Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 6th Feb 2017, 13:52
  #5921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 656
Thanks Jet...I've deleted my Post, SAS please accept my sincerest apologies, it seems I am the party guilty of not being able to read.
Monarch Man is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 15:29
  #5922 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,896
Hmm..this is getting interesting (I don't mean the tragi-comic Trump, who is just another businessman, forever skating around the edges of legality).

All this is expanding my historical thinking, which is good. Thanks for your encouragement SASless!

Basically, the implementation of laïcization (which I prefer to secularization) goes back a very long way (it is often credited to the writings of John Locke (1632-1704).

In France for example, it was taken very seriously and is quasi-absolute. The current French Constitution of 1958 in it's preamble recalls the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from 1789 and establishes France as a secular and democratic country, deriving its sovereignty from the people. It essentially restates the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and state. There are 44 Articles to this Law and if you want to trudge through them see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_F..._and_the_State

All European countries (except for the Vatican State) have adopted various forms of Law that enact to varying degrees the idea of the separation of Church and State. Considering the damage done by the vast and sanguinary Wars of Religion in Europe over the last thousand years, eventually people began to think that this was a Good Idea ("1066 and all that").

In 1802 Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, referencing the First Amendment: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

But in America it has never been as clear-cut, viz the thousands of disputes, amendments, local law, State Laws and arguments that are still ongoing. [There is a point to all this, so please be patient.]

An interesting bit (since there is so much fuss about Moslems) is the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) which stated in Article 11

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Separation and the Supreme Court: Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).[41] In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature.

Everything was then relatively quiet for a bit until in 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. As the Court stated:

"The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

Bannon, Putin and those on the religious "right" believe that many of America's perceived woes arise from the abandonment of religion as an integral part of the American Way of Life (Trump would piss in the font if he thought people would applaud him).

Perhaps is a nostalgia for old-time American values, piety, hard-work, decency, charity, job-security and so on (which is quite understandable) although the America of Norman Rockwell was more like the America of "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Grapes of Wrath" than his charming paintings.

But the world has moved on, the seeds that Thomas Edison and others planted have given us the automation that is reducing low-skilled work, just as the invention of the cotton-gin tolled the knell of slavery. The anger at the "...clever bastards who gave us this" in "A Canticle for Liebowitz" led to the "Simplification" by the mocked simpletons, is what we are seeing in action.

But, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "You Can't Go Home Again" and we have to find new ways out of our dilemma - sadly, Bannon is more of a Lincoln than a Norman, and to expect him and Trump to save us is just not realistic.

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 17:39
  #5923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
I can't figure where this new hatred came from. Bannon has not been elected by anyone to any position. He was selected by Trump as an advisor. But somehow Trump's opponents have morphed this guy into some sort of Svengali, pulling Trump into his inner mind-tricks. They did the same thing with Karl Rove in the past. Assuming the presidents are so stupid that they will simply follow along with these guys' craziness.

Meanwhile ignoring Obama's odd relationship with Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice, both of whom carried more influence over him than a boatload of official advisors, including the entire US military brass.

All presidents have advisors. They are simply that. Trump will kick Bannon to the curb (kerb?) in an instant if he feels the need, or if he thinks the guy outgrows his britches.
obgraham is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 17:44
  #5924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
So much activity

Hard to keep up.

Just a bit of prophecy, based on the Democrat Party Book of Tactics...

The convenient judge in Washington, knowing full well the kerfuffle is mooted by the Constitution itself, has established the basis for plausible certainty that much of the American public will soon believe that Trump's Order is illegal.

It won't matter that it is not. It has a corollary in the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas, the "inconvenient Negro" confirmed in spite of the ridiculous testimony that he had at one time placed a "pubic hair" on the top of a Coca Cola can that the unnamed accuser was drinking.

Neil Gorsuch will be questioned by many Senators, most of whom are illiterate in the Law, but not in the art of re-election, concerning why he supports an illegal attempt to "Ban hard working families" from the glory of US citizenship, and the joy of voting Democrat?
Concours77 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 22:21
  #5925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,982
Another prophecy.
I reckon the outcome of the Trump presidency will be - stasis.
Nothing much will get done; nothing much will change.
But with a dangerous caveat.
Scroll forward 18 - 24 months or longer.
The current chaotic state of Trump's presidency has continued.
His program of reform never got off the ground and is stalled; due to inability to execute, opposition from courts, passive resistance from bureaucrats, increasing unpopularity and continued national and international criticism.
He's angry and isolated, raging to Bannon, Priebus, Pence and anyone else who'll listen (any historical parallels with other Presidents?!).
But most importantly - he's humiliated.
He looks like a fool and appears to have failed.
Don't tell me he won't care - he clearly has a very thin skin.
Now - that's the point at which I think we're all really in danger.
People like Trump lash out when they feel humiliated.
Will he slink away - proclaiming yet again that he's won when really he hasn't?
It's at that point I could see him personally doing something very stupid like embarking on a new military adventure or worse; in a complete fit of pique, using a nuclear weapon (just one perhaps) to make himself feel strong and in control again.
tartare is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 22:25
  #5926 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 77
Posts: 1,866
I doubt that the POTUS would be allowed to unilaterally let loose a nuclear weapon.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 22:59
  #5927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
So wait, Tartare:

You're suggesting that Trump is some sort of lunatic with a nuclear itchy finger which will lead to the end of the world. Whereas the world's known itchy-fingered lunatics, like the Norks, or the Mullahs are just misunderstood fellows who need a bit more international loving.

Excuse me, I need to barf.
obgraham is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 23:19
  #5928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 75
Posts: 508
Itchy nuclear trigger finger or not I will not be at all surprised if The Donald has the USA in another unwinnable war within a year or so.

War between the United States and North Korea over Kim Jong-un's nuclear ambitions is now a very real possibility | City A.M.
John Hill is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2017, 23:59
  #5929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,270
Jet II is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 00:00
  #5930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,982
You're suggesting that Trump is some sort of lunatic with a nuclear itchy finger which will lead to the end of the world. Whereas the world's known itchy-fingered lunatics, like the Norks, or the Mullahs are just misunderstood fellows who need a bit more international loving.

Can't quite see where I wrote or implied the bit in bold OBGraham.

G-CPTN:

While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.

Trump is an individual who is highly capricious.
And he holds a tremendous amount of power.
Over recent days he has proven he will take sweeping, broad courses of action, often without fully understanding the consequences.
If Mattis really is the warrior monk and true patriot I have been reading about - then I sure as hell hope he can influence Trump.
His beer and cigarettes comment r/e torture was insightful.

Last edited by tartare; 7th Feb 2017 at 02:33.
tartare is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 15:13
  #5931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428

Trump is an individual who is highly capricious.
And he holds a tremendous amount of power.


tartare

Not to mention his bromance with Putin?

"If Satan had expressed an interest in allying with us to defeat Hitler, I would, in passing, have some nice things to say about Satan." Winston Churchill
Concours77 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 18:35
  #5932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 0
OK I'll start

What's wrong with Russia as a friend?

Why wouldn't we in the USA be better off?

Why should two super-powers spend so much of their resources preparing for conflict with each other/
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 18:52
  #5933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 67
Posts: 69
Why should two super-powers spend so much of their resources preparing for conflict with each other?

Of course they shouldn't.
But then there is that old, nationalistic, militaristic, I'm King of the Hill, no you're not - oh, yes I am, mentality.
meadowrun is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 18:53
  #5934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 75
Posts: 508
Why should two super-powers spend so much of their resources preparing for conflict with each other?
It can be useful for domestic politics to have a bogey man and it makes a lot of money for a lot of people.
John Hill is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 19:40
  #5935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 675
For what it´s worth, here is a look at Trump from abroad.
Tu.114 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 22:09
  #5936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,982
Yep - that says it all.
And now he can't even get details of the reporting terrorist attacks correct.
In fact - he can't even spell properly.
What a dead-set clown.
tartare is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 02:36
  #5937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 73
Posts: 17,029
TDS still has a hold on folks I see.

Trump is still jerking the Media's Chain for them and they fall for it every time.

He says...."The Media isn't reporting Acts of Terrorism!".

They immediately respond...."Oh yes we are....".

Then they start digging through the Archives and yes they have not been because it would have gone against the Obama Narrative.

Then they have to root around and craft some lame assed rebuttal that gets them to reporting on Terror Events they did not in the past.

Trump, in the Interview with O'Reilly quoted from the Loony Left's Playbook when he said the United States had made mistakes in the past (alluding to we have killed lots of people as Putin is accused of....) and the Left doesn't say squat about that comment.

You would think they would have at least suggested Trump agreed with them....but then how could they attack him if they did.....yet he did agree them.

The Left shows its utter inability to offer any rational statement when it comes to Trump.

TDS....on display!
SASless is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 04:09
  #5938 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,142
About the confusion regarding the media.....and those seemingly "underreported terror attacks"....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...truck-killings

Possibly the "Hicksville Chronicle and Gazette (founded 1865 ) " didn't report such events in dramatic detail as, say, the rest of the worlds media at the time, however, other sources did. Unless we were reading, and viewing, the most audacious and convincing examples of "Fake News" that is

Given that you state you are a Guardian reader, a laudible aspiration, but one unlikely ever to be attained, then I am bemused as to this perception and why you feel this to be the case.

" Trump is still jerking the Media's Chain for them and they fall for it every time.

He says...."The Media isn't reporting Acts of Terrorism!".

They immediately respond...."Oh yes we are....".

Then they start digging through the Archives and yes they have not been because it would have gone against the Obama Narrative.

Then they have to root around and craft some lame assed rebuttal that gets them to reporting on Terror Events they did not in the past.

Trump, in the Interview with O'Reilly quoted from the Loony Left's Playbook when he said the United States had made mistakes in the past (alluding to we have killed lots of people as Putin is accused of....) and the Left doesn't say squat about that comment.

You would think they would have at least suggested Trump agreed with them....but then how could they attack him if they did.....yet he did agree them.


The Left shows its utter inability to offer any rational statement when it comes to Trump.

Au contraire!.... as the expression goes

[I" ]TDS....on display "[/I]

TCAS I am familiar with, TDS, on display I am not...is this perchance from your multi-lingual ability to "speak cop" ?..a lexicon most of us are unfamiliar with I have to say, or do the letters actually have a definitive meaning....

Finally, we now have this far from insignificant exemplification of silencing opposition....

Elizabeth Warren silenced over US Senate criticism of Sessions - BBC News

Any particular reason the lady in question, other than the most glaringly obvious that is, should not have been permitted to make the statement and use the letter that she did ?......and full credit to her for doing so.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 8th Feb 2017 at 07:36.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 04:28
  #5939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Wild West (UK)
Age: 43
Posts: 1,148
Then they start digging through the Archives and yes they have not been because it would have gone against the Obama Narrative.

Then they have to root around and craft some lame assed rebuttal that gets them to reporting on Terror Events they did not in the past
Huh? Trump's list was full of attacks that hit the headlines such as the Bataclan or Nice massacres. Care to name a major attack on the list that was not widely reported?

Now of course, there are two responses to Trump's list: one is to say uncritically 'look at how the media lie to us' - which suits Trump's ends.

The other is to say 'Let's see whether Trump is telling the truth' then you read through the list, look to see whether the attacks were reported and find that Trump is being dishonest. However, in doing that you revise a long list of attacks perpetrated overwhelmingly by Islamicists. This also suits Trump's ends.

Clever? Yes. Honest? No

One reason most of the attacks on the list were carried out in the name of Islam is that at the moment most terrorist attacks are. However, there are a number of attacks that are not on Trump's list such as attacks on abortion clinics, the recent attack on a Mosque in Canada, the attack at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the Charleston shooting and so on. So whilst there is not a lot of evidence that the media has been failing to report terrorist attacks to suit it's own preferred narratives, Trump seems guilty of the very crime of which he's accusing the media.

Last edited by abgd; 8th Feb 2017 at 05:20.
abgd is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 05:09
  #5940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 656
Increasingly it seems Trump is doing a better job than any of the "looney left" to coin the phrase, at making himself appear foolish, immature, and worst of all irrational.
SAS your characteristic defence of your opinion has always centred around your argument of the righteous right (small govt, religious conservatism, personal freedoms, etc etc) V the "Looney Left" and in your view the polar opposite to the principles and ideals that you argue for on here.
I put it to you that despite your views on Trump, he is on the basis of his actions heading in the opposite direction to where you want your country to go. Yes there are a couple of headline grabbing initiatives and election promises that are shouted to the heavens, but stepping back a bit there does seem to be a darker more problematic future on the horizon.
If history has taught us anything it's that we don't learn from our mistakes, it's clear the pendulum is swinging in a direction that will I believe begin to impact on many of the freedoms you clearly hold dear, the thing is many won't realise it until its already too late.
A great example of this is the gun lobby, they politicised a position based on fear, self interest and profit..the argument evolved and you and your country are now in a place where the system is effectively dysfunctional...with the regular mass body counts and carnage (I'm a gun owner BTW). Nowadays it is considered an attack on freedom to even mention gun control.....but what about the freedoms of those who don't want to carry a .38 for personal protection? What happened to those people's personal liberties?
The paradox of Trumps position and the road he appears to be headed down is rather disturbing to me, and yet many seem to embrace the concept without really understanding the reality, and yes I'm seeing lots of parallels with the first half of the 20th century.
Monarch Man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.