• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Kiss-ass

About learningJ24

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

7,282 profile views
  1. learningJ24

    To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

    "Loyalty to the country implies a responsibility to do things in an appropriate manner." We don't know what the "appropriate manner" is, this situation is utterly without precedent if the reports are to be credited. We've always counted on electing more or less reasonable, moral and logical people, that doesn't seem to apply with this President. We've NEVER had a president that lies so blatently and consistently nor have we had one appear mentally unstable not to mention criminal investigations from the early days of their presidency. ALL the "appropriate manner" solutions take more time than the country can afford if the reports are true.
  2. learningJ24

    To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

    "Anonymous sniping is trying to be both at once." If the principled staffers leave, only the sycophants are left; is that good service to the country?
  3. learningJ24

    To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

    "I never thought any previous president should have been ignored and subverted by his staff and should be kicked out for being incapacitated." Wilson after the stroke? Harding had the good fortune of dying before the circles of corruption closed in on him. Nixon WAS subverted by his staff before being "kicked out".
  4. learningJ24

    To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

    "There's a difference between refusing to obey what one considers an illegal order and surreptitiously subverting the chain of command. " And yet it goes on all the time in big bureaucracies, including the military. Slow walking an unpopular directive is standard fare. This case, however, appears more extreme; a sitting President that, in the judgement of those very close, is dangerously unsuited to the role and whose policies pose a threat to the country. Again, I go back to the question, "Who are these senior officials supposed to be loyal to first, the President or the country?"
  5. learningJ24

    To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

    " The dick that wrote the op-ed is a spineless wanker. Someone, like many now, who feels that they have the right to break the law and disobey the constitution because they don’t like their boss. " What law was broken and what Constitutional requirement violated? Trump in NOT a king and these people are NOT subjects; they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution not blindly obey orders. Even low level military officers are expected to refuse illegal orders, Neuremburg reinforced that concept.
  6. learningJ24

    To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

    Who do these people work for? The President or the American people? This isn't a policy disagreement like the Pentagon slow walking Clinton's anti-terrorism actions (Against All Enemies, pg. 145), this is belief of high level officials that the President is attempting actions that will directly harm the United States. Do we really want them to "stand up and quit' when they've, reportedly, stopped the assassination of a head of state (Assad) or the invasion of a country that hasn't attacked the US (Venezuela)? When the "process" is refusing to rein in the excesses of an increasingly imperial (and paranoid) executive, appearently for their own advancement, isn't this the best that we can hope for? This is akin to the SecDef issuing orders to commanders to ignore orders by Nixon during the Watergate investigation. "...Defense Secretary James Schlesinger recalled years later that in the final days of the Nixon presidency he had issued an unprecedented set of orders: If the president gave any nuclear launch order, military commanders should check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before executing them. Schlesinger feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon." https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/11/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-richard-nixon-215478
  7. learningJ24

    Worth Reading

    But the discussion was not about "party" but about "faction", ie: the placing of private interest above public good or public good above private interest. It was the organization of these "factions" that resulted in the change. Seperate "faction" from "party" and see if your argument still holds up. And yes, I agree, the idea that highways were used to promote urban development WAS recent. The 1950's.
  8. learningJ24

    Worth Reading

    What this cartoon doesn't address, however, is the conflict between private rights and public goods. For, an extreme, example is my private religious right to build a wicker man and stuff it with all the stray cats in the neighborhood superior to the public good of not dealing with the smoke, fire hazard and smell? As the issues get closer to the center, the determination of the private right/public good balance becomes harder to judge and requires the organization of 'faction" to institute change. Without the influence of 'faction' would we have: eliminated slavery given women the right to vote reduced child labor instituted prohibition of alcohol built interstate highways extended the franchise to most citizens instituted a public education system? Resistance to each of these changes was argued under the "private right" banner but was carried through with, by faction, for "public good".
  9. learningJ24

    Vote D? Why?

    "Poor schools != black schools/mexican schools/whatever other racial demographic you want to claim." An issue that doesn't get a lot of light outside of education is that a student's performance can be predicted, with 75% accuracy, by the age of 7. A recent study on the performance differences between public and private schools found that, if parent's income was controlled for, there was no difference in academic performance. Combine this information with the increasing concentration of wealth, particularly within the white community, shows a direct connection between poverty, race and academic performance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507359.pdf https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianthompson1/2018/02/18/the-racial-wealth-gap-addressing-americas-most-pressing-epidemic/#3b8d6bb77a48
  10. The very "US v Them' focus on "winning" that you have decried, not to mention ignoring the long term damage to the country that will take decades to fix. Remember Bush the Lessor? We're still dealing with his damage. I disagree with your analysis; by passing reasonable bills that COULD get a couple of R senators to vote for, investigating the Administration and showing the American people they're working for their benefit rather than appealing to their hatreds, 2020 looks pretty good. They WON'T, probably, appeal to minorities like yourself but to those who look to realities the chances are good. For those who "voted for a Kenyan who was likely a muslim and didn't even have a birth certificate", "want my country to thrive and continue to be dominant in the world." or "THE worst thing that can happen in the mid terms is for the D’s to win " not so much.
  11. Because the D's NEED to be obstructionist; they need to obstruct the the corruption and nepotism trickling down from the White House. They NEED to obstruct policies that the majority of Americans do not favor. They NEED to obstruct the excessive deference to the Executive Branch.
  12. learningJ24

    Alan Weisselberg

    Possibly a closer scenario than we think, if the NRA funneled Russian money to the RNC and hence to Trump. Mueller may have unraveled the dark money trail.
  13. learningJ24

    Alan Weisselberg

    A fun thought problem; Trump pardons his family and resigns, Pence gives him a plenary pardon. Does Mueller leak his information to NY state?
  14. learningJ24

    Drip Drip Drip

    Hat's much too small.
  15. learningJ24

    Republican equivalents for "Deplorables" etc...