Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Monday, January 1. 2024Gotta Love the NonsenseIf you don't love it, it would drive you crazy - and it certainly does. Several states have either tried, and failed, or succeeded so far, to remove Trump from their ballots. The best example recently was in Maine. Where an unelected official pushed this through, then had the temerity to explain their reasoning. That reasoning is best described as a version of "I had to destroy democracy to save democracy." It's a classic trope and one which is often crafted in literal and legal fashions to make them sound smarter, better, and more caring for all. As if we want them to do this. The person who did this claims, in a manner I have yet to really completely wrap my head around, that doing this was a method of getting "better leaders" and avoiding "election sabotage." Now how making Trump's candidacy and the right of people to vote for him isn't election sabotage must require some elaborate rhetoric, and certainly she tried very hard to explain it. Naturally, it's all nonsense and she's basically, in the most respectful fashion I can dredge, an idiot with few redeeming qualities to hold the office currently held. Yes, I know they 'care' and they think they are 'smarter' and they 'mean well'. These people have to save voters from themselves - it's the inherent rationale of their role and office - isn't it? I do not support, nor do I even like, Trump. I'm not likely to vote for him. I do believe in the process, however, and it's become increasingly clear to me that however much I have turned against the Republican Party (which I left 20 years ago), the Democrats have become much worse over that period. They have reached their own point of intolerance and irredeemability. So taking these steps doesn't help anything at all. Democracy is a massively flawed structure, to paraphrase Churchill it may be the worst system, except for all the others. It's my view that too many people have shifted into a binary, linear, mindset which means if you don't support their view, then you're just wrong and must be eliminated in some way. So naturally, what happened in some of these states is the modern political version of Cancel Culture. Of course, this must be capable of yielding "better leaders" - except that it won't. In fact, it's probably going to make leadership many times worse. I'd argue it's a form of fascism. All done quite 'legally', so that means it certainly can't be fascism. But it is. I have had friends ask me who I think is going to win in 2024. I always reply the same. "I do not know. I do not care. I do not think we have any good choices. But I do think whoever wins, some will love that person and some will decide they have to hate that person and it's not going to get much better. Particularly if we keep trying to prevent them from running." What's just as galling is reading media trying to somehow, using amazing feats of journalistic legerdemain, make the Democrats seem acceptable and tolerable. I have only one thing to say. One of my old tennis partners became mayor of my town. The Democrats spent a fortune get this person elected - money from outside town flowed in and was successful. Not once, but twice. This person is what I'd describe as a typical Democrat. I felt she was nice when we played tennis. I no longer will play with her. She has become intolerable. As has her council, which includes another person I play tennis with. I used to like him until he became a Democrat politician. I have played with him, because he tries hard, so I try to be civil. He and the mayor have, quite literally, ignored comments from citizens in town. The usual hand-waving and rationales have taken place. Our previous budget surplus, after about 6 years, is now gone. Our town storefronts became empty (hopefully reviving soon), but they have "planned out the future of the town" - and rammed their views through. Ultimately, it led to the loss of 4 of the 5 Democrat council seats of the 9 which were held. The councilmember I play with said "we are having meetings now on how to deal with our single vote majority so we can continue to push the agenda forward." This is a perfect example of why I have come to despise politicians, and Democrats in particular. I simply responded to him "Did it ever occur to you that you lost those seats because the citizens DO NOT WANT the agenda?" He looked at me as if I had 3 heads and said "People need to get things they don't always understand. I think you know this." I replied "You recently asked me why I don't like politicians. But you gave me that answer and still don't understand?" Unfortunately, what's been happening here in my town is pretty much in line with what's happening elsewhere. At least here, people are waking up and letting the votes count for something. Hopfully, events like Maine will be short-lived, reversed and we will get "better leaders" somehow - just not the way they want to do it. I remain an optimist and hope for the best. I hope 2024 will yield us positive outcomes despite the insanity we've been seeing and experiencing. I remain a true believer in the strength of the spirit from which the US was created. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
The administrative state, MSM, and academia are like an amateur theatre group. They write the narrative, advertise the narrative, and then perform the narrative.
They don't have the talent or skills to pull it off. I wish I could love the nonsense; and I wish I could dismiss the typical Democrat elected official as fascistic. Unfortunately, I'm reminded that the 'trains ran on time' in Italy and Germany built a rather remarkable (if ill-designed) military machine in a very short period of time. The view of our liberal 'betters' is something else. And it's horrible.
The absolute absurdity of the positions taken, the embrace of purely stupid 'received wisdoms' of the day, and the moral relativism that manifests as nearly intractable social problems. This is something new in history, I think. It's more than the decadence that affected prior great nations or empires. Especially since it's blended with the 'Karen' know-it-all-ness that seems to infect your tennis partner. My thesis is the therapeutic culture is the greatest lie of all time and the root of this Nonsense. It has allowed all this 'soft despotism' since no one is responsible for anything. Neither the problems we confront nor the problems we create. Liberals embrace this culture fully ... it gives them a constant source of feel good dopamine when they can externalize any and all problems. Meanwhile, go-along, get-along, highly organized conservative types are loathe to confront this BS. They just 'fix' things quietly and move on in growing desperation, being too well mannered and relatively 'moral' to 'cause a scene'. Don't know how, don't know when, but this is a powder keg that is going to blow up one way or another. Let's pray we can get through 2024 with only small booms! :-) When I compare the level of criticism against Joe Biden over the past few years, to the level of vehemence, the comprehensive alignment of perfidious opposition to Trump during his tenure, across the institutions of society, I have to shake my head at anyone that would complain about 'conservatives' being mean to Joe.
My sad prediction, regretfully, is that this probably isn't going to resolve without some shocking violence. There has simply been too much institutionalized goading over the past half-decade, and there's going to be a FAFO response sooner or later, which they 'think' they are hoping for. I guess they 'think' that this is going to give them the opportunity to roll out the Authoritative Punitive Response that has been quietly put into place after Jan 6th. But most of us remember the absurdity of the high fences being replaced by even higher fences in an empty Washington DC, with troops standing guard en masse over a handful of people at the inauguration, and the press covering that puny spectacle from neighboring rooftops. And now many of us have read the 'Twitter files' story, and kept up with the unfolding COVID-19 origins story, and have begun to understand the game. It's not hard to see something rotten, to the core. As with all other Progressive programs, they really suck at estimating outcomes and results. If 2024 passes peacefully, I'll be both happy and grateful. Well, the Democrats already got away with colluding with Russian intelligence assets and corrupt members of the DOJ to interfere in a presidential election--why wouldn't they do this? It's really small potatoes.
Of our own Zachie-poo slipped up several days ago and revealed the real reason they're doing it when he lamented that SCOTUS would likely rule against it. They know that will almost certainly happen. It can then be used to pound one of their main fundraising topics; defeating the Republican candidate--whoever it is--so there won't be any more horrible fascist SCOTUS appointments. It's really a win either way the court rules. The REAL question is "Who is FUNDING this fraud, corruption, and treason?"
And NOBODY wants to admit the honest answer to that! Bulldog: Where an unelected official pushed this through, then had the temerity to explain their reasoning. That reasoning is best described as a version of "I had to destroy democracy to save democracy."
That is incorrect. Under Maine law, the Secretary of State was required to respond to challenges to the nomination petition of Trump. A public hearing was held, again, as required by law. One challenge was that Trump had already been elected twice so wasn't eligible for a third term. The other challenge was that Trump wasn't eligible under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection because she found that the weight of the evidence presented at the hearing makes clear that Trump was "aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match." Having found Trump to have engaged in insurrection, she had an obligation to invalidate Trump's petition. Now, you may disagree with that finding, but it is not as you characterized it. Bulldog: Now how making Trump's candidacy and the right of people to vote for him isn't election sabotage must require some elaborate rhetoric, and certainly she tried very hard to explain it. Barack Obama can't be on the ballot either. It's in the U.S. Constitution. If Obama petitioned to be on the ballot, then the same procedure would have been followed. If that is the correct procedure for Obama, then it is the correct procedure for Trump. SK: the real reason they're doing it when he lamented that SCOTUS would likely rule against it. They know that will almost certainly happen. It can then be used to pound one of their main fundraising topics; defeating the Republican candidate--whoever it is--so there won't be any more horrible fascist SCOTUS appointments. It's really a win either way the court rules. You summoned? While the Supreme Court will almost certainly overrule the decision, it is not our position that political advantage is the purpose of the Maine decision. Rather, the Secretary of State had no option to avoid making a decision. She held a public hearing, as required by law, then reached her decision. That decision is subject to judicial review. That's how the system works. Other states have other processes. And that's part of the problem. Congress could step in and set a standard under Section 5, but the Congress is dysfunctional and barely able to elect a Speaker. The result is different standards in different states, which is politically unstable. Legal opinion is all over the place, with each pointing to different and often inconsistent justifications for overturning the invalidations. As the Maine's Secretary of State has stated, the Supreme Court needs to step in to avoid chaos in the election. Being highly partisan, the Supreme Court will almost certainly allow Trump on the ballot, but they will probably have to squint and grimace to find originalist justification. “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." — Justice Robert Jackson Z: One challenge was that Trump had already been elected twice so wasn't eligible for a third term.
Guess how that turned out . . . Trump didn't win in 2020, so he is not barred by the Twenty-Second Amendment from running again. No one is this naive. She made the decision--a decision by a single person without legal training--knowing full well what would happen and that it would give the Dems wonderful 30 second commercial spots. Mind you, I'm not saying she didn't have people advising her to do it...and telling her what would happen.
And here you further make my point by using this extraordinary decision to poke at the ineffective Republicans in congress, saying it happened because of their fecklessness. Thanks for the help! The abuse of due process in these cases won't require squinting and grimacing to see. It has nothing to do with originalism, merely fidelity to centuries of Common Law, and the US Constitution. There's really nothing these people will do that you won't try to justify, is there? SK: She made the decision--a decision by a single person without legal training
Whether you like it or not, Maine's Secretary of State was required under Maine law to hold a hearing and make a determination. However, the decision can be appealed under the same law. By the way, the Maine Secretary of State position has been in existence since 1820. SK: And here you further make my point by using this extraordinary decision to poke at the ineffective Republicans in congress, saying it happened because of their fecklessness. The Congress could easily move all such decisions to federal court and establish a standard of proof. They have the authority under Section 5, and they could act now. SK: The abuse of due process in these cases won't require squinting and grimacing to see. What is the proper process—under the law? If Obama petitions to be put on the ballot, who is to decide whether he is eligible? Currently, each state has a process to make that determination. SK: It has nothing to do with originalism, merely fidelity to centuries of Common Law, and the US Constitution. The Constitution includes the insurrection clause, and the history of its framing clearly shows it doesn't require a criminal conviction. More than just waving your hands at the term, what do you think Common Law and the Constitution require in terms of due process? Waving my hands? At due process? Even you should take it more seriously than that.
The use of the 14th against Confederate politicians without due process consideration was limited in scope and time and such an extraordinary circumstance as to provide only the shakiest precedence. Since that time no one has been barred without being convicted. But it's not surprising that it's something you hang your hat on. It's a ridiculous comparison--precedence from that time shows a president can suspend habeas corpus and the 1st Amendment (of course with the moving sidewalk between FBI, CIA, and State to big tech and social media we're seeing that too, something else you probably think is just peachy). Congress refined Section 3 of the 14th over time. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 addresses insurrection--Trump has neither been charged nor convicted under it, and a state level legal amateur deciding--without trial--who is and is not an insurrectionist don't cut it when it comes to rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Hell, Brad Raffensberger should bar Biden under the emoluments clause--everybody in the pool! It's fun! SK: Waving my hands?
Yes, we’re surprised that you can’t answer what form you think due process should take short of criminal prosecution, which is directly contrary to the intent of the founders. You can’t even answer the due process question for if Obama petitions to be put on the ballot. SK: The use of the 14th against Confederate politicians without due process consideration was limited in scope and time and such an extraordinary circumstance as to provide only the shakiest precedence. The precedents we do have don’t answer every question, but they definitely answer some questions. The whole point of Section 3 was because prosecution of the thousands of effected insurrectionists wasn’t practical, so Section 3 was enacted to make sure oath-breakers couldn’t take new oaths without Congress acting to remove the disability. That was the clear legislative intent of the framers and the historical precedent of application. SK: 18 U.S. Code § 2383 addresses insurrection There was an insurrection statute before the Civil War too, so it’s clear the framers wanted more than that, particularly for the thousands of insurrectionists who were not likely to be prosecuted. But you are right in a way. The Supreme Court may squint and grimace enough to convince themselves that is exactly what the framers intended, even though that is directly contrary to what they said and how it was applied. Alternate facts, ya know. Yes, we’re surprised that you can’t answer what form you think due process should take short of criminal prosecution, which is directly contrary to the intent of the founders. You can’t even answer the due process question for if Obama petitions to be put on the ballot.
Huh? I've stated--and so did the founders-- clearly that denial of a right, even the right to run for office, requires due process. Kinda the reason for the whole kerfuffle. And ended up creating the US Constitution. In case you haven't been able to follow, Trump has not been charged with a crime that kicks in section 3. No due process. Stop trying to change my argument to your preferred straw dog. You're not keeping up well with history, little bud. Subsequent laws and the evolution of them (begun soon after the first uses) have made it clear that Congress and the courts feel the same way. The law I cited--2823--provides enforceability for section 3 beyond "we can do it just because we say so; they're sessesh vermin and there's too darn many." That the latter method of applying punishment is clearly your preference is no surprise--it's the leftist's ideal. Round 'em up. By the way, the founders didn't create the 14th amendment--they did however separate from England largely over the King's ABUSE of due process. And what does this have to do with Obama? SK: By the way, the founders didn't create the 14th amendment--they did however separate from England largely over the King's ABUSE of due process.
We saw that after we posted. We used "framers" in the same post three times. It was a typo, but we didn't deem it worth correcting. However, the original founders did foresee due process short of criminal due process. It's embedded in the common law. See Amendment VII. Also note probable cause in Amendment IV as a form of due process short of criminal trial due process.
#7.3.2.1.1
Zachriel
on
2024-01-03 08:24
(Reply)
SK: Huh? I've stated--and so did the founders-- clearly that denial of a right, even the right to run for office, requires due process.
Common ground! We agree that due process is essential. However, due process isn't the same for all circumstances. There is criminal due process, there is civil due process, and there are other forms of due process. Will you grant that Maine's Secretary of State had no choice under Maine law but to respond to the ballot challenge and that she provided detailed reasoning to support her decision (even if you disagree with the decision)? SK: In case you haven't been able to follow, Trump has not been charged with a crime that kicks in section 3. No due process. There are no criminal penalties in Section 3. Ballot disability is a civil matter, not a criminal one. SK: The law I cited--2823--provides enforceability for section 3 You ignored the response. There was already an insurrection statute before the Civil War. The penalty was death. There was no purpose for Section 3 if the insurrection statute was deemed sufficient. The legislative history makes clear the framers considered it a civil matter because thousands of insurrectionists weren't ever going to be charged or hanged. Oath-breakers don't get to take new oaths of office. The framers didn't require a criminal charge to invoke Section 3. SK: And what does this have to do with Obama? If you tried to answer the question, it would be clear. Who decides whether Obama or Trump is disqualified under the Twelfth Amendment? What is the due process? In Maine, a legal challenge was raised under Maine law, the "Gordon Challenge," a public hearing was held pursuant to Maine law, evidence was presented by the parties pursuant to Maine law, and the Secretary of State found that that Trump was ruled qualified under the Twelfth Amendment pursuant to Maine law. Was that in error? Bulldog, you succinctly laid out many of the driving founding principles: Limited government. The best government is the government that governs the least. Did the founders envision a government, at any level, that would be involved in your every daily decision? No.
You can call it fascism, communism and authoritarianism. It is all those things rolled into one. It is the age old issue of the busybody syndrome: There are those that just want to be left alone, and then there are those that just can’t stand it that someone, somewhere, is doing something that they do not approve of. Sam Bankman-Fried has had all the charges related to campaign finance violations, conspiracy to commit bribery, and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business dropped. SBF was a top democrat moneyman. See the connection? The system has made it so that no decent human being wants to get involved with politics. So we are left with the dregs of society in power. The most corrupt and unprincipled among us, rule over us with an iron fist. That isn’t the America that was envisioned. Unfortunately, what's been happening here in my town is pretty much in line with what's happening elsewhere. At least here, people are waking up and letting the votes count for something.
I think policies can be reversed at the local level, at least temporarily. Can things be reversed at the state or national level? I am doubtful. The political profession attracts the narcissists, the incompetent, grifters, wannabe dictators and scoundrels. It has always been so. We will continue to drift towards collapse and nothing will be done because life is still too good for everyone. And look what happens to the ones that do try and effect change? The Deep State comes after them with lawfare, causing ruinous legal expenses, and prison sentences. Their lives are wrecked. I expect we will stay on this trajectory as long as: 1) Food remains abundant. 2) The lights come on when the switch is flicked. 3) The wealth transfer payments continue. 4) Law and order doesn't completely break down. Can we vote our way out of an invisible southern border, out of control spending, serious inflation, punitive regulations and election irregularities? I doubt it. Will we get violent over it? Probably not. What I find amazing in this comment section is the level of absurdity certain trolls utilize.
I posted everyone a Happy 2024 and made a clear point about expectations and how to improve. Not unsurprisingly, trolls ignore these. A troll simply can't read a room. It is, after all, smarter than you, me and EVERYONE. It is here to set records straight and engage in what it perceives to be "fact checking". It's never welcome. But it shows up anyway. It reminds me of Colin Robinson on "What We Do In the Shadows" when he is an energy vampire which utilizes the internet to get its perverse needs fulfilled. And, as expected, it will never go away. I'll add this. The nice thing about being a troll is reading something, deciding to alter the conversation to suit its needs, then supplying information we all already know but is utterly and completely unnecessary to the conversation at hand, but makes the troll feel "needed" and as if it somehow 'fixed' certain 'wrongs'.
It is, much like the Sec. of State in Maine, and the Democrats in general, a believer that it is fixing everything which is leading to chaos. In fact, it's just a source of what I'd define as a form of evil. It is its own special evil - annoyance and unnecessary nonsense. I've reached a point of laughing at it. And warning people of it. Which is best to not engage directly - slowly, over time, it may gain an ability to read a room and just leave (we can all hope) or the lack of direct interaction will cause it to die as being ignored is what it hates most. I have argued this is the best way to get rid of Trump. The MSM chose to ignore that option, since money was made by spreading its nonsense, and allowing Trump to be another very special form of troll. Which is why I'm not surprised trolls still show up. Bulldog: It is here to set records straight and engage in what it perceives to be "fact checking".
Does the truth matter? If it does, then falsely suggesting Maine's Secretary of State was acting outside of her responsibilities matters. Bulldog: It is, much like the Sec. of State in Maine, and the Democrats in general, a believer that it is fixing everything which is leading to chaos. She had no choice in the matter. The law, 21-A M.R.S. § 337, required that she hold a hearing and reach a decision based on the evidence, which also grants court review. Like the Colorado court, she found clear and convincing evidence to support invalidating Trump's ballot petition. Read the law. Could she invalidate Obama's petition to be on the ballot? What choice would she have under the law? As someone with no dog in this fight, let me throw this out there:
- Blog comments are fun to read, usually, and drive traffic. - I used to stop by here often, as did several of my friends and cohorts. - This Z person now comments on everything, poorly. Facile, argumentative, just generally a blowhard. - I - we - stop by less often now. The comment section is less fun, which is undoubtedly what this troll desires to accomplish. It has simply overwhelmed - not with quality, but with mass. - You should offer this troll a complete refund of his entrance fee and see it off. You owe it nothing. We usually avoid personal comments, but as your comments directly concerned Z-person, we will make a few points:
|