PDA

View Full Version : Judge Napolitano meets with Trump for 2nd time to discuss Supreme Court




jct74
01-17-2017, 10:37 AM
update:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKA4ZSBbThI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKA4ZSBbThI


--


821375947597189120




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2T4kfnK3F0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2T4kfnK3F0




first meeting on 12/15:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?505411-Judge-Napolitano-meets-with-Trump-for-a-full-hour

jllundqu
01-17-2017, 10:43 AM
https://media.tenor.co/images/7f743a4a920c207abe63029498058d66/raw

angelatc
01-17-2017, 10:44 AM
https://media.tenor.co/images/7f743a4a920c207abe63029498058d66/raw

+1776

juleswin
01-17-2017, 10:49 AM
Maybe he is just going there to pay his rent?

jct74
01-17-2017, 11:29 AM
The Judge talks about his meeting today:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVJbmm69u0
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5285205238001

jct74
01-17-2017, 11:36 AM
Judge says he also talked about the inauguration, here's the full segment:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb_zis6qA1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb_zis6qA1Y

AZJoe
01-17-2017, 11:42 AM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pU8MMxQ8Lo4/VsbSqyCv8qI/AAAAAAAAAPo/xkSY3HphRSU/w719-h622/Andrew%2BNapolitano%2Bfor%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BJust ice.png

Unknownuser
01-17-2017, 01:25 PM
https://media.tenor.co/images/7f743a4a920c207abe63029498058d66/raw

In Jesus name we pray.

Anti Federalist
01-17-2017, 01:30 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pU8MMxQ8Lo4/VsbSqyCv8qI/AAAAAAAAAPo/xkSY3HphRSU/w719-h622/Andrew%2BNapolitano%2Bfor%2BSupreme%2BCourt%2BJust ice.png

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xWrNol65TMrc1a/source.gif

euphemia
01-17-2017, 01:46 PM
As much as folks here can't say enough bad about Trump, I am impressed that he has surrounded himself with wise, liberty-minded people. To call Judge Napolitano for another meeting is intriguing.

seapilot
01-17-2017, 01:55 PM
If Judge Nap has an influence on the next Supreme Court pick, that is a win for liberty.

CPUd
01-17-2017, 02:00 PM
If Judge Nap has an influence on the next Supreme Court pick, that is a win for liberty.

His SCOTUS pick will come from Heritage.

Anti Federalist
01-17-2017, 02:00 PM
If Judge Nap has an influence on the next Supreme Court pick, that is a win for liberty.

Just having him invited to talk, about anything regarding government, is a win.

Outside of Randal, that is more than any other members of the 2016 GOP clown show would have been willing to do.

One more reason why I am now in "Cautious Optimism" mode WRT to Trump.

Valli6
01-17-2017, 02:33 PM
Shepard Smith is about to talk to Judge Nap - "next" he said (3:33 pm eastern)

update:
Some of the things they talked about - The process of finding a judge that thinks like Scalia.
Judge Nap says he doesn't know if he's on the list, but he expects there will be an announcment within two weeks. Also discussed economic regulations and how they come from unelected agencies who act as "lawmaker, law giver, law enforcer and judge" all in the same agency. Said Trump's mood was "ebullient". Trump asked him which previous presidents and had the most influence on the court - Judge said Nixon, and even moreso, FDR who appointed two of his friends.

anaconda
01-17-2017, 02:43 PM
Maybe he is just going there to pay his rent?

LOL with small bills! But seriously, this seems like great news. Trump must have been very impressed with their last meeting. No surprise.

anaconda
01-17-2017, 02:47 PM
Serious question for y'all: Does this mean that Judge Nap is thought very highly of by Ivanka and Jared?

jct74
01-17-2017, 03:04 PM
Shepard Smith is about to talk to Judge Nap - "next" he said (3:33 pm eastern)

update:
Some of the things they talked about - The process of finding a judge that thinks like Scalia.
Judge Nap says he doesn't know if he's on the list, but he expects there will be an announcment within two weeks. Also discussed economic regulations and how they come from unelected agencies who act as "lawmaker, law giver, law enforcer and judge" all in the same agency.

+rep. That was a great interview. Went from about 3:40 to the end of the show, through 2 commercial breaks. I heard that as well, Judge declined to say whether he was under consideration or not. He also said there is one person being considered who is not on the list that has been made public. Hopefully someone puts up the tube.

jct74
01-17-2017, 03:34 PM
TUBE



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKA4ZSBbThI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKA4ZSBbThI

presence
01-17-2017, 03:44 PM
One more reason why I am now in "Cautious Optimism" mode WRT to Trump.

I could see that but... I'm still here:

5554

nobody's_hero
01-17-2017, 04:19 PM
As much as folks here can't say enough bad about Trump, I am impressed that he has surrounded himself with wise, liberty-minded people. To call Judge Napolitano for another meeting is intriguing.

He's got quite a mixed bag. No doubt we'll be seeing one of the most schizophrenic administrations in history, lol.

I'm just surprised Trump actually asked serious questions. It sounds like their conversation was a bit deeper than just talking about the weather.

euphemia
01-17-2017, 04:21 PM
Trump is an educated man. My guess is the judge would not have accepted another invitation if the first meeting did not go well.

Peace&Freedom
01-17-2017, 07:08 PM
Trump had two meetings with several people (e.g., Tillerson) whom he then went on to hire. Nap is now in that company, so let's see what happens.

juleswin
01-17-2017, 07:46 PM
Wonder if Hillary or Jeb would be talking to Napolitano about court nominations?

Talk is cheap, the question is whether any of this talk is going to amount to anything. Remember he also had 2 long talks with Romney but nothing came off it.

I doubt this is anything other than a photo op to the liberty wing of american politics but just like the elections, I hope that I am wrong again.

TER
01-17-2017, 08:07 PM
The fact that he had another meeting with Judge Napolitano is a great thing which I frankly never thought I would see if you asked me a year ago.

Every true Patriot would agree that the Judge is a defender of our rights.

That Trump sees this and acknowledges it is a great thing for our rule of Law in this country

Do I think he will nominate him for the Supreme Court? No.

But Trump has continued to surprise me, so who knows.

Jamesiv1
01-17-2017, 08:11 PM
Trump is proving himself to be a True Patriot© and a Great American®

asurfaholic
01-17-2017, 08:25 PM
Judge nap in the Supreme Court and I start to believe in MAGA because that would be a awesome step in the right direction.

Not getting my hopes up, just watching and waiting.

unknown
01-17-2017, 08:32 PM
Holy fucking shit if true.

ETA:

The Judge didnt answer whether he was on the list.

Nor does he appear on the list:

http://www.businessinsider.com/president-elect-donald-trump-supreme-court-list

Its still nice to know that Trump is turning to the Judge for advice, awesome actually, but it doesnt seem like the Judge will be nominated. :(

Origanalist
01-17-2017, 08:40 PM
True that. I wonder how many times Hillary would've invited the Judge for a conversation, and if so, would he have walked out of the building or been carried out?

https://media.giphy.com/media/l46CltFoPJ968J9QI/giphy.gif

Origanalist
01-17-2017, 08:45 PM
I watched the video. I must say it sounds really encouraging. Even commented saying just that. Maybe Trump will continue to look to the Judge for advice, in fact I wouldn't be surprised at all. But IMO he won't nominate him.

Natural Citizen
01-17-2017, 09:05 PM
SCOTUS really is the main thing as far as what I'm personally interested in changing. So this is particularly encouraging.

TER
01-17-2017, 09:07 PM
SCOTUS really is the main thing as far as what I'm personally interested in changing. So this is particularly encouraging.

It's was probably one of the greatest reasons to vote for Trump.

The alternative was horrifying.

Natural Citizen
01-17-2017, 09:12 PM
It's was probably one of the greatest reasons to vote for Trump.

The alternative was horrifying.

Yeah. I suppose you're right. As it is, I'm enthusiastically curious about some of Trump's moves thus far.

That dude might turn out to be another Reagan before it's said and done. Executively speaking.

Now let me get out of here before I get pelted with fruit. :cool:

Fredom101
01-17-2017, 10:32 PM
Judge Nap is an AnCap. I hope he introduced Trump to some hard core libertarianism and didn't sidestep the important topics.

Theocrat
01-18-2017, 06:35 AM
As much as folks here can't say enough bad about Trump, I am impressed that he has surrounded himself with wise, liberty-minded people. To call Judge Napolitano for another meeting is intriguing.

If Donald Trump selects Judge Napolitano as the next Supreme Court Justice, then I'll...nah, it'll never happen. Trump is too much of an authoritarian to nominate a judge like Napolitano.

euphemia
01-18-2017, 06:42 AM
I don't think anyone knows what kind of President Trump will turn out to be. So far, he has neither surprised nor disappointed me.

Origanalist
01-18-2017, 06:43 AM
If Donald Trump selects Judge Napolitano as the next Supreme Court Justice, then I'll...nah, it'll never happen. Trump is too much of an authoritarian to nominate a judge like Napolitano.

And yet he's asking his advice.

Origanalist
01-18-2017, 06:44 AM
Yeah. I suppose you're right. As it is, I'm enthusiastically curious about some of Trump's moves thus far.

That dude might turn out to be another Reagan before it's said and done. Executively speaking.

Now let me get out of here before I get pelted with fruit. :cool:

We're seeing things the same, I'm inclined to think he's going to be quite a bit like Reagan.

osan
01-18-2017, 08:04 AM
As far as it went, not bad. If things work out even half as good as appearances, we would be in a far better place than we are now.

I will believe it when I see it.

One thing he mentioned that holds great promise was the bit about regulatory agencies. They should have no policy making power, nor that to judge, enforce, or "punish", as the good judge put it. If we are to have such agencies, and I say we should not, their sole tasks should be to monitor, gather evidence, and present cases to courts for further action. This having vested them with judge prosecutor and jury powers was an error of truly epic stoogery.

I would add this: any agency found to have mis-constructed a case against any party, whether corporate or individual, would have the responsible parties see the inside of the military barracks for not one minute less than ten years, hard labor. In any such case, the head of the agency is automatically sent to the barracks no matter what the circumstance. I would all this the "buck stops here doctrine". Most specifically, I would place in this immediate peril anyone or group who kept exculpatory evidence from the view of grand juries, prosecutors, etc. Anyone knowing of such evidence and not coming forward: barracks. I would put the terror of a minimum of a decade of turning large rocks into small, rain or shine, into every government official from sea to shining sea.

Want to collect your cushy government salary w/bennies and pension? Fine. But you will do it without injustice to your fellow men, or you will pay with your life in a manner far less pleasant than a firing squad.

Enough already.

osan
01-18-2017, 08:46 AM
Yeah. I suppose you're right. As it is, I'm enthusiastically curious about some of Trump's moves thus far.

That dude might turn out to be another Reagan before it's said and done. Executively speaking.

Now let me get out of here before I get pelted with fruit. :cool:


Not sure how to take this. I have no love of Reagan. At times he talked a good game, but didn't do much to walk it. "Smaller government... smaller government..." as government inflated to unprecedented proportions on a daily basis before our eyes. IMO, the best thing he ever did was to fire all the air traffic controllers when they went on strike. Kudos where due.

Also, Trump's style is fundamentally different from that of Reagan. He addresses issues in a way that puts the hallowed Ronbo to some paleness. I will go way out on a limb here and predict that Trump will be no milquetoast president in the manner of an Obama. He will either prove really good, or very lousy, on the net. Here's to hoping for the former.

presence
01-18-2017, 09:38 AM
And yet he's asking his advice.

orly?


I doubt this is anything other than a photo op to the liberty wing of american politics



I will believe it when I see it.

When nap is scotus and not some big ticket corporate liability defence lawyer... I'll believe it.

euphemia
01-18-2017, 11:30 AM
The judge says he expects an announcement in the next two weeks? Wake up call for Congress: Here's a President who expects legislators to work as hard as he does. That might be a bit of a shock to some.

I've been listening to appointment hearings, and I have to say Al Franken is a singularly tiresome man.

Jamesiv1
01-18-2017, 11:37 AM
Wake up call for Congress: Here's a President who expects legislators to work as hard as he does.
Amen to that.

They might also need to be reminded that the DJ DonMaster is 70-years old.

Eat that, slackers.

euphemia
01-18-2017, 12:04 PM
Please allow me to point out that last year when responding to what Trump would do once elected, I replied, "I think he will get up and go to work." That response was not received well, but I won't say I told you so. Donald Trump works hard, and he expects his team to work hard, too. Congress better get moving or they will find themselves left at the station.

Origanalist
01-18-2017, 01:06 PM
Not sure how to take this. I have no love of Reagan. At times he talked a good game, but didn't do much to walk it. "Smaller government... smaller government..." as government inflated to unprecedented proportions on a daily basis before our eyes. IMO, the best thing he ever did was to fire all the air traffic controllers when they went on strike. Kudos where due.

Also, Trump's style is fundamentally different from that of Reagan. He addresses issues in a way that puts the hallowed Ronbo to some paleness. I will go way out on a limb here and predict that Trump will be no milquetoast president in the manner of an Obama. He will either prove really good, or very lousy, on the net. Here's to hoping for the former.

I agree with this. No, his style isn't the same but I think his presidency will end up looking a lot like Reagan's. Including the recession of 82. I'm trying to get ahead of it as best I can. There will be no great reduction in government spending with the drunken sailor repubs and all his grandiose plans.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2017, 01:12 PM
I hope he's also talking to other libertarian legal scholars who are more knowledgeable than Napolitano.

Philmanoman
01-18-2017, 01:41 PM
Kinda hard to debate stuff that hasn't happened
If all the good happens that people guarantee is going to happen then that's great.
It's funny reading shit here though.You would think all of the great promises have already happened lmao

TER
01-18-2017, 01:45 PM
Kinda hard to debate stuff that hasn't happened
If all the good happens that people guarantee is going to happen then that's great.
It's funny reading shit here though.You would think all of the great promises have already happened lmao

I think what you are witnessing is people being optimistic because we have seen tangible changes already compared to the direction the country was going to continue to go if Hillary was elected (for example, the Judge consulting and advising the President elect). Are all the changes great? Of course not! But I can't imagine it would have been better if Hillary won.

euphemia
01-18-2017, 02:17 PM
I think what you are witnessing is people being optimistic because we have seen tangible changes already compared to the direction the country was going to continue to go if Hillary was elected (for example, the Judge consulting and advising the President elect). Are all the changes great? Of course not! But I can't imagine it would have been better if Hillary won.

I agree with this assessment. Obviously I would like to see a President with a more defined liberty point of view, but that doesn't mean I have to spend the next 4-8 years in a meltdown because I didn't get what I want.

And I think a Rand Paul presidency would not have seen any more immediacy than what we have seen. He would have had to make all these appointments, too, because a President does not have the authority to close whole departments without going through Congress.

robert68
01-18-2017, 02:17 PM
Nap says Trump wants another Justice Scalia. That's neither surprising nor something special.

Also, if members of Congress not attending the Inauguration is bad for "our democracy", as Varney and Nap lament, then the more the better.

TER
01-18-2017, 02:20 PM
Nap says Trump wants another Justice Scalia. That's neither surprising nor something special.

Better than another Ginsburg or SotoMayor by a loooong shot

pcosmar
01-18-2017, 03:11 PM
And yet he's asking his advice.

and that is a good sign.

observing.. cautiously optomistic

P3ter_Griffin
01-18-2017, 03:18 PM
Truth is treason in the empire of optimism.

nikcers
01-18-2017, 03:22 PM
Truth is treason in the empire of optimism. Optimistic people are usually the most disappointed when they do not get what they perceive to be the outcome they desired. There are going to be some extremely upset people after this hope train turns into a nope train.

shakey1
01-18-2017, 03:39 PM
Go Nap!!!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f4/c3/66/f4c3666dd1a14fa7d24d36c092bcaa86.jpg

euphemia
01-18-2017, 03:41 PM
Optimistic people are usually the most disappointed when they do not get what they perceive to be the outcome they desired. There are going to be some extremely upset people after this hope train turns into a nope train.

And haters don't see the good in anything. Go ahead and make yourself miserable. I'm not going to live that way. I try to be hopefully objective.

Jamesiv1
01-18-2017, 03:41 PM
Go Nap!!!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f4/c3/66/f4c3666dd1a14fa7d24d36c092bcaa86.jpg
That's a great quote.

nobody's_hero
01-18-2017, 03:52 PM
Optimistic people are usually the most disappointed when they do not get what they perceive to be the outcome they desired. There are going to be some extremely upset people after this hope train turns into a nope train.

Heh. A lot of people seem optimistic that he's going to fail. Vindication is at stake.

osan
01-18-2017, 03:59 PM
I agree with this. No, his style isn't the same but I think his presidency will end up looking a lot like Reagan's. Including the recession of 82. I'm trying to get ahead of it as best I can.

This is certainly plausible, but I'm staying on the fence until such time as the indications become a whole lot more telling, either way.


There will be no great reduction in government spending with the drunken sailor repubs and all his grandiose plans.

Wish I could bitch-slap you into the next county for this, but alas, it is all too likely to prove the case.

But I hold out some sliver of hope that things may not become this bad. I know it is foolish, but Trump surprised at least 150 million people, probably closer to double that, not only when he won the nomination, but when he won the booby prize. I still cannot rule out smoke and mirrors as the cause of this result, but if perchance it is not the case and Trump got where he did based on shrewd strategies and tactics, then I can only say that damned near anything is possible in the coming months, including a sea change in America for the better - even the MUCH better. I don't dare place any expectations there, but cling to that sliver of hope that I may be pleasantly surprised in the end. However, we have to keep in mind the currents against which he will be sailing in the even he proves the better man than that for which so many are perhaps understandably giving him credit. We've been bitten in the ass so many times since 1789... erm, perhaps 1980 anyhow, that one would have to be a complete idiot not to have serious reservations.

Now here's a question: to what should be all be looking in the event the better man makes his hand felt? It could only be a beginning because no man could correct 228 years of progressively worsening tyranny in a mere four years. What would be the path moving forward? A path with milestones set should be on the agenda for those interested in liberty. Thus far it has been willy-nilly Freedom! RAH RAH RAH... and nothing more. The progressives are planners. IF you want something to happen, you have specific goals, however humble, and you work to achieve them.

Liberty, if it is even possible to achieve, will be had piecemeal. It took 200+ years for this great land to be reduced to the pathetic state in which we find it. It will not bounce back in our lifetimes, much less the span of a full-monty presidency.

osan
01-18-2017, 04:45 PM
I hope he's also talking to other libertarian legal scholars who are more knowledgeable than Napolitano.

This raises the question of a very serious and fundamental problem: our legal system is hosed in a most impossible way. In what way, you ask? We lack the basics of proper LAW. We have an abundance of LEGAL elements well established, yet next to nothing for law.

An example of this can be taken directly from Black's (hideously wrong) Dictionary. Take, for instance, the definition of "crime", which states:


CRIME. A positive or negative act in violationof penal law; an offense against the State.

Before we can assess the merits of this definition, we must first look at the definition of "penal law":


PENAL LAWS. Those which prohibit an actand impose a penalty for the commission of it.

Strictly and properly speaking, apenal law is one imposing a penalty or punish-ment (and properly a pecuniary fine or mulct)for some offense of a public nature or wrong committed against the state.

PENAL STATUTES. See Penal Laws.




Also important, the notion of "public":


PUBLIC, adj. Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use.

I am not prepared to go into an exhaustive analytic treatise on just how impossibly lacking these definitions are, for it would require much space and time. But rest you assured that American jurisprudence (har har har...) is based on the most flimsily arbitrary nonsense imaginable. That it has been so effectively robed in the false dignities attributed to it stands as testament to the ignorance, stupidity, corruption, fear, and plain pig-laziness of the vast majority of men, most lawyers included.

By the definitions given, a crime is anything the legislature says it is. There is absolutely no provenly principled basis upon which "crime" is defined and which would objectively limit the prerogatives of legislators. Furthermore, the only thing keeping said legislators in check are the questionable-at-best decisions of our jurists who occupy the bench. Their proclamations have proven with absolute certainty to be a crap-shoot on their best days. Just look at Heller, for example, where a largely correct opinion was nonetheless befouled by a court who left the door wide open for all tyrants coming down the pike from the time of its issue onward.

Nowhere have I found a clear, correct, and complete information set in the standard legal references that specify how to identify a crime and define it properly. These legal people simply pull the most inane and criminal nonsense from their anuses, proclaim it "law" (which is it not), thereby directing men with guns to enforce their capriciously arbitrary wills upon their fellows up to and including taking away life itself from those whom they claim to have "offended".

Honestly, this is all so nightmarishly wrong that it makes my thoughts seize up solid in my head such that I have to stop thinking about it in order not to get a migraine.

We as a people are utterly, perilously lost. Trump says he will do this and that, as do others, yet they have absolutely no idea upon what basis they will make their changes, thereby rendering their actions arbitrary by nature, even when those actions serve the enhance liberty. Then the next administration comes in, pulls a completely different narrative from their assholes and declare THAT to be the law whose line all must toe on literal pain of death. We have no invariant foundational principles formalized to serve as a standard by which the actions of legislatures may be validly judged. I am certain that this is the way Theye want things, of course, because it serves their purposes. Theye get to say what is "legal" and what is not, right and wrong be damned.

The very simple, yet endlessly essential tenet that in order for a crime to have occurred, there must be a victim, appears to be wholly absent from American jurisprudence. This is absolutely disastrous, and I am sure all those men behind bars across the land for ten and more years for possession of a joint would not be fast to disagree.

Going back to "crime", Bouvier's has more to say on the matter, the ultimate result being equally atrocious, if more clearly indicative of the atrocities to which it gives dye.


CRIME. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general signification, comprehends all offences but, in its limited sense, it is confined to felony. 1 Chitty, Gen. Pr. 14.2. The term misdemeanor includes every offence inferior to felony, but punishable by indictment or by-particular prescribed proceedings.
3. The term offence, also, may be considered as, having the same meaning, but is usually, by itself, understood to be a crime not indictable but punishable, summarily, or by the forfeiture of, a penalty. Burn's Just. Misdemeanor.
4. Crimes are defined and punished by statutes and by the common law. Most common law offences are as well known, and as precisely ascertained, as those which are defined by statutes; yet, from the difficulty of exactly defining and describing every act which ought to be punished, the vital and preserving principle has been adopted, that all immoral acts which tend to the prejudice of the community are punishable by courts of justice. 2 Swift's Dig.
5. Crimes are mala in se, or bad in themselves; and these include. all offences against the moral law; or they are mala prohibita, bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy; which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent. Crimes may be classed into such as affect:




There appears to be no legislative bright line between mala in sé and mala prohibita. This is catastrophic.

Until we straighten out the basics, we have ZERO hope of putting this land on a reliable path toward the liberty our forbears promised. And yet, we continue on, wading around in the muck and shit of our legal environment, as if to seek and secure the remedies to the tyranny under which we all labor as slaves.

So what does anyone propose we do about this? Anything? Or are we all just here yanking our yo-yos for the sake of the old feel-good?

That's a serious question, BTW.

nikcers
01-18-2017, 05:38 PM
Heh. A lot of people seem optimistic that he's going to fail. Vindication is at stake. Not really optmistic about my president failing, just not optimistic he is my president. The people that I go to for political information are hinting at a possible nope train. I don't want to ride the nope train, but this is what the people who I go to are saying ahead of Trump becoming POTUS.. Paul, Lee call on Trump to work with Congress on foreign policy (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/314810-paul-lee-to-trump-work-with-us-on-foreign-policy)

I am no fan of Ted Cruz, but I don't see Rand Paul sending these letters to a hypothetical president Cruz.

presence
01-18-2017, 05:46 PM
Honestly, this is all so nightmarishly wrong that it makes my thoughts seize up solid in my head
such that I have to stop thinking about it in order not to get a migraine.

indeed

euphemia
01-18-2017, 06:27 PM
It appears Trump can't win with some of you. I have some doubts, but I choose not to let them ruin my outlook on the next 4-8 years.

osan
01-18-2017, 07:39 PM
It appears Trump can't win with some of you. I have some doubts, but I choose not to let them ruin my outlook on the next 4-8 years.

Some things bear repetition.

To those ready to suck Trump's dick: chill out.

To those ready to declare Trump the devil: chill out.

Trump is a human being, just like most of us. I don't think he is a lizard-man. He is not perfect. He is not all-knowing. He will never be 100% of what anyone would want in a president. Not even Ron Paul meets that bar.

We are lost these 228 years in ever growing measure with the assault upon our sacred claims especially egregious as of 1860, redoubled again in 1913, again in 1932, 2001, and at least once more in 2008 with the installation of the traitorous tyrant Obama. We live under the product of 228 years of concerted, intergenerational conspiring to remove that which was promised in the BoR as the guaranty and protection of those claims born to us as men. This is not going to be remedied in any large measure in 4 or 8 years. Therefore, we have to be as Theye have been - patient, methodical, and willing to take our victories where we find them, such as they may be. It is by this method of incremental gain that ultimate achievement stands to be won.

Some of you may be familiar with so-called "Gracie jujutsu". As a system of techniques, I find it questionable. And yet, it can be an extremely effective method of combat and the main reason is the central pillar of the Gracie strategy: never relinquish a position of advantage, save to move to one of greater advantage. IOW, if need be, you take your path toward victory in piecemeal fashion, standing firmly at your current position and never conceding ground. When an opportunity to advance makes itself apparent, you advance and hold. Rinse and repeat until your opponent is defeated. This is PRECISELY what the progressives have done and look how far it has taken them: they are at victory's door and are about to waltz in and begin the orgy. There remains little time to recover what is rightly ours, so I submit that the time is long past for the so-called "liberty movement" to get its head out of its ass as start acting as if it was serious about its purported raison d'être. Patience and implacable, unbending intent brought the progressives to this pass while the rest of us were too busy with other things. If you want freedom, then you have to start acting like it. Otherwise, go home, light a spliff, break out the 30-year MacAllan or 120-year Hennessy, say "fuck it", and dance to the band while Titanic slips beneath the waves.

If Trump can bring us back from the brink on which we now teeter, I call that a win. It is provisional. It is a stepping stone toward greater things. It is the best for which we can reasonably hope in a circumstance such as what we have here in America today. We are like a great aircraft carrier that has taken enormous battle damage. We are taking on heavy water, listing to port, and going down by the bow. Sitting on deck, wishing the vessel upright and sound isn't going to make it so.

robert68
01-19-2017, 03:48 AM
Judge Nap is an AnCap. I hope he introduced Trump to some hard core libertarianism and didn't sidestep the important topics.

Ancaps don't advocate people be prosecuted for espionage against the state or lament members of Congress not attending a Presidential Inauguration. He's no ancap.

TheCount
01-19-2017, 06:02 AM
It appears Trump can't win with some of you.Four hours of meeting with Napolitano doesn't erase over a year of constantly advocating for and stating his intent to enact statist and fascist policies.

I'm just taking the man at his word and believing that he will do, or at least would like to do, the things that he said.

CPUd
01-19-2017, 08:30 AM
Four hours of meeting with Napolitano doesn't erase over a year of constantly advocating for and stating his intent to enact statist and fascist policies.

I'm just taking the man at his word and believing that he will do, or at least would like to do, the things that he said.

But he's a hard worker though.

TheCount
01-19-2017, 01:54 PM
But he's a hard worker though.You just need to give him a chance to not do all the things that he said he would do.

Superfluous Man
01-19-2017, 02:27 PM
It appears Trump can't win with some of you. I have some doubts, but I choose not to let them ruin my outlook on the next 4-8 years.

Why?

This site has a mission. We should try to advance it. For now, that means doing what we can to push the legislative branch to obstruct his agenda as much as possible.

I could understand how some people thought that supporting Trump during the election was necessary to stave off what they perceived as the greater evil in Hillary. But that line of reasoning no longer applies. Why there are still people here inclined to support Trump, unless they're just trolling, is beyond me.

bunklocoempire
01-19-2017, 03:11 PM
Asking Judge Napolitano advice? Perfectly believable. Good on the Judge.

however-

Please take this Republican survey and help us determine what lip service you want from the party.

brushfire
01-19-2017, 04:01 PM
Its a long road to making american great again.... Some of these.... I'm completely confused on - he's contradicting himself on many of his promises.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjLaDgwyQw


Perhaps he's just setting up a board room where he routinely fires his people? Maybe he's turning the office of the president into some kind of political version of apprentice?

"Betsy DeVos, you're a beautiful woman, you got a lot of talent, but you supported common core - ya fiya'd ".

"Ricky Perry, you said you wanted to shut down the department of energy, I put you in a position to do so, and now you say you regret saying you wanted to shut down this department - I dont know what else to say, but ya fiya'd <flat_hand_gesture>"


"Mexico - you promised to pay for the wall, but you're not going to, so I'm sorry - ya fiya'd <flat_hand_gesture>"

"China, you evil, job taking mother-fkers, you took our jobs, you manipulate the currency, you spy on our people and steal our intellectual property, I like your moxie. Ya hiya'd"

Republicans control the Senate, House, and POTUS - surely they'll undo all the sh!t that those demo-fks did the decades prior - LOL nope... not looking like it. Who's leading the way out of the mess? That little eye doctor with the kinky hair - the not-so-presidential guy.

People - here's your leader, and you deserve everything you're going to get. Here's to the next 4 years.

dannno
01-19-2017, 05:37 PM
Ancaps don't advocate people be prosecuted for espionage against the state or lament members of Congress not attending a Presidential Inauguration. He's no ancap.

A lot of what the Judge says is interpretation of what the law IS, not what it should be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vdLXGNYK4U

dannno
01-19-2017, 05:40 PM
Why?

This site has a mission. We should try to advance it. For now, that means doing what we can to push the legislative branch to obstruct his agenda as much as possible.

I could understand how some people thought that supporting Trump during the election was necessary to stave off what they perceived as the greater evil in Hillary. But that line of reasoning no longer applies. Why there are still people here inclined to support Trump, unless they're just trolling, is beyond me.

lol, speaking of trolls, maybe you can explain why we should oppose a budget with massive spending cuts?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?506535-Trump-transition-team-preparing-budget-featuring-massive-federal-spending-cuts

robert68
01-20-2017, 01:20 PM
A lot of what the Judge says is interpretation of what the law IS, not what it should be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vdLXGNYK4U

What I wrote is a fact. No anarchist does what I pointed out he's done. He doesn’t even claim to be one in your video.

dannno
01-20-2017, 01:24 PM
What I wrote is a fact. No anarchist does what I cited he's done. He doesn’t even claim to be one in that video.

Those are all bad arguments. An anarchist might fight for minarchy because they prefer a smaller government to a bigger government, even if they have the ultimate goal of a voluntarist society. You can't claim to say what anarchists will or will not do.

The person asks, "I think you are an anarchist"

Judge says, "Do you see me denying anything?"

What exactly does that mean to you?

robert68
01-20-2017, 01:28 PM
No, you're irrational, likely know nothing about the Espionage Act, and believe to be true what you'd like to be true.

amartin315
01-26-2017, 07:29 AM
Judge Nap would be a tiny bit old for a SCOTUS pick, no? You want somebody who's like 30 and can lock up a seat for decades?

euphemia
01-26-2017, 07:56 AM
A thirtysomeyhing would not have the necessary resume to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. It requires four years of college plus law school. Then some work experience with connections and appointments. Maybe some teaching, but certainly a lot of writing. Those things take time. A thirtysomething would not have that body of work.

devil21
01-26-2017, 08:05 AM
Judge Nap would be a tiny bit old for a SCOTUS pick, no? You want somebody who's like 30 and can lock up a seat for decades?

Trump's top three picks have already been released. I know this will be a shock so you might want to sit down first.

Here goes......

Judge Napolitano is not on the list.