ldrews

So, do you think Sanders has an obligation to be direct, non-evasive, and truthful at the expense of her employer, the POTUS? Whatever gave you that idea? Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

Thanks for the interest, but I find OCP a bit too complex for me. At my age I have a definite limit on the complexity that I can handle.

I am not Trump, and she seems competent to me. Her job is to represent Trump and the administration to the press and handle the press questions while maintaining the adminstration(Trump's point of view. You don't have to agree with that point of view to see that she does a competent job.

Why? Because she is doing her job?

With the way that we throw words and labels around I thought it might be useful to review the actual definitions of some of those words. From Merriam-Webster: Socialism: 1 :any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a :a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b :a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 :a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition Communism: 1 a :a theory advocating elimination of private property b :a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed 2 capitalized a :a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official I ideology of the U.S.S.R. b :a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c :a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d :communist systems collectively Authoritarian: 1 :of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents 2 :of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people an authoritarian regime Dictatorship: 1 :the office of dictator 2 :autocratic rule, control, or leadership people suffering under his dictatorship 3 a :a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique Communism and dictatorship b :a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated rising up against a military dictatorship c :a despotic state establishing a dictatorship

Looking for an intermediate/advanced player, located in US timezones, who would be interested in regularly playing/learning a Strong Club/ Weak NT/ 2/1 Major bidding system (Precision). Have system, will teach. Less complex than Oliver Clark's Precision (OCP), more symmetrical and refined than Wei Precision. Open to learning/using Dan O'Neil's Standard Modern Precision (Meckwell Lite).

OMG, are you still reading the Washington Post? No wonder you have the ideas that you do.

So then the question is: Why are the Democrats doing so poorly at the state level? And what do they need to do to reverse that situation?

I agree but that requires the Democrats to actually win more elections at the state level. Again, something that isn't happening.

The Republicans are able to hold the government hostage only because they are winning the elections. The solution is obvious, Democrats have to start winning more elections at both the state and federal levels. That doesn't seem to be happening. What do you think it takes for the Democrats to be more successful?

For me Hillary was not a realistic alternative.

What was the realistic alternative?

This all sounds like we have the opportunity to evaluate Trump before electing him. That ship has sailed.

As you point out, Trump did a good act with respect to Hurricane Harvey. Perhaps more await us.

So did St. Anthony, the patron saint of animals.

Yes, Trump's total disregard for other people's lives was evident in his handling of Hurricane Harvey.

It seems to me that President Trump is very much subject to "the rule of law". A special prosecutor is investigating him and his campaign team for violations of laws, several senators are talking of impeachment, etc. President Trump is not considered "above the law" in any sense. His actions, however disagreeable, seem to be within the scope of the law pertaining to the powers of the Presidency. In my opinion he is following the "rule of law". He may indeed have to answer for his actions politically, but that has nothing to do with "the rule of law".

The most recent case of someone not following the "rule of law" for me is Hillary Clinton and her email server. Apparently Comey drafted a memo exonerating Hillary Clinton some time before interviewing many key witnesses and completing the investigation in a normal manner. Comey's decision to not prosecute, even with credible evidence, based on his judgement that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Hillary. All of this indicates to me that "the fix was in". This is a case of an individual being held to be above the law, not accountable. This, to me, is a case of not following "the rule of law".

OK, so what is your definition of "rule of law". How does someone know if they are following it or not? I personally think everyone should be held legally accountable for violations of laws. I personally think that politicians should be held accountable for their actions via the ballot box, or in the case of the egregious actions, impeachment. I personally don't want to confuse the two.

So, what I hear you saying is that if President Trump takes actions that are fully lawful, i.e., are permitted or not prohibited by existing law, but enough people consider it to be an abuse, then President Trump is not following the "rule of law". Is that correct?

And what is your definition of "adhering to the rule of law"?

hrothgar, are you a liberal? It seems to be a common characteristic of liberals to accuse others of the very sins that they themselves are committing. If so, it would explain the hostility you express to someone who does not share your views.

Excuse me, were you just lecturing me?

Ah, how perceptive! You are right, I do not speak French and was parroting what I have read elsewhere. But go ahead, ignore the main thought and pick on the details.

For some reason I am reminded of the French Revolution, or rather the period just prior. The elite felt secure in their dominant positions, epitomized by Marie Antionette's famouse remark "Let them eat cake!! (which today is widely misunderstood, "cake" at that time referred to the leftover crust from baking bread). But then came the Revolution and the guillotines. The peasants didn't understand logic or facts either. And then there was Mao Zedong's Long March in China, with "re-education camps" for the elite and intellectuals. The peasants there didn't appreciate logic and facts either. One might want to reconsider pissing off a large segment of people by using condescending language and tone, calling them "deplorables", calling them racist, nazis, homophobes, etc., and telling them they just don't understand logic and facts.