The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Fargo]

Dude, why would you expect me to even care whether Trump is Kutsistent or not. I’m not one of the ones who thinks that is a rare or desirable quality



One size does not fit all, the map is not the territory
I get confused whether you’re speaking Ex Kuthedra or giving your own opinion when you answer for him

I have posed a reasonable rationale for Trump’s behavior. Refute the hypothesis or accept reasonable doubt (you’ve had practice, no?)

I am with Bug on this one, when the law gives the classification/clearance power to the executive, there is no way that anyone outside that loop can truly know about consistency or lack thereof. I am absolutely opposed to there being any sort of property interest in a security clearance or anything related to it.

 

[T.Lex]

I am with Bug on this one, when the law gives the classification/clearance power to the executive, there is no way that anyone outside that loop can truly know about consistency or lack thereof. I am absolutely opposed to there being any sort of property interest in a security clearance or anything related to it.

Wait.

I said that. POTUS, as executive, gets to decide clearance.

But, you see no inconsistency in a candidate saying "she should be in prison" and then getting elected saying (at least implying) she should keep her clearance?

No inconsistency at all? I mean, those 2 things are mutually exclusive, right? She did something wrong, but she didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Fargo]

Wait.

I said that. POTUS, as executive, gets to decide clearance.

But, you see no inconsistency in a candidate saying "she should be in prison" and then getting elected saying (at least implying) she should keep her clearance?

No inconsistency at all? I mean, those 2 things are mutually exclusive, right? She did something wrong, but she didn't do anything wrong.

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that he is being inconsistent. I'm not as convinced as you are but let's assume that is true. When we are talking about the executives ability to control access to state secrets as regards non-governmental employees, I honestly don't really care if he is consistent or not. The people involved have no right or interest in being able to access any of that information.

The primary reason I really don't care, is because the only constitutional way I see to solve the non-problem is to elect a different president. People not sworn to faithfully execute and serve have no standing in this area, he could revoke a private parties clearance for having blue eyes, and it is still a non-problem.

 

[T.Lex]

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that he is being inconsistent. I'm not as convinced as you are but let's assume that is true. When we are talking about the executives ability to control access to state secrets as regards non-governmental employees, I honestly don't really care if he is consistent or not. The people involved have no right or interest in being able to access any of that information.

The primary reason I really don't care, is because the only constitutional way I see to solve the non-problem is to elect a different president. People not sworn to faithfully execute and serve have no standing in this area, he could revoke a private parties clearance for having blue eyes, and it is still a non-problem.

I agree, with almost every part of that. Well, not the part about not being convinced about inconsistency.

Trump has every authority to be inconsistent, on this matter and many others. Pardons, clemencies, foreign policy, Obamacare, gun control, marital fidelity. The list goes on and on.

 

[BugI02]

Clearly, given the discrepancies between your treatment of Trump v. Obama inconsistency, you have a consistency problem of your own.

I have a great deal of reasonable doubt about Trump's ability to be rational or reasonable. More and more, that extends to those who continue to support him in all things, great and small.

No doubt

 

[T.Lex]

LOL

 

[Fargo]

I agree, with almost every part of that. Well, not the part about not being convinced about inconsistency.

Trump has every authority to be inconsistent, on this matter and many others. Pardons, clemencies, foreign policy, Obamacare, gun control, marital fidelity. The list goes on and on.

Mmmmm, those authorities are in not all the same. Some of those are obligations, others are matters of grace.

Post employment clearances fall in the matters of grace category to me. I neither expect nor demand consistency in matters of grace.

I have very different expectations in matters of honesty/truth/justice etc.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

If trump was always inconsistent, wouldn’t that mean he’s been consistent? Hmmmm

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3458...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

American Couple Believing 'Evil Is A Make-Believe Concept' Bike Through Territory Near Afghan Border. ISIS Stabs Them To Death.

 

[T.Lex]

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that he is being inconsistent. I'm not as convinced as you are but let's assume that is true. When we are talking about the executives ability to control access to state secrets as regards non-governmental employees, I honestly don't really care if he is consistent or not. The people involved have no right or interest in being able to access any of that information.

The primary reason I really don't care, is because the only constitutional way I see to solve the non-problem is to elect a different president. People not sworn to faithfully execute and serve have no standing in this area, he could revoke a private parties clearance for having blue eyes, and it is still a non-problem.

Coming back to this, I think we are more aligned within this framework.

The position of POTUS is allowed to be inconsistent in matters of executive authority, without calling into question the integrity of the office. Decision may appear inconsistent, but when presented with the information available the decisionmakers, the rationale could be made clear. But, the executive has no (or very little) obligation to share that internal deliberative material and process.

My point is more personal to Donald Trump and his proclivities. The person, rather than the office. Those personal integrity inconsistencies are important when evaluating the person in the position.

 

[indiucky]

I have a great deal of reasonable doubt about Trump's ability to be rational or reasonable. More and more, that extends to those who continue to support him in all things, great and small.

Well that stings a little...

I never thought that folks that continued to support Obama in all things great to small to be neither irrational nor unreasonable...I just thought they liked him and what he did policy wise...My younger cousin and her husband did and I never thought they were irrational or unreasonable...I just can't make that leap that if someone doesn't see things the way I do that they must be irrational or unreasonable...

IMHO....I am not as educated as most so maybe educated folks get to see things that I don't...

 

[Fargo]

Coming back to this, I think we are more aligned within this framework.

The position of POTUS is allowed to be inconsistent in matters of executive authority, without calling into question the integrity of the office. Decision may appear inconsistent, but when presented with the information available the decisionmakers, the rationale could be made clear. But, the executive has no (or very little) obligation to share that internal deliberative material and process.

My point is more personal to Donald Trump and his proclivities. The person, rather than the office. Those personal integrity inconsistencies are important when evaluating the person in the position.

There are a ton of personal inconsistencies about Donald Trump that range from giving me pause to absolutely disgusting me. His feelings about his wedding vows, his words vs. his actions and other words as regards treatment of women, his constant disregard for his word in a broad variety of dealings, his claims to be draining the swamp while pushing NDAs etc.

Security clearances for private individuals is not one of them, because they are a matter of pure grace. There is no inherent moral or legal obligation involved for him that I can see. That is manifestly different from his wedding vows, his use of the pardon power, and a whole host of other authorities/obligations.

 

[T.Lex]

Well that stings a little...

I never thought that folks that continued to support Obama in all things great to small to be neither irrational nor unreasonable...I just thought they liked him and what he did policy wise...My younger cousin and her husband did and I never thought they were irrational or unreasonable...I just can't make that leap that if someone doesn't see things the way I do that they must be irrational or unreasonable...

IMHO....I am not as educated as most so maybe educated folks get to see things that I don't...

FIrst, I did not say that people who don't see things the way I do are all irrational or unreasonable. I don't think that and never have. I do doubt the ability of people to be rational or reasonable who support Trump in all things. I find that irrational and unreasonable.

Second, let me provide a litmus test or 2. Do you (or your cousin) support Trump's ban on bump stocks? Or the language he used against Gold Star families?

 

[Fargo]

Well that stings a little...

I never thought that folks that continued to support Obama in all things great to small to be neither irrational nor unreasonable...I just thought they liked him and what he did policy wise...My younger cousin and her husband did and I never thought they were irrational or unreasonable...I just can't make that leap that if someone doesn't see things the way I do that they must be irrational or unreasonable...

IMHO....I am not as educated as most so maybe educated folks get to see things that I don't...

I've never thought you to be one that blindly supported him in all things, particularly what I know about you as a man of faith and your regard for family/marriage.

 

[Trigger Time]

I’m a fiscal conservative, yes. Socially? I don’t care who or what you ****. What is between consenting adults is not my business.

But seriously. Do you even twitter? Facebook? Real life? Where have you been **** on because you’re not sufficiently pro-Trump? And in those isolated places, how well does that extrapolate to the rest of the nation? Who’s chasing anti-Trump people out of restaurants? Which far right congress critters are calling for violence against the left? Who’s stealing strangers’ anti-MAGA hats in open public? Which anti-trump employees keep their beliefs to themselves for fear of getting mob-shamed out of their jobs?

I’m not saying pro-Trump people don’t **** on anti-trump people. But it’s orders of magnitude less in impact. Plus, the alt-right is fizzling. The press is so rabid, they play up the UTR-II rally, as if the country is being overrun by Nazis, and its 25 ****ing people. There are literally thousands of protesters there, including the far left antifa *******, throwing **** at cops, rioting, acting like ***** ass thugs, and the media focuses on the 25 alt-right idiots.



The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming!

Bull****. We have way more to fear from the far left right now. You people on the left should figure out how to isolate the nutters from having the loudest voices. The right did. Where’s Milo? The right castrated him.

If there is anyone sane on the left, I couldn’t tell. Because you only let the nutters speak for you. The alt right is dying a desrved death because people on the right are not letting the alt-right speak for them.

Meanwhile you on the left are still denying you even have a problem. You’re running out of real WN/Nazis to point fingers at, so you claim anyone who disagrees with you is one. Then you proclaim that the nutty ***** from Queens is the new face of the party, for crying out loud!

If you want to wear the identity. You’re welcome to own it.

Excellent post. The rep gods wouldnt allow me to borrow their power

 

[indiucky]

FIrst, I did not say that people who don't see things the way I do are all irrational or unreasonable. I don't think that and never have. I do doubt the ability of people to be rational or reasonable who support Trump in all things. I find that irrational and unreasonable.

Second, let me provide a litmus test or 2. Do you (or your cousin) support Trump's ban on bump stocks? Or the language he used against Gold Star families?

The bump stock ban is something that I never cared about it...Not for it or against it...Just didn't care....Him responding to a gentleman that insulted him on the stage by insinuating that Trump did not know what the Constitution had in it did not bother me either....That was insulting and meant to get a cheer from the Democrats and it did and Trump responded in kind...I didn't see him as "attacking Gold Star" families as much as responding to a man who went on a national stage to insult him...Men are allowed to insult other men and other men are allowed to respond in kind....

I still think my liberal cousin and her now husband are rational and reasonable even though they supported Obama in all things...I think Obama was rational and reasonable....I just disagreed with his policies....My yellow dog Democrat grandmother supports everything Democrats do and I think she is reasonable and rational...Well was...The last couple of years she went down hill a little due to dementia...

My cousin would have no idea about the bump stock ban, she was a Bernie supporter....We never discussed the Gold Star family insult but I am certain she would fall in the "Trump is very bad" camp on that subject...I know you are a very smart man and know the law like no one's business...If a Gold Star father went on a stage and shook a copy of the Constitution and said, "T. Lex knows nothing about this document!!! I will give him a copy!!!!" I would back you up 100% in however you responded to such an awful thing said about you...

I like you...Admire your posts and read each one with glee...I apologize if my post came across in any way slanderous or negative towards you...That was not my intent...

Mea Culpa...One of the view Latin phrases I know....

 

[indiucky]

I've never thought you to be one that blindly supported him in all things, particularly what I know about you as a man of faith and your regard for family/marriage.

I support him as President...I do things daily that I don't agree with but at the end of the day I still support myself..

Human beings are flawed characters...My Faith is based on that truth and the willingness of my Creator to give up His only begotten Son so that all may have eternal life....I believe that with all my core...

I like Trump...He says things to the media that I have been yelling at them via my TV screen for years....Is he perfect? No...Was he the perfect man for this job at this moment in history? I believe yes...But think no less of anyone that doesn't agree...

IMHO Fargo...I ain't saying I am right...I don't even know what that word means anymore....

 

[T.Lex]

The bump stock ban is something that I never cared about it...Not for it or against it...Just didn't care....Him responding to a gentleman that insulted him on the stage by insinuating that Trump did not know what the Constitution had in it did not bother me either....That was insulting and meant to get a cheer from the Democrats and it did and Trump responded in kind...I didn't see him as "attacking Gold Star" families as much as responding to a man who went on a national stage to insult him...Men are allowed to insult other men and other men are allowed to respond in kind....

I still think my liberal cousin and her now husband are rational and reasonable even though they supported Obama in all things...I think Obama was rational and reasonable....I just disagreed with his policies....My yellow dog Democrat grandmother supports everything Democrats do and I think she is reasonable and rational...Well was...The last couple of years she went down hill a little due to dementia...

My cousin would have no idea about the bump stock ban, she was a Bernie supporter....We never discussed the Gold Star family insult but I am certain she would fall in the "Trump is very bad" camp on that subject...I know you are a very smart man and know the law like no one's business...If a Gold Star father went on a stage and shook a copy of the Constitution and said, "T. Lex knows nothing about this document!!! I will give him a copy!!!!" I would back you up 100% in however you responded to such an awful thing said about you...

I like you...Admire your posts and read each one with glee...I apologize if my post came across in any way slanderous or negative towards you...That was not my intent...

Mea Culpa...One of the view Latin phrases I know....

haha no worries on that count. No offense taken by me from you.

Your statement about not agreeing with everything Trump does puts you outside the group I referenced.

And, I totally mis-read what your cousin's positions were.

 

[Alpo]

Having had high clearances in the military and in civilian life, I believe there is value in maintaining those clearances.

It is not that the person has continuing access to classified information. Au contraire. However, it does prevent said person from opening their mouths in many public arenas because they may want to speak about an area that is classified but have no direct knowledge of current activities.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[indiucky]

haha no worries on that count. No offense taken by me from you.

Your statement about not agreeing with everything Trump does puts you outside the group I referenced.

And, I totally mis-read what your cousin's positions were.

You have to admit that Trump responds to insults better than Andrew Jackson did...