who to blame to get an election edge. This is ridiculous.
The other Phil said:
Wrong. Nearly everything that the Federal government does could be done better and more efficiently if the states ran them, which is exactly what Madison and others had in mind. And most importantly it would deflect most of the political energy away from Washington DC. We’d be much better off in that case. Abortion is a great example. If it had been left to the states then it would be legal in some, banned in some, and regulated in 50 different ways. This would relieve all of that national tension that is currently centered on the President and Supreme Court. Issues like abortion were only supposed to be “nationalized” once there was a supermajority in favor of a specific course, leading to an amendment to the Constitution. Read Federalist 51.
And what a joke, complaining that Trump isn’t a “leader of all Americans”. As though Bush, Obama, or Clinton represented all Americans. Good grief.
Ohh… you’re promoting a more states’ rights thing. The introduction of the automobile pretty much takes some of the wind outta that sail. We are a mobile society (or were till now) and given that people generally don’t want wide ranging differences in laws. Also… the wide ranging economies between the states has a significant income disparity to the tax bases so it rather gets in the way of various social programs. I totally agree with you that the Founders were of the ilk that the states need a measure of not only self-rule power but also a social identity.. and maybe some religious identity slung in there as well. But with the growing national population and mobility, and folks re-locating more frequently… it has kind of diluted the “separate states” thing a bit given people want the same relative laws as they travel and re-settle. Certainly big business prefers uniform trading laws rather than 50 separate ways of doing business.
I consider the Constitution a dynamic document, subject to adapting to change, in line with the intent of the Founding Fathers.. I am sure you do not, in line with the intent of the Founding Fathers. So.. we are back to Constitutional interpretation again. I may not agree with SCOTUS all the time.. but that’s the decision I go by… because here’s the thing… SCOTUS does seem to adapt to change as the members appointed do over time.
The other Phil said:
I disagree, but so be it.
At least you’re finally being honest. The path that you, and others, advocate for is it to change this country from a constitutional republic to a true democracy, and as Madison said in Federalist 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”.
This is what Mike has been warning about, but you and others seem to pay no attention.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…
Yeah.. well, constantly quoting from The Federalist is cautionary as well. In spite of the fact that the Papers are often a great source for some level of 18th century political understanding and historical application of the day… Madison is a contributor to the creation and not the final authority of the outcome. Madison himself stated so later in his life when his popularity for being quoted during SCOTUS deliberations seemed to be getting out of hand. He cautioned about using his opinions as some Constitutional interpretation.
I’m not sure if your quote of the first line of the Declaration is a (not so) subtle to someone wanting a revolution because the states have less influence these days.
Quite honestly… if the handling of this pandemic by Trump shifting blame to the states is some measure to affirm states rights… that’s a pretty appalling example and an excellent argument for federal intervention. It’s a damned mess.
The other Phil said:
Again, I appreciate your honesty, finally. What you describe is the true fault line between the left and right: is man perfectable? If not, if our nature hasn’t changed throughout all of recorded human history, then the constitution makes perfect sense. If man can be perfected, then the constitution is just an unnecessary impediment to utopia, to heaven on earth.
Unfortunately, the idea that man is perfectable was used by communist governments to justify the killing of about 100 million people in the 20th century.
So yes, history shows that your preferred path inevitably leads to famine, war, and gulags. That’s different from advocating for violence.
I would keep in mind that the Constitution itself defines the kind of government “we” opted for.. and with our free market… for all the blame it gets for corruption, waste, profiteering, and flaunting of natural resources, that single element alone has allowed a development of a middle class and an overall economic system that has encouraged us to keep faith to that document. Over the last couple hundred years our society has prospered and regardless how our current lamenting about economic disparity is bantered about, we all appreciate the status quo that the Constitution provides… and our desire is great to stay the faith to it and trust in it… and because of that, the document has served us well in return.
My point is that just having the Constitution as created by the wig-wearing fellows didn’t alone guarantee its success to this day. Collectively, when this pandemic is over, we just might appreciate free market a little more… and likely the rest of the document.
Mike McDaniel said:
Normal Americans will trust it no less and perhaps more. D/S/Cs–that’s another story.
Ha.. yeah, Mike.. the old “us” and “they” of it all. If the “us” is normal does that not mean the “they” are either abnormal.. or.. dare I say this, some level of deplorable?
And what happens to the us.. that’s not the “us”, nor a member of the “they”? I am feeling a bit displaced.. and alone. Wait.. can I be a member of the “those”?
Mike McDaniel said:
Nah Doug, merely once again engaging in recognizing reality. By “Normal Americans” in this context, I refer to those that recognize the Constitution as the establishment of our liberties, of the rule of law. As we both know, this refers to most Republicans, many independents and libertarians, and some D/S/Cs. It is become, however, an essential D/S/C Party article of faith that the Constitution is an outdated impediment to their policy desires. They seek to replace it with a “living constitution,” which amounts to scrapping or ignoring any portion of it that gets in their way.
I must–we all must–generalize in speaking of such things. But you’ve inspired me. I’ll address this in an article this coming week. Congrats!
As we saw in the Kavanaugh affair, there doesn’t need to be actual physical contact, verbal contact, knowledge that one person knows the other, or any actual evidence whatsoever for the MSM to take an accusation and treat it as it came from God’s own mouth. The accusee’s political leanings are the only thing that determines the credibility of the accusation.
Alan Reasin said:
When I worked in construction, twice when I refused to accept as correct information from two women, I was accuse of sexual harassment. It was suggested in one case from management that I apologize and I refused. She dropped the charges, I was told.
I treated them as I would have any male who gave out incorrect information on the project and I did. Guys didn’t charge me with harassment, sexual or otherwise. Why was that.
Pingback: Generalizations | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Gropin’ Joe Biden: Character Is On The Ballot! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Generalizations, 2021 | Stately McDaniel Manor