veronica_rich | Edwards trial and big picture

Edwards trial and big picture

Eight years ago, I voted for John Edwards - well, I voted for John Kerry, but Edwards was his VP candidate on the ticket, too. I liked some of his ideas, how he was one of the first to point out "the two Americas" and bring attention to the disparities in human services and distribution of opportunity in this country, and I liked that he didn't start out rich. (I'm also one of the few people who understands while you should never trust a lawyer too far, they're not usually evil bastards with no soul - I worked for a criminal defense lawyer for several years, knew others through him, and found they were basically decent people trying to make a living who largely believed even if a person HAD committed a crime, the justice system still needed to observe rules in treating them a certain way; trust me, they didn't like some of their clients any more than you or I would. And some of them even had lines - the one I worked for wouldn't take rape cases).

Yesterday, Edwards got off of federal charges of criminal use of campaign funds, on jury indecision and technicalities. Was this right? I don't know all the details, so I'm not going to tell you. I can say I don't think any conviction, had it happened, should have been based on his personal behavior involving his now-dead wife, mistress, and child - a low-down dirty dog he might be, but if there was campaign malfeasance, THAT'S what needed to be proven. (And I'm not saying there wasn't, just because it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt or convicted. Remember O.J. Simpson, y'all ...) For this reason alone, though, I know there are going to be people angry he didn't get his "just deserts." They're sure entitled to be angry with him personally, as am I. Possibly even on campaign finance law.

But what I want to know is, are these same people just as upset that there are war criminals still on the loose who were in charge of our country for the first several years of this century, who've never been charged or tried - one of whom got his portrait hung up in the White House yesterday? It's just a thought I had early this morning while driving to work.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

We can also turn this around and say not one (and it's true) of our presidents were ever totally decent people. The first bunch owned slaves or fought the natives. We had anti-semantic, male chauvinist, KKK members in office. (I personally can't say anything bad about Obama, I kinda like him.)

I believe the Christians have a saying, "He without sin may cast the first stone." I don't think any of us have that right. Sure what he did was not very nice, but nobody proved he used those funds to fund the hiding of his other baby momma. I guess the older I get the less i care about what they do in the privacy of their private lives and care that they don't take my rights away and start wars.

Carter, I think, may have come the closest to being a decent human being. Possibly Adams (the first; don't know about Quincy) as well. Nobody's perfect, but it seems like they at least did the best they could with what they had. (You could argue Lincoln was, too, but Lincoln was a schemer - what he did looks good in history, but at the time he had a lot of accusations of "he let his happen so he could better get this done" which is also a charge you could level against FDR - another good president IMO ... but we're talking about good human beings, not good presidents of course).

You are right about Carter. He's done more decent things outside of being President, then he did in office. He really is a good man. I don't fully trust people who's moral compass is more skewed then my own.(which is rather fucked up to say the least. My religion says as long as your not out killing people and raping babies we don't care what you do.)

I don't really trust any politician. They say one thing to get. elected, and do something else when in office.

Americans are out of work and these politicians are bad. mouthing the 1%, while having. no trouble asking for $40,000 a head for the "privilege" of eating with them. If they put that much effort into the National Debt we could be free in no time.

As for Bush I'm not sure how he is a war criminal. He's no saint I 'll give you that one.

Obama had all this "Hope and Change" baloney. To me. it's along the lines of "Wish in one hand and crap in the other." It's all the same. The only. "Hope" I see are Americans hoping they can find a job after 2+ years of looking. The change is when they have to move because their house has been in foreclosure. They can't pay the mortgage. The only change are stores closing and companies folding. They are not coming back. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing ads to help feed fellow Americans. Why ? Because we send aid to countries who hate us. If you're not with us, then go back to the stone age and figure out the problems in your own country. That money could pay the deficit. That money could feed Americans.

Focus on jobs. Let's chase every agenda, but getting the economy back on track.

People use to emigrate to become citizens. There use to be pride in being an American. Now we are assimilating to become like the immigrant, not the other way around. I shouldn't have to go to Sears and see no signs English. When Americans travel abroad you don't go into their store, you don't see signs in English. No, you learn their language, as it should be.

I don't care who gets in office. Let's stop this downward spiral to third world status.

As always Ver I do respect you very much. These are just issues I have in general with the political atmosphere and uncertainty of our times. I would love to have a respectful discussion with you.

(Dumbass LJ won't let me post a long reply. I have to split it up. *sigh* So read all 3 before you hop on any of it, because I may address what you're wondering further down into another ... LOL)

I think the hardest thing anyone can do is find a way to convey they're being respectful of someone as a person but still say "I don't agree with that." Because I think it means you're disagreeing with the person's reasoning, and many (if not most) people take offense to that. Sometimes I do, and I don't know if you do, but you might. So be aware that I disagree with your reasoning or conclusions sometimes, but don't associate your arguments with you as a total person - if that makes sense. *G* There was a time when as a country we recognized there are grades of good and bad, shades of gray (no, that that awful fanfiction book), but we've lost a lot of that in the last 20 years or so. (And while one might be able to put some blame on both sides NOW, the fact is I've been alive long enough to remember it was the elder Bush & Co. who kicked the whole "you're with us or agin' us" notion into high gear in the late 80s. I remember because there was a time in my youth that I did lean more Republican than Democrat, amazingly enough. There are things that pushed me away from that side of the center, though a centrist by and large, I remain.)

I don't disagree with everything you have here, but there are a couple, and I'll start with the main one that jumps out at me. At best you can say the Bush administration's invasion of Afghanistan was misguided, if well-intended and had some halfway standable logic behind it regarding bin Laden at the time. But move over to Iraq, and there's no question it was not justified - it was an act of war unsupported by any solid evidence of anything you're supposed to go to war over. There were officials in the administration at the time who never denied charges in later years that they manipulated WMD information and outright lied about much of it in order to justify the invasion to the U.S. citizenry. To me, lying in your official capacity to justify an act of war against another nation is a war crime.

My own mother, a lifelong Republican who never let any of MY opinions influence her in more than 30 years of my existence, was one of many who turned against Bush & Co. later in their terms because of this very thing - only, she didn't even wait until his second term. She changed her vote at the last minute in 2004 because she couldn't stand the idea of so many people being killed in a war that did not happen for the reasons the administration stated it was begun. This was based on her observations and news consumption (hence my remark about my opinion not mattering) and sense of right and wrong. She did not enjoy being fooled, especially on something like that.

(2)

As for jobs and the economy, it should be Job One to build it all back up. I always twitch a little, when I hear people insinuating this is all on Obama like he's the one who brought about our ruination in the last three and a half years. For one, he has tried some actions to stimulate sectors of the economy with jobs and spending - people who complain about stimulus packages and road work and unemployment benefits extensions and health care are not taking an important thing into account: A grand portion of the money spent on those initiatives is spent in local economies. (Some of it by necessity has to go elsewhere - all the petroleum-based materials in new and repaired highways, well, the oil probably isn't coming from the U.S.) Ditto with the auto companies' bailouts - the point was to preserve jobs, and there aren't as many as there were several years ago, but there are more than there would be if any one or two of the Big Three had gone under. (Hell, even Romney is trying to take credit for it now, and Bush, in one of the moves I approved, is the one who started that ball rolling in late 2008.) I'm not making excuses for or against either side, but whether it was Obama or McCain who came after Bush and Cheney, they had a HELL of a job to tackle rebuilding our economy. (And yes, this includes the long-term after-effects of NAFTA, which both Clinton and Bush Sr. are responsible for, the motherf****ers.)

For another thing, these two wars are tied to the economy. How can we spend 2-point-something-trillion on no-bid contracts and troops and weapons and rebuilding what we've bombed and it not affect our own economy here at home? It does; that's money we could have spent on education or stimulating our own businesses and organizations to improve society. If we didn't insist on having a war every 20 years or so just because we can, we'd still spend on troops and weapons to have in store, but it would be a fraction of the cost, plus mean less death and destruction. (Which, at the rate we're breeding, maybe that has to happen, I don't know ... but don't ask me to approve of it or want to pay for it.)

Of course "hope and change" was a bunch of words; both sides have used a variation of it for 230 years ... whatever the two sides are at the time, LOL. Obama promised to close Gitmo and hasn't; he promised a public option health care bill, then backed down on it, too. Also, he hasn't put an end to Afghanistan war like he should (to be fair, he never promised to do that - I paid attention and to my frustration, he never said anything on it). But, if there are two options, you better believe I'm not voting for the one that's aligning himself with the party of open greed and destruction and outrageous lies for the past two decades. It's possible Romney isn't a bad guy and would be a moderate on issues I care about moderation on, but I can't tell because like every other GOP candidate for years, he's trying to mollify the Jesus freaks (and I do mean the vocal, radical freaks - not sensible, thinking Christians) and Teabaggers, and paying little attention to the center.

(3)

The GOP is going down, and they've only themselves to blame. They cared more about grabbing the White House and Congress and marshaling the assets of corporate America on the backs of things like blowjobs and making sure we all were forced to agree that God approved of our massive military invasions over 19 assholes with four planes and their boss (who they happily helped fund years earlier, BTW), than in compromising on making laws and overseeing basic government functions we actually NEEDED. I remember the 80s; I'm not saying they were halcyon days, and there's a lot Reagan & Co. did that I disapprove of, but there was sure more compromise and moderate speech and give-and-take between the two parties then there is now, and you cannot blame Democrats equally for that loss - maybe some of it, but not even 50 percent, IMO. (Again, keep in mind I'm not Democrat, and I identify as Independent for a reason.)

Good lord, I didn't even address half of what you said, and I went off on tangents on things you didn't say, LOL. Diarrhea of the fingers. I guess you can say I mostly don't disagree, if I didn't bring up something. And, don't think I'm necessarily saying "because I'm saying this, I think you think the opposite" on something, because I'm just following my own thought trains, not just what you wrote.

As for the language thing, I DO think we need to make allowance for new immigrants and those who have a hard time learning the language (I for one am shit at learning new languages). But I'm also one of those who thinks even though we have no official language, we overwhelmingly speak English in this country, and a nation DOES need one central language that everybody eventually learns some basic communication in, in order to function more peacefully, so maybe we should make it official. Surely we can do this without destroying an immigrant's culture that they want to keep with them in some ways (though I am mindful that when we say "American" what we really mean is "old white European" for the most part - and I'm not sure that's always right). As you say, nobody should come here, or move at all, if they're not prepared to adjust in some part to the place they're going to.

Firstly, I wanted to thank you for your honesty and understanding. Your explanation was well executed.

So many times I have asked these very questions to others who are very left. They seem incredulous to the very idea that I'm by nature a conservative. I ask these questions to make informed choices, and not as a critique of someone else's beliefs. I honestly could not find any objection to anything you said.

Maybe Obama with another term can clean things up. Maybe Romney can fix things Obama couldn't. Ultimately, I think both sides can agree the system is broken. As to how to fix it, I don't know. Either way someone ends up unhappy. The amount of Government waste is staggering.

The hot issue for me is unemployment. Also the unjust treatment by the banks. They get bailout money, and have the nerve to foreclose on homes.

The Government is also getting a bit too Nanny State for me. New York wanting to cut the size of soda? If someone dies due to poor dietary habits, who is to blame?

Thank you again for your explanation of your feelings. I'm glad we can have these conversations, and not take it as a personal attack. Thank you for enlightening me. *G*

Glad to be of service. I got so used to being shut down long ago when I'd try to explain why I think things like this that it's a tendency to rant and be aggressive when I get to anymore, which is not often good. When I was young I took long-winded politicians and academics and such for granted and wondered, what's the point of repeating something different ways? But after 20 years of sound bites that tell you little of meaning, now I understand why consistency and long explanations are sometimes necessary (when they're not gobbledygook).

That soda thing is ridiculous. Plus, it's not a meaningful change - it won't be illegal to buy 32 ounces of soda, it just can't be in one container - so what's the real point of it from Bloomburg's POV? (I wonder if he realizes how many people don't even finish drinks that big; my sister frequently throws out close to half after a few hours - or take all day to drink it.) There has to be some financial incentive to cut the size of drink containers for restaurants, to him - I just don't know what it is ...

I'm not for more government regulations on individuals; a lot of liberals I know aren't. In fact, the ones I know feel the point of regulation is really to curb the disproportionate power that comes with earning/having a lot more more money than those who don't ... which is why there should be things like food inspections and pollution standards. A sizable corporation or wealthy individual with a business interest (like, Rupert Murdoch of Fox) has the connections to try to make lawmakers look the other way, for example, if they want to buy up all the media outlets in half the country in order to have a less diluted means of influencing public opinion. I'm picking this one because it happened during Reagan's time - he and his got rid of media antitrust laws that FDR had set up. Used to, the same company couldn't own more than so many papers and radio/TV licenses in a given area - the idea was to preserve multiple POVs in news and opinion coverage and discourage the means of propaganda, plus create local production jobs (remember how TV stations used to make local programs instead of just buying them all from a national source? It gave more writers and actors and producers something to do).

Anyway - I think govt. regulation should protect individual rights from undue influence the more powerful can exert in society which has shown can lead to some kind of harm (polluted air from emissions, poor food processing, rampant one-POV propaganda, etc.). Choosing your own soda size isn't really on that list for me. ;-)

But, I know some conservatives don't realize that, maybe because the extreme left can be as shrill and unwilling to be reasonable or clear as the extreme right. I detest most extremism, period; it leaves no room to fix stuff. Some really DO want to regulate everything and everyone, which is as shortsighted as the extreme opposite that opposes any regs. (I know a few conservatives who are really convinced NO limits are needed on private enterprise. One has told me in all seriousness that pollution standards aren't necessary, because why would factory and vehicle manuf. owners want to make their customer base sick or kill them off? I replied that as long as there's a steady stream of purchasing, what do they care if it's the same people or their descendants, or if they're at 100% health? This leads into a big rant about trying to outlaw sex ed, abortion, and birth control and cut down on public education funding that I won't go into here - but I promise it'd be a doozy, LOL.)

I always look forward to your political posts (even though I rarely comment on them). I generally agree with everything you write in these posts and you put your thoughts down in a way I don't think I could. Cudos.
(I can't even really comment on the other comments you've replied to others because I even agree with your further explanations. It kinda suck having nothing to add. LOL)

I always look forward to writing the political posts. Where else am I going to get out all my Feelings on this stuff so I can sound sane IRL? I deal with SO MANY people ideologically opposite me that I really do have to modulate how I phrase things - I feel like here, I ought to be able to write whatever and exorcise it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Edwards trial and big picture

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject