top of page

For links to contest to these posts for 1-17 here and 18-24  here

1.  So, give me the definition as liberals used it eight years ago. I just wanted to know what is meant if Trump has a mandate. You still have not been able to define it. You must have some interpretation; right now we're going in a circle and it's vicious not virtuous.

2. I'm just trying to get at what you think is meant by mandate. Defining mandate as being the same as the term used by liberals 8 years ago does not aid in the definition.

3.  Perhaps you could define what mandate means.


4.  People are free to say what they want no matter how offensive it is. The government cannot infringe on people exercising that right. Employers need not continue to employ people whose speech they find is offensive, however.

So the professor had every right under the First Amendment to say what he said and the government is not allowed to curb that speech. It gets more complicated when a public employer is involved--there is a balancing test between the rights of an employee to comment on matters of public concern and the right of the public employer to efficiently carry out its public services.

So if he had a private employer there would be no issue firing him for those comments. Even for a public employer an employee who makes comments directed to a largely minority group of people telling them to get out of the country makes it more difficult for the government to carry out its functions because the professor's comments signal that the government will not treat people equally

5. I think the hate speech stuff arose in college campus code of conduct regulations. I don't know if he got fired for that reason but it need not be justified as being hate speech. Clearly, if he said all Mexicans get out of the country that would be hate speech. There is not one definition of hate speech but some kind of insulting or offensive speech based on race, gender or other cognizable group is in the ballpark. One would have to make an inference that the professor was biased against minorities in making his comments. That could be true but he could argue he was being very patriotic.

6.  Freedom of speech is almost absolute (with regard to government regulation) but people are free to bring social and economic pressure to inhibit speech. So was the economic pressure brought to bear here "right"? I think so. He could have said that he finds the use of the term "not my America" to be offensive but instead of arguing that they are wrong he tells to get out of the country. Not a heck of a lot of content there and a lot of animosity. I see no problem with curbing that type of speech.

7.  Well, of course we don't get to change the rules after the fact. The question is whether if Hillary wins by a couple of million votes it should cause a rethinking of the electoral college for the future.

8. Well, I would not defend a liberal professor who got fired because he said that he would buy a ticket for Trump supporters to leave the country. It was hate speech directed against a certain group of people and furthermore I am sure it embarrassed the college or university. He should have known better. Now if he got fired for supporting Trump policies that would be different but telling people to leave the country that's over the line.

9.  I am not sure what mandate means. Either you have the power to do something or you don't. If mandate means Democrats should not oppose things because they are afraid that voters will retaliate against them for obstructing the president...well, I don't think that Trump that has kind of mandate.

10.  Sure, like Boehner could sell any deal to the Tea Party nuts...

Tom, I like you but when you start to casually make these accusations of racism and I want the country harmed and I dont want to cooperate at all on reforming Obamacare I strenuously deny that and you are misinterpreting what I say. You can disagree with me but throwing conclusory allegations around based on your filtered and mistaken interpretation of what I say is, well, annoying to say the least. If you make those kinds of allegations you should come to the party with supporting evidence. And you don't have because I did nothing that you say I did.

11.  I guess we will see if the Democrats have any party discipline. This is a core issue for the base. If Democrats are unwilling to fight for issues that the base cares deeply about...I don't know what to say. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say there and no further.

12.  If they can do it without a single Democratic vote then why not do it? I think it's going to be a nightmare issue for them. Businesses are not going to like health coverage bring upset again, health insurance companies are not going to like having to insure people they don't want to insure (like pre-existing conditions) without health people being forced to buy the plan. You are going to have powerful interests opposed to getting rid of it. If they're smart they will keep it but make a deal with the Democrats to restructure it more to their liking. Trying to gut it and getting agreement on a plan that would enable health insurance companies to be able to survive complying with taking bad risks while not getting young, healthy people to make up for that is going to be extraordinarily difficult. The problem is you can't just throw out the bad and take the good--you have to throw out the whole thing. THAT would be very, very unpopular. And of course they can't get totally get rid of Obamacare.

I think I am going to enjoy seeing the Republicans tie themselves in knots over this. All that health insurance money, pharmaceutical money threatening to go over to Democrats; Republican governors who took Medicaid expansion not happy, businesses not happy at things thrown into uncertainly and upsetting what they are doing with health coverage again after finally adjusting to Obamacare. Go ahead...take the hot potato!

13.  Reform of Obamacare is possible, which I already said. Republicans have leverage to make it a more Republican-friendly plan. Reasonable compromise is possible. But if it's just a steamroller over Obamacare, we have no reason to give in.

14. The only sacrosanct thing is Obamacare. They can reform it but outright appeal...political suicide if Drmocrats allow that to happen. There goes the African-American vote; they won't go Republican of course but it would have a negative effect on how they view the Democratic Party. So why would Democrats antagonize such a key part of their base? Actually, most Democrsts would be pissed if Democrats don't fight to the hilt on this issue.

15.  Democrats are more pragmatic. If Trump says give me tax cuts and I'll give you an infrastructure bill to create a million jobs...he'll get Democratic support.

16.Well, Republicans refused to trade with Obama (or allow individual members to do so). If Republicans are willing to horse trade then things can get done. If it's "if you do things we want we will support it but we'll oppose everything else as a bloc" then gridlock will continue. If individual Republican members are allowed to prioritize what they do and don't want and agree to support things they don't want in return for something they want more then things can get done. Democrats are not going to oppose Trump as a bloc like the Republicans opposed Obama if he agrees to do some things they want done. I have no doubt about that. The question is whether Republicans are more flexible than they were with Obama.

17.  Whenever you reduce people by lumping them as belonging to a certain group you miss a lot because there is a lot of complexity to people. A Trump voter concerned about immigration....might be a great guy who volunteers his time to help disadvantaged minorities. But then again it is necessary to attempt to describe people who get together in groups in some fashion. It is a conundrum.

18. Well, if he brings that ruthless, no-holds barred style to might be effective.

I am actually a little curious (not just dreading) as to what is going to happen. That would not be the case with really any other Republican candidate. If he does what he says he was going to do and is effective at getting it done with regard to economic policy--and defers on foreign policy to a capable Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense--a Trump presidency might not be that bad.

19.That's an interesting point, DF about the government in a single-payer system forcing/encouraging people to be more healthy at the cost of individual freedom. Has that been true in other Western countries? If not, is there something unique about the US that would cause that to happen? I would think the opposite--Americans would be more resistant to that type of governmental control. 

Danivon, does your government force you to eat your prescribed amount of veggies? I have this picture of Danivon in a bar watching football. He has his second pint of beer. He is just about to order a third when someone from the National Health Service steps in and says "two is quite enough for you, lad." We did not invest all that money into you just so you could hurt our health stats by drinking too much!" Oh, the horror! Thank God I love in a country where you can still drink yourself to death without governmental interference!

20. Conservatives had their chance here--they have a willing president and control Congress--but they had no real ideas on how to fix the existing system, at least any that were politically feasible. The pre-existing condition issue--where people get frozen out of health care once they have a serious medical condition--does not lend itself to a free-market solution. That band-aid they put on it is not going to work. Personally, I think they would have been better off just making anyone surcharged for a pre-existing condition eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, if you want to go away from single-payer. I think there is a general consensus now that people with pre-existing conditions who make decent money should not be kicked out of having health care coverage.

21.It will lead to a single-player plan because at some point reality is going to trump ideology. The experience of other advanced western countries is that the most efficient way to provide health care, to cut out middle-men, to keep costs under control, and still provide effective outcomes is single-payer. We have been the free-market experiment in providing health care--how has that gone? A much higher percentage of our GDP going to health care with no discernible effect on life expectancy. In our country we have seen that Medicare--which deals with the most at risk patients, the elderly--has been an efficient program that is popular with the people it covers.

I am all for experimenting with ideas that come across the ideological spectrum. And if we were living like 5 years longer than other western countries...I would be saying will stick to our brand of health care, thank you. But we're not, in fact, getting a higher life expectancy even though we are spending so much more on health care.

The experiment has failed. Time to do what every other western country is doing. Two different systems have been tried out in the real world over a long period of time. One has been proven better.

22.First, this case it still at an early stage. Just because it gets past a motion to dismiss does not mean plaintiffs will win. They still have to get past summary judgment even to get to trial. Remember, at the pleading stage the court assumes the allegations of the plaintiffs are true; to get past summary judgment (and even more to win at trial) the plaintiffs will have to prove their case. Essentially the judge has said at this point that given the allegations in the complaint she can't say as a matter of law there is no substantive due process violation.

Other than a few cases cited in the judge's order, I have not done research on the merits of the case but it would seem that this is a question to be decided in the political arena. The People--through Congress and the president--should decide what we are going to do about addressing climate change, as that is something that affects all of us and the political branch is best suited for balancing all of the interests (economic, environmental, etc.) affected by what we do about climate change. Now plaintiffs are using children as a mean of showing particularized injury--as they will suffer more injury than the rest of society--but you could say that about just any governmental action.

I'm all for taking steps to reduce carbon emissions, make our water purer, make our cleaner, our land freer of pollution. I think we should do much, much more to protect Nature but we have to win on those issues through elections.

21. I agree with you--it's good to try diplomacy with even your enemies. But praise for guys like this gives a signal (I think) that the US is not that committed to human rights under Trump. It rubs me the wrong me at least.

22. As to not not answering questions put forth, not sure how I feel about that. I feel like I have enough confidence in my position that I can answer a question which is designed to show the weakness of my position. Others take a more competitive approach and refuse to be pressured into answering questions. The reality is we don't get to control how others contribute to a discussion. If someone wants to ignore a question they can. You are free to point out the refusal to answer a question, but we do not control how others will contribute. I certainly do not feel that I am going to compel to answer any questions that I have about DF's position in the way I want them answered. While frustrating the ultimate judge is the unseen reader who decides whose argument is better. The only problem of course is that for the most part we don't get to know their judgment.

The way I feel about it is (1) I don't get to control another poster's contribution to a discussion and demand that questions be answered, and (2) If I have a question that I pose that I think needs answering and the other side refuses to answer then I will either point that out (and note that the failure to respond indicates the weakness of their position), just say that there is no no point in further discussion unless the question is answered, or just not bother to respond. But I think it is pointless to demand further response when others do not respond. While it would be nice if these questions were about...a search for some kind of truth in which answering questions would be part of a collaborative effort to find answers, the reality is that for the most we are advocates here seeking to prove that our values/beliefs/politics are correct and therefore concessions to the other side go against our underlying beliefs and are not easily made. Again, for the most part, it is the reader you are trying to convince...not another posters . Because they are not going to concede.

23.  Within the past couple of days Trump has called Jong Dong Un "a pretty smart cookie", praised his ability to survive against his generals and his uncle after coming to power at a young age, and said he would be "honored" to meet with him; he had a "very pleasant conversation" with Philippine president Duterte whose war on drugs has resulted in 8,000 deaths, who told reporters memorably that "The Constitution cannot help you if you disrespect a person" and who was invited to the White House and Trump also said that Andrew Jackson, a slaveowner who owned 150 slaves when he died,could have prevented the Civil War...

If only the Founders could see us now and how far we have progressed to see a , uh, jackass make such stunningly stupid pronouncements

24. We have a heretofore unreached level of discussion on Redscape when we are explicating the meaning of jackass...

















































































































































































bottom of page