Has anybody ever been convinced here by opposing talk? Has anybody ever changed their mind? I think this forum and others like it just strengthens everybody in their chosen positions.

Over the years, I have changed slightly on two issues - the Wall and abortion - both in the direction of being more conservative.

I have been surprised by the number of left-wingers that abandon the discussion(s) rather than present their case. Sometimes I wonder if they just prefer venues where everybody already agrees with them.

In the case of the younger people here, I think(hope) that with age will come less idealism and more pragmatism. But that is for the future, long after I am dust, not now.

(12-06-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, everything I've read said that executive privilege only applies to advice regarding execution of the office of POTUS, not personal matters.

In the case of, say, someone coming in and talking to Trump about a reality TV show, you would be correct that that 'personal advice' would not be covered.

Quote:So shouldn't there be a limit to advisers in official roles, as a way to make it clear what advice is personal vs in the execution of office?

You assume that advice on Presidential issues is limited to people who inhabit official positions. I wouldnt necessarily make that limitation. A President can have a trusted adviser who isnt an official.

For example, let us assume that Trump has a relationship as deep with Melania as Shrub had/has with Laura Bush (a big stretch in this circumstance....). No offense but I am very much aware that Laura was enormously influential in Shrubs thought process on large gamut of issues. (Knowledge from fairly good family friends who are and have been personal friends of Laura and Shrub for 30 years). I would have zero problem extending the Presidential privilege and attendant immunity to Laura Bush.

But if the orange man is as isolated from Melania as might be the case (given a large number of factors), then I might have an issue with that same exercise.

The issue (to me at least) is kind of a product test: multiply the deepness of the advice by the importance of the advice to get a final weight.

In that realm, if the Senator's aide renders extremely important and candid advice in a limited instance, then perhaps the immunity and privilege should attach.

But the key is to enable frank and open discussion and advice. When yo uself-limit to any particular factor as a bright line, you diminish the impact on the objective you wish to protect: i.e. frank, honest, and open discussion.

That is the underlying importance to *any* privilege, whether it be clergy, doctor, attorney, spousal, *and* executive. Executive is special because they have the additional quiver of being able to cover with immunity from subpoena far more readily than the other privileges.

Quote:And I know you don't care if I'm convinced - I'm just discussing this topic because it's of interest and you seem to know a lot and have a strong opinion about it.

Privilege is a fundamental underpinning of my profession. It is an incredibly valuable asset to be able to have open and frank discussions. I could not see how a legal system could operate without it, to be honest. And the same extends to the medical profession.

(12-06-2019 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Privilege is a fundamental underpinning of my profession. It is an incredibly valuable asset to be able to have open and frank discussions. I could not see how a legal system could operate without it, to be honest. And the same extends to the medical profession.

The Nazi and Soviet systems attempted to operate without it. Oh, yeah, they didn't turn out so well.

(12-06-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Has anybody ever been convinced here by opposing talk? Has anybody ever changed their mind? I think this forum and others like it just strengthens everybody in their chosen positions.

Over the years, I have changed slightly on two issues - the Wall and abortion - both in the direction of being more conservative.

I have been surprised by the number of left-wingers that abandon the discussion(s) rather than present their case. Sometimes I wonder if they just prefer venues where everybody already agrees with them.

In the case of the younger people here, I think(hope) that with age will come less idealism and more pragmatism. But that is for the future, long after I am dust, not now.

I changed dramatically on two big issues, the death penalty and abortion. And both in a sharply more liberal direction.

I turned more 'conservative' on firearm control, and turned far more conservative on
penalties for firearm law convictions (almost Singapore conservative on the latter).

But the rationale behind my change on imposing a death penalty has been described by some as a 'harsh change', not a fully 'feel good' basis behind it.

(12-06-2019 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You assume that advice on Presidential issues is limited to people who inhabit official positions. I wouldnt necessarily make that limitation. A President can have a trusted adviser who isnt an official.

Valerie Jarrett

(12-06-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Has anybody ever been convinced here by opposing talk? Has anybody ever changed their mind? I think this forum and others like it just strengthens everybody in their chosen positions.
Over the years, I have changed slightly on two issues - the Wall and abortion - both in the direction of being more conservative.
I have been surprised by the number of left-wingers that abandon the discussion(s) rather than present their case. Sometimes I wonder if they just prefer venues where everybody already agrees with them.
In the case of the younger people here, I think(hope) that with age will come less idealism and more pragmatism. But that is for the future, long after I am dust, not now.

I changed dramatically on two big issues, the death penalty and abortion. And both in a sharply more liberal direction.
I turned more 'conservative' on firearm control, and turned far more conservative on penalties for firearm law convictions (almost Singapore conservative on the latter).
But the rationale behind my change on imposing a death penalty has been described by some as a 'harsh change', not a fully 'feel good' basis behind it.

I really can't think of any issue where I've had a major change since my teen years. I've always had a pretty libertarian viewpoint and pretty healthy disrespect for overbearing government. I remember my alumni interview when I applied to Rice. The interviewer asked me, "Do you consider yourself a liberal or conservative?" I responded (probably the first time I had ever expressed this as directly), "I am conservative on things like defense and fiscal policy, but liberal on personal issues." I've pretty much stayed right there.

I learned that I was actually a "classical liberal" when we read Friedman's CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM in ECON 201. I changed my major to math and economics because I decided that in 3 years at Rice, that was the first thing I had read that made sense to me.

I have always opposed the death penalty. And since becoming aware of the issue, I've always favored abortion with limits. I also favor equality for gays and lesbians, but not some of the extreme measures now being pushed. My biggies are probably fiscal responsibility and pro-2nd Amendment (that distrust of government thing).

(12-06-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Has anybody ever been convinced here by opposing talk? Has anybody ever changed their mind? I think this forum and others like it just strengthens everybody in their chosen positions.

Over the years, I have changed slightly on two issues - the Wall and abortion - both in the direction of being more conservative.

I have been surprised by the number of left-wingers that abandon the discussion(s) rather than present their case. Sometimes I wonder if they just prefer venues where everybody already agrees with them.

In the case of the younger people here, I think(hope) that with age will come less idealism and more pragmatism. But that is for the future, long after I am dust, not now.

I changed dramatically on two big issues, the death penalty and abortion. And both in a sharply more liberal direction.

I turned more 'conservative' on firearm control, and turned far more conservative on
penalties for firearm law convictions (almost Singapore conservative on the latter).

But the rationale behind my change on imposing a death penalty has been described by some as a 'harsh change', not a fully 'feel good' basis behind it.

I was always against the death penalty, from the first day I thought about it. Further thought and discussion has only strengthened that position, although I think there are certainly those that "deserve' it. But I think the death penalty demeans me more than it punishes them.

I have never and still do not take either a pro-life or a pro-choice stance. I see good and bad in both. (RVW happened in my late 20's, so I saw the world where abortion was illegal, and now I have seen the one where it is legal). But I do believe the "fetus' is a human being, just one in a very early stage of development. That belief slowly emerged in arguments with those on the left who tried to say the fetus is not a human being. I don't believe abortion is murder; it is a lawful killing of a human being. Whether it should be lawful is a different debate, and one I don't have a position on.

(12-06-2019 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I learned that I was actually a "classical liberal" when we read Friedman's CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM in ECON 201. I changed my major to math and economics because I decided that in 3 years at Rice, that was the first thing I had read that made sense to me.

My tipping point was THE ROAD TO SERFDOM when I was out on a seismic boat.

The nail in the coffin was your same Friedman text on the same (what turned out to be) 6 week 'tour of duty'.

Bizarrely I read Rand's FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED in the same semester sophomore year at Rice, and neither at the time motivated me the same way that Hayek and Friedman did back to back.

(12-06-2019 11:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I learned that I was actually a "classical liberal" when we read Friedman's CAPITALISM AND FREEDOM in ECON 201. I changed my major to math and economics because I decided that in 3 years at Rice, that was the first thing I had read that made sense to me.

My tipping point was THE ROAD TO SERFDOM when I was out on a seismic boat.
The nail in the coffin was your same Friedman text on the same (what turned out to be) 6 week 'tour of duty'.
Bizarrely I read Rand's FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED in the same semester sophomore year at Rice, and neither at the time motivated me the same way that Hayek and Friedman did back to back.

I've never really gotten into Rand. Her writing style just doesn't resonate with me.

266K new jobs, more than experts expected

Unemployment down again to 3.5%.

I bet there are those in the upper levels of the DNC saying "Will this NEVER end?

(12-06-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In the case of the younger people here, I think(hope) that with age will come less idealism and more pragmatism. But that is for the future, long after I am dust, not now.

(11-26-2019 04:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'm so excited for the day when I finally accept that a better world isn't possible. Only then will I be truly free.

(12-06-2019 11:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In the case of the younger people here, I think(hope) that with age will come less idealism and more pragmatism. But that is for the future, long after I am dust, not now.

(11-26-2019 04:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'm so excited for the day when I finally accept that a better world isn't possible. Only then will I be truly free.

Well, Fountains, I have not yet seen that day. I feel bad for you if that is truly your hope.

But i differ in the ways I expect the world to get better from the ways I thought 50 years ago. I am not frozen in time.

(12-06-2019 11:58 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  I'm so excited for the day when I finally accept that a better world isn't possible. Only then will I be truly free.

I'm just hoping for the day that you and all your fellow travelers realize that your way won't get us to that better world. Then we might truly have a chance to be free.

(12-06-2019 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 10:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 08:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 01:33 AM)mrbig Wrote:  When there is an impeachment inquiry, I don't think executive branch employees should be allowed to defy the subpoena. Full stop.

Why not? Based upon what interpretation of what law?

I literally said earlier that I'm not educated in the law of this area and not comfortable giving my own legal opinions since I work for the DOJ. So it is just my personal opinion of how I believe things should work and not based on any interpretation of any law.

So, this is basically simply an "Orange Man Bad" argument with no legal support? Did you support Holder's refusal to respond to subpoenas about Fast and Furious?

Read my previous posts. I already said I was not familiar with Holder's position, and that even if I was familiar, as a DOJ employee now and at that time, it would be wildly inappropriate for me to offer legal analysis on that specifically.

And I just wrote that I think Congress needs to pass a statute outlining the procedures for impeachment (which would include subpoena power). So it doesn't have anything to do with "Orange Man Bad". I want something that consistently be applied to all similar disputes between the legislative branch and executive branch regardless of whom is in power of either branch.

(12-06-2019 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I trust congress more than I trust unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Not much, but more.

Should I take that personally?

(12-06-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of divisiveness and incivility,

death threats to Turley

more

The single minded passion on the Left to get Trump makes it dangerous to voice a contrary opinion.

I only pop in here occasionally. Were you also concerned about the death threats received by Christine Blasey Ford, Rashida Talib, AOC, and many more? Or just the GOP witness dude? I'm concerned about all of them, but sadly it happens so often now that it isn't really worth complaining about.

(12-06-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Has anybody ever been convinced here by opposing talk? Has anybody ever changed their mind? I think this forum and others like it just strengthens everybody in their chosen positions.

I am not a proponent of an assault weapons ban because of some of the conversations I have had here. Not that I am an opponent either, but I don't view it as an effective means to accomplish the goals of gun control advocates. I have moved slightly to the right on abortion since college (I was never far left and am still left of center). I am more concerned about the national debt than I used to be. There are a few other issues where I have shifted, though they aren't coming to mind right now.

(12-06-2019 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  266K new jobs, more than experts expected

Unemployment down again to 3.5%.

I bet there are those in the upper levels of the DNC saying "Will this NEVER end?

Job growth under Trump has been virtually identical to job growth under Obama (outside of Obama's first 2 years coming out of the recession). I'm sure you know this, so I don't understand your point. The economy is cyclical and presidents get too much credit and too much blame, plus there is a lag factor after a law passes. I guess it is politically good for Trump that things haven't changed or fallen apart since his election. But I'm not convinced the people who were hurting in 2016 when he was elected have seen the economy improve in ways that have benefited them.

Without looking it up, pick out the Obama or Trump years. This is average job growth per month for each calendar year starting with 2012, but ordered from highest to lowest rather than chronologically:
250,500
227,417
223,250
193,167
191,833
181,167
179,727
179,417

I'm not going to make the point that job growth was better under Obama or Trump. My point is that regardless of which measure you use, there hasn't been a significant change in job growth over the last 8.8 years.

That flushing toilets comment makes me think of Ron Burgundy and his teleprompter.

(12-06-2019 03:51 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking of divisiveness and incivility,

death threats to Turley

more

The single minded passion on the Left to get Trump makes it dangerous to voice a contrary opinion.

I only pop in here occasionally. Were you also concerned about the death threats received by Christine Blasey Ford, Rashida Talib, AOC, and many more? Or just the GOP witness dude? I'm concerned about all of them, but sadly it happens so often now that it isn't really worth complaining about.

I think it likely you are regretting your most recent pop in.

I was no more, no less concerned about the threats received by those people. I think it unlikely that anybody will actually try to kill anybody, despite the example of the guy who shot Scalise.

I think the demands that Turley be fired are actually more concerning. That seems to be a growing part of the left arsenal. Speak up, say your mind, then lose your job for it.

But i do think the reaction that Turley should be fired or be lkilled for not going in lockstep with the others toward a predetermiined goal to be very concerning.

In an atmosphere where the right is blamed for the divisiveness, I think these things need to be pointed out.

(12-06-2019 04:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-06-2019 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  266K new jobs, more than experts expected

Unemployment down again to 3.5%.

I bet there are those in the upper levels of the DNC saying "Will this NEVER end?

Job growth under Trump has been virtually identical to job growth under Obama (outside of Obama's first 2 years coming out of the recession). I'm sure you know this, so I don't understand your point. The economy is cyclical and presidents get too much credit and too much blame, plus there is a lag factor after a law passes. I guess it is politically good for Trump that things haven't changed or fallen apart since his election. But I'm not convinced the people who were hurting in 2016 when he was elected have seen the economy improve in ways that have benefited them.

Without looking it up, pick out the Obama or Trump years. This is average job growth per month for each calendar year starting with 2012, but ordered from highest to lowest rather than chronologically:
250,500
227,417
223,250
193,167
191,833
181,167
179,727
179,417

I'm not going to make the point that job growth was better under Obama or Trump. My point is that regardless of which measure you use, there hasn't been a significant change in job growth over the last 8.8 years.

MY point was in the last sentence,. Times are good, as evidenced by multiple indices, including (but not limited to) job growth and unemployment index. I think for the ones who think the most important thing in the world is to get Trump, a downturn in the economy would be a welcome aid in that project.

I guess I could have also(or instead) mentioned the stock market, but last time there were some who thought it a non-indicator of economic robustness.