President Donald J. Trump

[MV/Liberace!]

That's a good question. Let's find out.


---


Dear mv,


Can I black out the entirety of my picture, except for my nipples, and then use that? Asking for a friend who wants my vote.


Sincerely,

A Born Star

the commission deems that acceptable.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that he actually did that today? I didn't hear anything about this.

Heh, it was a joke

[WOTR]

are you saying that MV is worse than Kaiser Wilhelm 

Certainly not- I would never speak out against our revered despot leader.  I'm simply saying that you can call a truce when the stakes are not that high- like what happened in WW1.

[Dr. MD MD]

Heh, it was a joke

I thought maybe he slipped that in after the turkeys when no one was really paying attention. He's sneaky like that. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Looks like the Ds may be holding onto the dream of stealing another election.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-file-vote-recount/story?id=43746839

[136 or 142]

Well, congratulations are clearly in order.  Your excellence in your introduction level logic classes may have given you a false sense of superiority though, when it comes to figuring things out in the real world.  Things aren't always spoon fed to you out here, with black and white clearly demarcated for you.

It's true, Robert Byrd began his career as a local KKK leader and led the Democrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Act.  As a true politician, he flip-flopped on his K-ness when it was politically advantageous to do so.  Throughout it all, the Ds always held him in the highest regard.  Make of that what you will.

You know who else wasn't at the Constitutional Convention?  Thomas Jefferson.  He was the ambassador to France at the time.  So what if people didn't agree on some of the issues, or even what they specifically meant in all situations?  Or on something like whether the federal government had 'implied' powers.  Do you really think everyone who was actually there agreed with all of it?  Was every possible scenario covered?  Doesn't 'implied' mean 'not actually included' in the final draft.

And what does this have to do with anything anyway?  Is your position that people disagreed, so there's no point in trying to understand why certain items were included (or excluded)?c  If those on the Supreme Court decided to interpret things in a way that granted the Court (and therefore themselves) powers it was never meant to have, that's ok because they were around when it was written?  You don't really seem ''off the charts intelligent'' when it comes to logic in these matters to me.

As far as individuals being detained - please show me which part of the Constitution you are referring to, and we can read it together to determine whether there is any basis for temporarily detaining for quarantine those coming from abroad who possibly come into contact with highly infectious disease.

By the way, which parts of the Civil Rights Acts do you think I oppose?

Well let's see what falsehoods you've mindlessly regurgitated here.

1.I'm not sure what you mean by Robert Byrd's 'K-ness.'  Whether you mean his membership in the KKK or whether you mean his segregationist views.  Byrd was elected to the West Virginia State House in 1946 and was still a supporter if not a member of the KKK.  "In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan

He says he no longer supported the KKK several years before he was elected to Congress in 1952.  In either case, was there anything that changed in West Virginia to make the KKK unpopular between 1946 and 1952 such that his quitting the KKK was a politically opportunist flip flop?

If you are referring to his segregationist views, Byrd moved into a position of leadership in the Democratic Party in the United States Senate in 1967, a year before he voted for the 1968 Civil Rights Act.

"Byrd served in the Senate Democratic leadership. He succeeded George Smathers as secretary of the Senate Democratic Conference from 1967 to 1971."  That is the 4th ranking position.  I can't find a single article that says he changed his position on civil rights before getting elected to this position.

2.It sounds to me like you've never even heard of Hamilton's argument of implied powers.  While I suppose these implied powers would have increased the scope of the Supreme Court, Hamilton was referring to executive powers for the Presidency and powers for Congress versus the states.  He was not trying to give the Supreme Court more powers.  He wanted things like a central bank and the ability of Congress to vote for things that would help make the United States into an industrial nation as opposed to Jefferson's view of the U.S as a nation of citizen farmers. 

Your possible view that the Supreme Court of that day agreed with this in order to give itself more power is a cynical view that isn't supported by any evidence that I'm aware of.

For instance, this is what Hamilton argued which is in complete contradiction of both the originalist argument and the strict constructionist argument:

Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.

Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

So, on the one hand this increased the power of the Supreme Court, on the other hand, it also greatly increased the complexity of the job of the Justices.  Had they ruled otherwise, there job would have been as simple as reading the Constitution and either finding some law is expressively prohibited or not expressively prohibited and ruling accordingly.  Who wouldn't want a job as simple as that?

3."Do you really think everyone who was actually there agreed with all of it?  Was every possible scenario covered?"

Again, you're so stupid you don't even realize you make no sense here.  What you wrote is my position.  You're the one who has written that there is a single originalist interpretation of the Constitution that only those lawyers who agree with should be allowed to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

It's my position that this originalist idea is a nonsensical fiction as, among other things, the framers of the Constitution disagreed among themselves about what they wrote meant.

4.But also under the Constitution, individuals have rights even in quarantine and isolation conditions. Under the rights of Due Process, public health regulations used to impose such conditions cant’ be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable.”

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/10/your-constitutional-rights-during-an-ebola-or-other-outbreak/

Courts eventually found that, because Hickox had no symptoms and tested negative for the disease, her detention was unlawful under Maine law (Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, Subtitle 2 §801-811), which required “probable cause to believe that an individual has a communicable disease.” The court granted her freedom of movement, ordering her to less invasive “direct active monitoring” of symptoms under a healthcare professional. Forced to unnecessarily spend over three days in an isolation tent without access to clothing or a shower, the court wrote in it decision that it was “fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational.”

http://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/culr/2016/09/01/innocently-detained-a-legal-analysis-of-united-states-quarantine/

Under the Police Powers of the 10th Amendment the power to detain individuals falls to the states.  So, I'm not sure what would happen if a state law did not prevent detentions that were 'arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable or lacked probable cause. 

However, it's pretty clear in the case of this nurse who did not have ebola and never showed any signs of having it, your fears were your problem and not hers.

5.In regards to the Civil Rights Act you have written at various times that you believe that all businesses should be allowed to refuse to serve any customer for any reason and you've also written that businesses should be allowed to not hire anybody it doesn't want to for any reason. Both of these things are limited by the Civil Rights Act. 

[136 or 142]

1. I of course will leave your family out of it, and I will also leave out you from getting killed in a motorway pile-up,
(actually if you really think about it dying in a car crash might be not that bad way to go....so no I don't wish back that to you,
that's to good for you, you didn't deserve that type of death...you deserve this:

2. O yes, this type of death for you I back wish upon you to become reality of your physical lifeAMEN. ,
so during that battle with AIDS you will have time to think about your life, ....about your faith in God or luck of it,
about your immoral life style, about how insecure you really are, about how you getting panic attacks, getting very depressed at night,
how many times you are afraid to fall asleep, how scared you are of death, how badly you don't want to die,
how physically sick you are ,how angry and scared inside you are,...

but also you SredniVashtar
will have time to think that the only way for you to start changing your life so you can start felling more inner peace,
feeling more relaxed (not stress-out all the time as you are now) --but in order to change all that you SV must stop
your life style,...never do it again ................................................and start praying

If it means anything to you, theONE I much prefer you to SV, aka Dunning Kruger.

[Dr. MD MD]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

[136 or 142]

Moderate Nazis? What's a moderate Nazi? Not familiar with that concept.

I wouldn't use the term moderate Nazi, but Hitler was not the founder or the original leader of the Nazi Party yet alone its predecessor the German Workers' Party.  The German Workers' Party only existed for one year before becoming the National Socialist (Nazi) Party but it, and more so from 1920-1921 when Hitler became leader, the Party seemed to be a 'typical' fascist party focusing on extreme nationalism and many of the other things similar to Mussolini in Italy.

While racism was always part of many fascists,  Mussolini asserted that "National pride has no need of the delirium of race."  Hitler and the Nazis were always focused on eugenics and then later extermination of the 'undesirables,' not so much the fascists.  So, I assume that is what SciFi Author meant by the 'moderate Nazis.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe

Although that article states that Mussolini embraced eugenics in 1926, everything else written after that in that article states the he actually did no such thing other than giving that one speech on it in 1926.

Of course fascism is terrible, but I think Nazism is an order of magnitude worse.  So, I don't doubt that many members of the Nazi party, at least in its early years, were fascists but not supporters of what Hitler turned the Nazis into.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-4wtxcIMJM

[136 or 142]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson never said that.  According to this article, the term 'deflation' was not in use until 1920.  Also according to it, this alleged quote from Jefferson was not mentioned before 1935.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/6918.cfm

This is apparently his actual quote: "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Thomas Jefferson opposed a central bank as he wanted the United States to remain a nation of citizen farmers.  So, while he clearly was a brilliant man, much more intelligent than me, I'm sure, had he had his way on the U.S remaining agricultural, there undoubtedly would be no United States today.  If it hadn't lost the Spanish American War, it certainly would have been destroyed as an independent nation by Nazi Germany, if not the Kaiser in World War 1.

A brilliant man, but not infallible.

Beyond that, this isn't actually something I know a great deal about and understand even less. Jefferson was the philosophical father of the Bill of Rights, yet his nation of farmers seems to be in complete contradiction of this philosophy of individual rights as expressed by the Bill of Rights (there is nothing in the first 12 Amendments itself that would have prevented the U.S from enacting laws that would have prevented the U.S from becoming an industrial society.)  What exactly did he want to do to keep the U.S from becoming an industrial nation, jail anybody who opened up a factory?  Or, jail anybody who opened up a factory with more than a handful of employees?  Again, not prevented by the first 12 Amendments, but that certainly strikes me as opposed to their spirit of placing the individual above the state.

[Dr. MD MD]

Thomas Jefferson never said that.  According to this article, the term 'deflation' was not in use until 1920.  Also according to it, this alleged quote from Jefferson was not mentioned before 1935.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/6918.cfm

This is apparently his actual quote: "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Thomas Jefferson opposed a central bank as he wanted the United States to remain a nation of citizen farmers.  So, while he clearly was a brilliant man, much more intelligent than me, I'm sure, had he had his way on the U.S remaining agricultural, there undoubtedly would be no United States today.  If it hadn't lost the Spanish American War, it certainly would have been destroyed as an independent nation by Nazi Germany.

As usual, you're confused and misinformed about our history. Here, brush up a little and get back to me:

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

[Jackstar]

the commission deems that acceptable.

[Jackstar]

get back to me

[Dr. MD MD]

There's always hope for last minute radical transformations. 

[136 or 142]

As usual, you're confused and misinformed about our history. Here, brush up a little and get back to me:

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

You obviously didn't read the whole page.  Read the bolded 'Comments' section (not the comments that are the replies.)  It backs up exactly what I wrote.

For instance:  The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until after Jefferson's lifetime.2

[Jackstar]

[21st Century Man]

You obviously didn't read the whole page.  Read the bolded 'Comments' section (not the comments that are the replies.)  It backs up exactly what I wrote.

For instance:  The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until after Jefferson's lifetime.2

Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who has messed up like that. lol.  Yeah, deflation and inflation were not even used in that sense in 1800.

[Dr. MD MD]

You obviously didn't read the whole page.  Read the bolded 'Comments' section (not the comments that are the replies.)  It backs up exactly what I wrote.

For instance:  The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until after Jefferson's lifetime.2

Sorry, but no. Some dude's wealth building strategy Q&A doesn't trump Monticello, you fucking idiot!  :

[Dr. MD MD]

Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who has messed up like that. lol.  Yeah, deflation and inflation were not even used in that sense in 1800.

He's full of shit, dude.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

Don't be so easily led.  :

[Jackstar]

You guys are seriously arguing with a chatbot over getting a quote exactly right. Get a grip.

[21st Century Man]

Sorry, but no. Some dude's wealth building strategy Q&A doesn't trump Monticello, you fucking idiot!  :

Sorry bro, read the whole page.  The claims that he said that are spurious.

spu·ri·ous
ˈsp(y)o͝orēəs/
adjective
not being what it purports to be; false or fake.
"separating authentic and spurious claims"
synonyms:   bogus, fake, false, counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, sham, artificial, imitation, simulated, feigned, deceptive, misleading, specious; More
(of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid.
"this spurious reasoning results in nonsense"
archaic
(of offspring) illegitimate.

[21st Century Man]

He's full of shit, dude.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

Don't be so easily led.  :

I'm not being led.  Read the page. Specifically this part.

Earliest known appearance in print: 1933

Other attributions: None known.

Status: This quotation is at least partly spurious; see comments below.

Comments: This quotation is often cited as being in an 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, and/or "later published in The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809).

The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until after Jefferson's lifetime.

[Value Of Pi]

I wouldn't use the term moderate Nazi, but Hitler was not the founder or the original leader of the Nazi Party yet alone its predecessor the German Workers' Party.  The German Workers' Party only existed for one year before becoming the National Socialist (Nazi) Party but it, and more so from 1920-1921 when Hitler became leader, the Party seemed to be a 'typical' fascist party focusing on extreme nationalism and many of the other things similar to Mussolini in Italy.

While racism was always part of many fascists,  Mussolini asserted that "National pride has no need of the delirium of race."  Hitler and the Nazis were always focused on eugenics and then later extermination of the 'undesirables,' not so much the fascists.  So, I assume that is what SciFi Author meant by the 'moderate Nazis.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe

Although that article states that Mussolini embraced eugenics in 1926, everything else written after that in that article states the he actually did no such thing other than giving that one speech on it in 1926.

Of course fascism is terrible, but I think Nazism is an order of magnitude worse.  So, I don't doubt that many members of the Nazi party, at least in its early years, were fascists but not supporters of what Hitler turned the Nazis into.

I dunno but you're guessing, for one thing, that SFA might not know the difference between fascism and Nazism, which I doubt. The idea of a "moderate fascist" doesn't make much more sense in any case. Franco was not quite in Hitler's class, as one example, but he was anything but moderate, like his followers.

Maybe SFA just misspoke. He's allowed, contrary to what most people around here seem to think. OTOH, maybe he didn't and he has discovered some new kind of "jumbo shrimp."

[136 or 142]

I'm not being led.  Read the page. Specifically this part.

Earliest known appearance in print: 1933

Other attributions: None known.

Status: This quotation is at least partly spurious; see comments below.

Comments: This quotation is often cited as being in an 1802 letter to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, and/or "later published in The Debate Over the Recharter of the Bank Bill (1809).

The first part of the quotation ("If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered") has not been found anywhere in Thomas Jefferson's writings, to Albert Gallatin or otherwise. It is identified in Respectfully Quoted as spurious, and the editor further points out that the words "inflation" and "deflation" are not documented until after Jefferson's lifetime.

Do you want that book I offered on the Industrial Revolution?  As an inducement, I don't want to give away the surprise completely but I'll also send some little thing on Ronald Reagan as well. 

[Jackstar]

Status: This quotation is at least partly spurious; see comments below.

Who the fuck is going to go out of their way to make up a fake quote from Thomas Jefferson that gets passed around for so many years before the Internet that the Internet has to be filled with shills posting, "he never wrote that!!" in order to make it go away?

Think about it.

[Jackstar]

Do you want that book I offered

It's a trick. Pulp it.

[21st Century Man]

Do you want that book I offered on the Industrial Revolution?  As an inducement, I don't want to give away the surprise completely but I'll also send some little thing on Ronald Reagan as well.

Sure, why not?  I'm willing to entertain different perspectives.  I'm sure I'll learn something from it.

[136 or 142]

I dunno but you're guessing, for one thing, that SFA might not know the difference between fascism and Nazism, which I doubt. The idea of a "moderate fascist" doesn't make much more sense in any case. Franco was not quite in Hitler's class, as one example, but he was anything but moderate, like his followers.

Maybe SFA just mispoke. He's allowed, contrary to what most people around here seem to think. OTOH, maybe he didn't and he has discovered some new kind of "jumbo shrimp."

Do you disagree that fascists are moderate relative to Nazis?  SFA wrote in the context of Islamic violence, so I think his comment was that there were members of the Nazi Party who opposed the extermination of the Jews and other 'undesirables' and he may also have been claiming that there were members of the Nazi Party who opposed starting World War II.

I don't know if there were Nazis like that by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, but I would certainly assume he's correct that there were members of the Nazi Party in 1921 who opposed Hitler taking over the leadership of their party.

[Jackstar]

Sure, why not?

Because he's a known liar who's done nothing but shit up this board for over three years. How does that not strike you as alarming?