by Ugh
The ongoing dumpster fire of sh1t dark fascist comedy (with a heart) that is 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump (emphasis added) continues beyond all expectations. It really is quite something, he says. At this rate I half expect Trump, upon the advice of new campaign "chief executive" Stephen CBannon (replacing, uh, Donald Trump?) of the Wonderful World of Breitbart "News", to charge across the stage at the first Presidential debate and eat Hillary Clinton's face in a Lecter-esque flakka-infused rage that he will later attempt to pass off as sarcasm and then double down as getting in touch with his inner-chimp and part of his continued performance art fight against political correctness.
Meanwhile, the media continues in its stupor to somehow manage to portray Paul Ryan and Mike Pence as "moderate" and "sane" GOPers, which is the one silver lining of Trump, I suppose, for the GOP in now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for "extremist views" will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a "serious policy wonk" by media acclimation.
But really, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et. al. need to have Trump hung around their necks and go down with the ship instead of somehow existing in a kind of political Schrödinger's Cat state of supporting the nominee while also condemning him. He's your party's nominee Paul! Own him! It's the GOP's base!
And I'm sure that by 2020 various GOPers will have convinced themselves and many of their voters that Trump was actually the Democrat's nominee in 2016, kind of like there having been no terrorist attacks committed by muslims in the United States before Obama became President or that George W. Bush "kept us safe!"
Whee.
I convess, the new team at the top of the Trump campaign had me simply at a loss for words. Just the latest in the on-going series of “If I told you, two weeks ago, that they would do this, would you have believed it for an instant? Or would you have been sure I was insane?”
It does make me wonder one thing. How will they contrive to outdo themselves, come the debates? I suspect that the Clinton Campaign, as they do their debate prep, are asking exactly that question. How do you help your candidate get beyond surprise, when a failure of imagination seems all too likely?
I convess, the new team at the top of the Trump campaign had me simply at a loss for words. Just the latest in the on-going series of “If I told you, two weeks ago, that they would do this, would you have believed it for an instant? Or would you have been sure I was insane?”
It does make me wonder one thing. How will they contrive to outdo themselves, come the debates? I suspect that the Clinton Campaign, as they do their debate prep, are asking exactly that question. How do you help your candidate get beyond surprise, when a failure of imagination seems all too likely?
I convess, the new team at the top of the Trump campaign had me simply at a loss for words. Just the latest in the on-going series of “If I told you, two weeks ago, that they would do this, would you have believed it for an instant? Or would you have been sure I was insane?”
It does make me wonder one thing. How will they contrive to outdo themselves, come the debates? I suspect that the Clinton Campaign, as they do their debate prep, are asking exactly that question. How do you help your candidate get beyond surprise, when a failure of imagination seems all too likely?
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-campaign-is-basically-a-rss-feed-of-russian-disinformation-and-white-supremacist-sites
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-campaign-is-basically-a-rss-feed-of-russian-disinformation-and-white-supremacist-sites
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-campaign-is-basically-a-rss-feed-of-russian-disinformation-and-white-supremacist-sites
“If John Doe’s head splits open and a UFO should fly out, I want you to have expected it.”
Actually, it’s quite remarkable how David Fincher was able to make a documentary about the Trump campaign 20 years before Donald announced his run for the 2016 GOP nomination.
“If John Doe’s head splits open and a UFO should fly out, I want you to have expected it.”
Actually, it’s quite remarkable how David Fincher was able to make a documentary about the Trump campaign 20 years before Donald announced his run for the 2016 GOP nomination.
“If John Doe’s head splits open and a UFO should fly out, I want you to have expected it.”
Actually, it’s quite remarkable how David Fincher was able to make a documentary about the Trump campaign 20 years before Donald announced his run for the 2016 GOP nomination.
and people are still falling for it.
the world confounds.
and people are still falling for it.
the world confounds.
and people are still falling for it.
the world confounds.
When I was a kid, really quite young, I had vivid nightmares, repeated quite often, of being chased and attacked by indomitable, inexorable foes, always human-seeming but not possessing human qualities.
For example, one of the usual ones was that our house was surrounded by SS Nazi troops and one time, still dreaming, I sleep-walked into my mother’s bedroom and found her in her bathroom getting ready for bed (my Dad was out of town) and (my mother related this story to me, though I also remember every word I said to her) I spent the next ten minutes or so pleading with her desperately to wake the other kids and get out of the house and hide.
We must kill them before they kill us, I pled. My mother many years later told me that I was so persistent that for a moment or two, late at night with the house dark and my Dad not present, that a chill ran up her spine and just for a moment she thought about parting the curtains and taking a look outside to see if maybe I was on to something.
This is why the original “Invasion of The Body Snatchers” film struck such a note with me, to this day; it’s one my central metaphors, one’s humanity being stripped from one, usually while sleeping, and you would become empty consuming husks, the empathy glands switched off.
But the oddest, most horrifying part of these dreams was after awakening. Then reality, item, speech, actions, were acutely sped up, as in fast forward, hurtling toward some doom which I was unable to slow down, let alone process.
I would sit over my Rice Krispies at the kitchen table …. where Republicans, mistaking themselves for government, gather their families to decide whether or not to bomb the neighbors or stop payments for Sis’s chemo and evict her because now that the neighbors are dead, we can’t tax them anymore … and I would try to contain this literally physical sensation of hurtling toward some unknown fate.
This is what reality feels like to me now. What is happening is a perfectly logical progression from the steady drumbeat of hate pounding like a metronome into America’s consciousness from the usual not-quite-human suspects over the past 35 years toward the OTHER, toward government, toward every f*cking thing they find objectionable, toward everything but their own narrow self-interest.
Only, now it’s sped up. It just keeps coming harder and faster like the birds hurtling against
Tippy Hedren’s boarded up windows in the Hitchcock movie.
Meanwhile, vermin, subhuman, sadistic zombie alien murderer … sorry, I misspoke, Governor Jan Brewer is what the bug that crawled up the ass of her formerly, now a husk, human self… Good grief! …. is having one of those strange Tourette episodes, happening more and more, daily … numerous times, in quick time, among the shit for brains slithering, meat-eating reptile called the Republican Party.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jan-brewer-clinton-lying-killer-mispronunciation
Like I told me mother more nearly 60 years ago, we’re going to have to kill them before they kill us.
When I was a kid, really quite young, I had vivid nightmares, repeated quite often, of being chased and attacked by indomitable, inexorable foes, always human-seeming but not possessing human qualities.
For example, one of the usual ones was that our house was surrounded by SS Nazi troops and one time, still dreaming, I sleep-walked into my mother’s bedroom and found her in her bathroom getting ready for bed (my Dad was out of town) and (my mother related this story to me, though I also remember every word I said to her) I spent the next ten minutes or so pleading with her desperately to wake the other kids and get out of the house and hide.
We must kill them before they kill us, I pled. My mother many years later told me that I was so persistent that for a moment or two, late at night with the house dark and my Dad not present, that a chill ran up her spine and just for a moment she thought about parting the curtains and taking a look outside to see if maybe I was on to something.
This is why the original “Invasion of The Body Snatchers” film struck such a note with me, to this day; it’s one my central metaphors, one’s humanity being stripped from one, usually while sleeping, and you would become empty consuming husks, the empathy glands switched off.
But the oddest, most horrifying part of these dreams was after awakening. Then reality, item, speech, actions, were acutely sped up, as in fast forward, hurtling toward some doom which I was unable to slow down, let alone process.
I would sit over my Rice Krispies at the kitchen table …. where Republicans, mistaking themselves for government, gather their families to decide whether or not to bomb the neighbors or stop payments for Sis’s chemo and evict her because now that the neighbors are dead, we can’t tax them anymore … and I would try to contain this literally physical sensation of hurtling toward some unknown fate.
This is what reality feels like to me now. What is happening is a perfectly logical progression from the steady drumbeat of hate pounding like a metronome into America’s consciousness from the usual not-quite-human suspects over the past 35 years toward the OTHER, toward government, toward every f*cking thing they find objectionable, toward everything but their own narrow self-interest.
Only, now it’s sped up. It just keeps coming harder and faster like the birds hurtling against
Tippy Hedren’s boarded up windows in the Hitchcock movie.
Meanwhile, vermin, subhuman, sadistic zombie alien murderer … sorry, I misspoke, Governor Jan Brewer is what the bug that crawled up the ass of her formerly, now a husk, human self… Good grief! …. is having one of those strange Tourette episodes, happening more and more, daily … numerous times, in quick time, among the shit for brains slithering, meat-eating reptile called the Republican Party.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jan-brewer-clinton-lying-killer-mispronunciation
Like I told me mother more nearly 60 years ago, we’re going to have to kill them before they kill us.
When I was a kid, really quite young, I had vivid nightmares, repeated quite often, of being chased and attacked by indomitable, inexorable foes, always human-seeming but not possessing human qualities.
For example, one of the usual ones was that our house was surrounded by SS Nazi troops and one time, still dreaming, I sleep-walked into my mother’s bedroom and found her in her bathroom getting ready for bed (my Dad was out of town) and (my mother related this story to me, though I also remember every word I said to her) I spent the next ten minutes or so pleading with her desperately to wake the other kids and get out of the house and hide.
We must kill them before they kill us, I pled. My mother many years later told me that I was so persistent that for a moment or two, late at night with the house dark and my Dad not present, that a chill ran up her spine and just for a moment she thought about parting the curtains and taking a look outside to see if maybe I was on to something.
This is why the original “Invasion of The Body Snatchers” film struck such a note with me, to this day; it’s one my central metaphors, one’s humanity being stripped from one, usually while sleeping, and you would become empty consuming husks, the empathy glands switched off.
But the oddest, most horrifying part of these dreams was after awakening. Then reality, item, speech, actions, were acutely sped up, as in fast forward, hurtling toward some doom which I was unable to slow down, let alone process.
I would sit over my Rice Krispies at the kitchen table …. where Republicans, mistaking themselves for government, gather their families to decide whether or not to bomb the neighbors or stop payments for Sis’s chemo and evict her because now that the neighbors are dead, we can’t tax them anymore … and I would try to contain this literally physical sensation of hurtling toward some unknown fate.
This is what reality feels like to me now. What is happening is a perfectly logical progression from the steady drumbeat of hate pounding like a metronome into America’s consciousness from the usual not-quite-human suspects over the past 35 years toward the OTHER, toward government, toward every f*cking thing they find objectionable, toward everything but their own narrow self-interest.
Only, now it’s sped up. It just keeps coming harder and faster like the birds hurtling against
Tippy Hedren’s boarded up windows in the Hitchcock movie.
Meanwhile, vermin, subhuman, sadistic zombie alien murderer … sorry, I misspoke, Governor Jan Brewer is what the bug that crawled up the ass of her formerly, now a husk, human self… Good grief! …. is having one of those strange Tourette episodes, happening more and more, daily … numerous times, in quick time, among the shit for brains slithering, meat-eating reptile called the Republican Party.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jan-brewer-clinton-lying-killer-mispronunciation
Like I told me mother more nearly 60 years ago, we’re going to have to kill them before they kill us.
“item”?
Read “time”.
“item”?
Read “time”.
“item”?
Read “time”.
Maybe Aetna is planning on getting into the organ-harvesting business after if recovers the corpses of its victims.
http://juanitajean.com/you-used-to-call-this-blackmail/
Send those kidneys to the mother-ship.
Maybe Aetna is planning on getting into the organ-harvesting business after if recovers the corpses of its victims.
http://juanitajean.com/you-used-to-call-this-blackmail/
Send those kidneys to the mother-ship.
Maybe Aetna is planning on getting into the organ-harvesting business after if recovers the corpses of its victims.
http://juanitajean.com/you-used-to-call-this-blackmail/
Send those kidneys to the mother-ship.
Count,
any minute now you’re going to wake up, and find that you’re a kid again.
Count,
any minute now you’re going to wake up, and find that you’re a kid again.
Count,
any minute now you’re going to wake up, and find that you’re a kid again.
In early 2009, after Dubya made the GOP massively unpopular, the “Teabaggers” started up, claiming that the were NOT Republicans. Yes, of course, they were. It was just a limited modified hangout, to get past a few years of really, really bad branding.
Expect something similar in early 2017. It might not catch on, it’ll probably have a new name, they’ll initially claim that they’re NOT GOPers (in spite of all evidence to the contrary), and probably include a few members that *claim* to be former Dhimmicrats to add some bipartisan credibility.
Either that, or (as Count seems to be predicting) they’ll go on a violent rampage, and have to be put down like rabid weasels.
In early 2009, after Dubya made the GOP massively unpopular, the “Teabaggers” started up, claiming that the were NOT Republicans. Yes, of course, they were. It was just a limited modified hangout, to get past a few years of really, really bad branding.
Expect something similar in early 2017. It might not catch on, it’ll probably have a new name, they’ll initially claim that they’re NOT GOPers (in spite of all evidence to the contrary), and probably include a few members that *claim* to be former Dhimmicrats to add some bipartisan credibility.
Either that, or (as Count seems to be predicting) they’ll go on a violent rampage, and have to be put down like rabid weasels.
In early 2009, after Dubya made the GOP massively unpopular, the “Teabaggers” started up, claiming that the were NOT Republicans. Yes, of course, they were. It was just a limited modified hangout, to get past a few years of really, really bad branding.
Expect something similar in early 2017. It might not catch on, it’ll probably have a new name, they’ll initially claim that they’re NOT GOPers (in spite of all evidence to the contrary), and probably include a few members that *claim* to be former Dhimmicrats to add some bipartisan credibility.
Either that, or (as Count seems to be predicting) they’ll go on a violent rampage, and have to be put down like rabid weasels.
No need to abandon the GOP banner since it will (again) be claimed that Trump was a Clinton plant (like Dubya was not ‘really’ a GOPster but a liberal in disguise).
No need to abandon the GOP banner since it will (again) be claimed that Trump was a Clinton plant (like Dubya was not ‘really’ a GOPster but a liberal in disguise).
No need to abandon the GOP banner since it will (again) be claimed that Trump was a Clinton plant (like Dubya was not ‘really’ a GOPster but a liberal in disguise).
My prediction: the GOP will lose the senate but not go below 40, so they can and will keep their policy of total blockade and the Dems will not effectively challenge them*. The House will stay in GOP hands and do the same. In the midterms, with even lower voter participation than usual, they will retake the senate with a fair chance of getting to 60. Then all bets are off.
*even where the filibuster got officially abandoned but definitely with SCOTUS nominees. Court unpacking will proceed as planned.
My prediction: the GOP will lose the senate but not go below 40, so they can and will keep their policy of total blockade and the Dems will not effectively challenge them*. The House will stay in GOP hands and do the same. In the midterms, with even lower voter participation than usual, they will retake the senate with a fair chance of getting to 60. Then all bets are off.
*even where the filibuster got officially abandoned but definitely with SCOTUS nominees. Court unpacking will proceed as planned.
My prediction: the GOP will lose the senate but not go below 40, so they can and will keep their policy of total blockade and the Dems will not effectively challenge them*. The House will stay in GOP hands and do the same. In the midterms, with even lower voter participation than usual, they will retake the senate with a fair chance of getting to 60. Then all bets are off.
*even where the filibuster got officially abandoned but definitely with SCOTUS nominees. Court unpacking will proceed as planned.
now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for “extremist views” will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a “serious policy wonk” by media acclimation.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
The same president who was so decisive, etc, when Deepwater Horizon went south?
The same president who so roundly denounced GWB in the Katrina aftermath, perhaps?
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
HRC will win. In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office. Who will own what then?
now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for “extremist views” will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a “serious policy wonk” by media acclimation.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
The same president who was so decisive, etc, when Deepwater Horizon went south?
The same president who so roundly denounced GWB in the Katrina aftermath, perhaps?
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
HRC will win. In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office. Who will own what then?
now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for “extremist views” will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a “serious policy wonk” by media acclimation.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
The same president who was so decisive, etc, when Deepwater Horizon went south?
The same president who so roundly denounced GWB in the Katrina aftermath, perhaps?
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
HRC will win. In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office. Who will own what then?
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
You mean the flakka-infused face eating was just fine?
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
You mean the flakka-infused face eating was just fine?
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
You mean the flakka-infused face eating was just fine?
good thing there’s no echo chamber on the right !
i’d hate to see what kind of bullshit false equivalence narrative such a machine could come up with given the two very different responses to the two very different LA floods.
good thing there’s no echo chamber on the right !
i’d hate to see what kind of bullshit false equivalence narrative such a machine could come up with given the two very different responses to the two very different LA floods.
good thing there’s no echo chamber on the right !
i’d hate to see what kind of bullshit false equivalence narrative such a machine could come up with given the two very different responses to the two very different LA floods.
Or who was in charge of FEMA during Katrina vs. the person in charge now.
Or who was in charge of FEMA during Katrina vs. the person in charge now.
Or who was in charge of FEMA during Katrina vs. the person in charge now.
what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
Because disaster recovery efforts work just so much better when the President flies in and totally disrupts operations. Right.
Personally, I think the tradition of Presidents (or Governors) arriving to “show concern” in the midst of a disaster is a horrible one. And everybody, especially those directly impacted by the disaster, would be better off if they would stay far away.
what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
Because disaster recovery efforts work just so much better when the President flies in and totally disrupts operations. Right.
Personally, I think the tradition of Presidents (or Governors) arriving to “show concern” in the midst of a disaster is a horrible one. And everybody, especially those directly impacted by the disaster, would be better off if they would stay far away.
what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
Because disaster recovery efforts work just so much better when the President flies in and totally disrupts operations. Right.
Personally, I think the tradition of Presidents (or Governors) arriving to “show concern” in the midst of a disaster is a horrible one. And everybody, especially those directly impacted by the disaster, would be better off if they would stay far away.
Paul Ryan is in favor of tax cuts for high-income earners (and estate tax repeal) and cuts to social security benefits.
Paul Ryan is in favor of tax cuts for high-income earners (and estate tax repeal) and cuts to social security benefits.
Paul Ryan is in favor of tax cuts for high-income earners (and estate tax repeal) and cuts to social security benefits.
FEMA should pay for itself.
FEMA should pay for itself.
FEMA should pay for itself.
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
Where in the post did I state no conservatives have denounced Trump or act otherwise?
The fact remains, Trump is supported by the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the three top Federal Governmental Posts held by GOPers (all conservatives, I assume) and 3rd and 4th in line in presidential succession (Speaker and pro tempore).
It was the GOP primary process that put Trump in this position, supported by GOP voters and (now at least) the GOP leadership. The GOP nominated, the GOP owns him.
Same goes for the Democratic Party and Clinton.
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
Where in the post did I state no conservatives have denounced Trump or act otherwise?
The fact remains, Trump is supported by the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the three top Federal Governmental Posts held by GOPers (all conservatives, I assume) and 3rd and 4th in line in presidential succession (Speaker and pro tempore).
It was the GOP primary process that put Trump in this position, supported by GOP voters and (now at least) the GOP leadership. The GOP nominated, the GOP owns him.
Same goes for the Democratic Party and Clinton.
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
Where in the post did I state no conservatives have denounced Trump or act otherwise?
The fact remains, Trump is supported by the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the three top Federal Governmental Posts held by GOPers (all conservatives, I assume) and 3rd and 4th in line in presidential succession (Speaker and pro tempore).
It was the GOP primary process that put Trump in this position, supported by GOP voters and (now at least) the GOP leadership. The GOP nominated, the GOP owns him.
Same goes for the Democratic Party and Clinton.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
Simple extrapolation?
The so-called ‘conservative’ movement has been laying down the magic markers for somebody like Drumpf to come along for decades (cf laffer curve). For the life of me, McKinney, I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the lunacy promoted by the so-called conservative movement seriously. I mean, you call yourself a conservative, right? I would assume you would take their beliefs as propounded by their intellectual lights such as Paul Ryan seriously.
Or is all that just fluff to feed the rubes?
Let me lay it out to you more simply:
Trump says stupid things.
These stupid things are merely GOP talking points wrapped in populist garb.
Paul Ryan and other “serious” conservatives, propound essentially the same policies. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM?
Therefore, it would strike an unbiased observer that they are, for all intents and purposes, virtually indistinguishable.
Q.E.D.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
Simple extrapolation?
The so-called ‘conservative’ movement has been laying down the magic markers for somebody like Drumpf to come along for decades (cf laffer curve). For the life of me, McKinney, I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the lunacy promoted by the so-called conservative movement seriously. I mean, you call yourself a conservative, right? I would assume you would take their beliefs as propounded by their intellectual lights such as Paul Ryan seriously.
Or is all that just fluff to feed the rubes?
Let me lay it out to you more simply:
Trump says stupid things.
These stupid things are merely GOP talking points wrapped in populist garb.
Paul Ryan and other “serious” conservatives, propound essentially the same policies. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM?
Therefore, it would strike an unbiased observer that they are, for all intents and purposes, virtually indistinguishable.
Q.E.D.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
Simple extrapolation?
The so-called ‘conservative’ movement has been laying down the magic markers for somebody like Drumpf to come along for decades (cf laffer curve). For the life of me, McKinney, I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the lunacy promoted by the so-called conservative movement seriously. I mean, you call yourself a conservative, right? I would assume you would take their beliefs as propounded by their intellectual lights such as Paul Ryan seriously.
Or is all that just fluff to feed the rubes?
Let me lay it out to you more simply:
Trump says stupid things.
These stupid things are merely GOP talking points wrapped in populist garb.
Paul Ryan and other “serious” conservatives, propound essentially the same policies. HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM?
Therefore, it would strike an unbiased observer that they are, for all intents and purposes, virtually indistinguishable.
Q.E.D.
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
When you can demonstrate the failures of FEMA today vs. GWB’s FEMA during Katrina, well, then perhaps we can talk.
Otherwise….you are just blowing smoke, and you know it.
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
When you can demonstrate the failures of FEMA today vs. GWB’s FEMA during Katrina, well, then perhaps we can talk.
Otherwise….you are just blowing smoke, and you know it.
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
When you can demonstrate the failures of FEMA today vs. GWB’s FEMA during Katrina, well, then perhaps we can talk.
Otherwise….you are just blowing smoke, and you know it.
Even Louisiana’s paper The Advocate, which criticized Obama for not cutting his vacation short, had this to say about the actual response:
The paper praised the work of FEMA, calling it a “far cry” from the bungled response to Katrina.
Even Louisiana’s paper The Advocate, which criticized Obama for not cutting his vacation short, had this to say about the actual response:
The paper praised the work of FEMA, calling it a “far cry” from the bungled response to Katrina.
Even Louisiana’s paper The Advocate, which criticized Obama for not cutting his vacation short, had this to say about the actual response:
The paper praised the work of FEMA, calling it a “far cry” from the bungled response to Katrina.
Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it “all about him.” It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.
Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it “all about him.” It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.
Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it “all about him.” It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
In the real world of global warming (which, I’m not sure whether you deny that or not, McKinney – feel free to remind us): “Since the flooding began Friday, more than 20,000 have had to be rescued in some of the worst flooding the state has ever seen. And at least 11,000 have hunkered down in shelters to wait out the floods.”
Obama was supposed to have waved his hands and held back the rain?
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
In the real world of global warming (which, I’m not sure whether you deny that or not, McKinney – feel free to remind us): “Since the flooding began Friday, more than 20,000 have had to be rescued in some of the worst flooding the state has ever seen. And at least 11,000 have hunkered down in shelters to wait out the floods.”
Obama was supposed to have waved his hands and held back the rain?
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
In the real world of global warming (which, I’m not sure whether you deny that or not, McKinney – feel free to remind us): “Since the flooding began Friday, more than 20,000 have had to be rescued in some of the worst flooding the state has ever seen. And at least 11,000 have hunkered down in shelters to wait out the floods.”
Obama was supposed to have waved his hands and held back the rain?
“Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it “all about him.” It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.”
Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
“Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it “all about him.” It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.”
Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
“Had he shown up, he would have been criticized for making it “all about him.” It would have been an inappropriate photo-op for his own aggrandizement.”
Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
Well, the guy running FEMA and appointed by Obama has been in emergency management since 1987, as opposed to having been running horse shows.
But you can’t have it both ways (not necessarily you, Marty, but the general you) – either Obama has something to do with it or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, his showing up has nothing to do with FEMA doing its job.
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
Well, the guy running FEMA and appointed by Obama has been in emergency management since 1987, as opposed to having been running horse shows.
But you can’t have it both ways (not necessarily you, Marty, but the general you) – either Obama has something to do with it or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, his showing up has nothing to do with FEMA doing its job.
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
Well, the guy running FEMA and appointed by Obama has been in emergency management since 1987, as opposed to having been running horse shows.
But you can’t have it both ways (not necessarily you, Marty, but the general you) – either Obama has something to do with it or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, his showing up has nothing to do with FEMA doing its job.
Nope, if he showed up he would have been criticized (by me, certainly) for getting in the way, using needed resources, etc. And rightly so IMHO.
On the other hand, not showing up can be safely predicted to get accusations (as here) of being uncaring, hard hearted, etc. So it’s a no-win situation that way. Except that, while you get criticized both ways, at least staying away means that you won’t be making the problems worse.
Nope, if he showed up he would have been criticized (by me, certainly) for getting in the way, using needed resources, etc. And rightly so IMHO.
On the other hand, not showing up can be safely predicted to get accusations (as here) of being uncaring, hard hearted, etc. So it’s a no-win situation that way. Except that, while you get criticized both ways, at least staying away means that you won’t be making the problems worse.
Nope, if he showed up he would have been criticized (by me, certainly) for getting in the way, using needed resources, etc. And rightly so IMHO.
On the other hand, not showing up can be safely predicted to get accusations (as here) of being uncaring, hard hearted, etc. So it’s a no-win situation that way. Except that, while you get criticized both ways, at least staying away means that you won’t be making the problems worse.
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
I read Ugh’s statement as rather tongue-in-cheek. It seems from the response that you did not. Which, in turn, is a springboard for this assertion:
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
Are you taking issue with hyperbole via being hyperbolic?
The “worst” historically? What about the great Mississippi Flood of 1927? This was prior to the construction of the modern levee system or the Old River Control Structure on the Atchafalaya River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927
During that event the river crested at 47.28 ft at Baton Rouge, which the NOAA still has listed as the highest flood crest ever at that location.
What metric is behind the use of the word “worst”?
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
I read Ugh’s statement as rather tongue-in-cheek. It seems from the response that you did not. Which, in turn, is a springboard for this assertion:
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
Are you taking issue with hyperbole via being hyperbolic?
The “worst” historically? What about the great Mississippi Flood of 1927? This was prior to the construction of the modern levee system or the Old River Control Structure on the Atchafalaya River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927
During that event the river crested at 47.28 ft at Baton Rouge, which the NOAA still has listed as the highest flood crest ever at that location.
What metric is behind the use of the word “worst”?
How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
I read Ugh’s statement as rather tongue-in-cheek. It seems from the response that you did not. Which, in turn, is a springboard for this assertion:
In the meantime and in the real world of ongoing double standards: what state is having its historically worst flooding ever while what president is off golfing?
Are you taking issue with hyperbole via being hyperbolic?
The “worst” historically? What about the great Mississippi Flood of 1927? This was prior to the construction of the modern levee system or the Old River Control Structure on the Atchafalaya River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927
During that event the river crested at 47.28 ft at Baton Rouge, which the NOAA still has listed as the highest flood crest ever at that location.
What metric is behind the use of the word “worst”?
Now I come to think of it, I don’t recall ever seeing anything on Crooked Timber linked to here, so if there is some unwritten rule about not doing it I apologise.
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/18/donald-trump-is-the-least-of-the-gops-problems/#more-40446
I found this post very interesting, and wondered what anyone else thought of it. Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?
Now I come to think of it, I don’t recall ever seeing anything on Crooked Timber linked to here, so if there is some unwritten rule about not doing it I apologise.
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/18/donald-trump-is-the-least-of-the-gops-problems/#more-40446
I found this post very interesting, and wondered what anyone else thought of it. Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?
Now I come to think of it, I don’t recall ever seeing anything on Crooked Timber linked to here, so if there is some unwritten rule about not doing it I apologise.
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/18/donald-trump-is-the-least-of-the-gops-problems/#more-40446
I found this post very interesting, and wondered what anyone else thought of it. Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
Come on, Marty. Don’t be ridiculous. No doubt FEMA learns something every time, but is that really the difference between now and Katrina, or does it have something to do with who the President appointed to run it?
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
Come on, Marty. Don’t be ridiculous. No doubt FEMA learns something every time, but is that really the difference between now and Katrina, or does it have something to do with who the President appointed to run it?
FEMA learned something last time, that has not a damn thing to do with Obama.
Come on, Marty. Don’t be ridiculous. No doubt FEMA learns something every time, but is that really the difference between now and Katrina, or does it have something to do with who the President appointed to run it?
I have some sympathy with Taibbi’s view:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/science/2016/08/matt_taibbi_says_donald_trump_has_ruined_journalism.html
I have some sympathy with Taibbi’s view:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/science/2016/08/matt_taibbi_says_donald_trump_has_ruined_journalism.html
I have some sympathy with Taibbi’s view:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/science/2016/08/matt_taibbi_says_donald_trump_has_ruined_journalism.html
Ugh: now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for “extremist views” will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a “serious policy wonk” by media acclimation.
McK: How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
Well, let’s see.
Trump is proposing a 15% cap on income from pass-through entities. I doubt I need to explain to you what that means, as opposed to what some are claiming. Also no estate tax. Period. Other in the GOP have variations on this, including eliminating taxes on capital income entirely. That would in fact mean many very wealthy individuals would pay 0% tax, or very close to it.
Republicans repeatedly call for “entitlement reform.” If you look at actual proposals, especially this put forth by Ryan, you will see that this translates into “cut SS and (mostly) Medicare and use the money saved for high-end tax cuts.”
Cruz wants to “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods.
OK. So Ugh exaggerated a little. But less than you claim.
Ugh: now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for “extremist views” will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a “serious policy wonk” by media acclimation.
McK: How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
Well, let’s see.
Trump is proposing a 15% cap on income from pass-through entities. I doubt I need to explain to you what that means, as opposed to what some are claiming. Also no estate tax. Period. Other in the GOP have variations on this, including eliminating taxes on capital income entirely. That would in fact mean many very wealthy individuals would pay 0% tax, or very close to it.
Republicans repeatedly call for “entitlement reform.” If you look at actual proposals, especially this put forth by Ryan, you will see that this translates into “cut SS and (mostly) Medicare and use the money saved for high-end tax cuts.”
Cruz wants to “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods.
OK. So Ugh exaggerated a little. But less than you claim.
Ugh: now that their 2020 nominee can campaign on a 0% top federal income tax rate, repealing social security and providing that US citizens to be deported for “extremist views” will receive some sort of due process before they are shipped overseas (to where?) will be declared a “serious policy wonk” by media acclimation.
McK: How, outside the echo chamber, does writing like this expect to be taken seriously?
Well, let’s see.
Trump is proposing a 15% cap on income from pass-through entities. I doubt I need to explain to you what that means, as opposed to what some are claiming. Also no estate tax. Period. Other in the GOP have variations on this, including eliminating taxes on capital income entirely. That would in fact mean many very wealthy individuals would pay 0% tax, or very close to it.
Republicans repeatedly call for “entitlement reform.” If you look at actual proposals, especially this put forth by Ryan, you will see that this translates into “cut SS and (mostly) Medicare and use the money saved for high-end tax cuts.”
Cruz wants to “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods.
OK. So Ugh exaggerated a little. But less than you claim.
McTX: HRC will win.
From your lips to FSM’s ears.
In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office.
For “office” read “White House”. Unfortunately, it’s likely that 10 of those 12 years will have featured a Republican Speaker of the House, with several of those years featuring the “serious”, “policy wonk” Paul Ryan in that office. (He’s a charlatan, of course, but Broderism is still alive even if David Broder is still dead.) And only about 1 of those 12 years are likely to have featured a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Quite possibly 5 of the 12 years will feature a Supreme Court with fewer than 9 Justices on it. So …
Who will own what then?
… will still have the standard bubblicious answer: “America’s problems are all the DemocRAT president’s fault.”
–TP
McTX: HRC will win.
From your lips to FSM’s ears.
In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office.
For “office” read “White House”. Unfortunately, it’s likely that 10 of those 12 years will have featured a Republican Speaker of the House, with several of those years featuring the “serious”, “policy wonk” Paul Ryan in that office. (He’s a charlatan, of course, but Broderism is still alive even if David Broder is still dead.) And only about 1 of those 12 years are likely to have featured a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Quite possibly 5 of the 12 years will feature a Supreme Court with fewer than 9 Justices on it. So …
Who will own what then?
… will still have the standard bubblicious answer: “America’s problems are all the DemocRAT president’s fault.”
–TP
McTX: HRC will win.
From your lips to FSM’s ears.
In 2020, we will have 12 years of a Democrat in office.
For “office” read “White House”. Unfortunately, it’s likely that 10 of those 12 years will have featured a Republican Speaker of the House, with several of those years featuring the “serious”, “policy wonk” Paul Ryan in that office. (He’s a charlatan, of course, but Broderism is still alive even if David Broder is still dead.) And only about 1 of those 12 years are likely to have featured a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. Quite possibly 5 of the 12 years will feature a Supreme Court with fewer than 9 Justices on it. So …
Who will own what then?
… will still have the standard bubblicious answer: “America’s problems are all the DemocRAT president’s fault.”
–TP
Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn’t want to let them near the dangerous stuff.
In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.
Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn’t want to let them near the dangerous stuff.
In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.
Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn’t want to let them near the dangerous stuff.
In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.
Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?
it sounds reasonable. but i think maybe a bit overstated.
IMO, Trump got lucky by being a celebrity tough-guy who jumped into an over-stuffed but under-powered primary field where none of the establishment types were strong enough to break away from all the other establishment types. there’s always an outsider in the GOP primaries who does pretty well at the start; but eventually the establishment leader hits his stride and the base falls in line. this time, all the establishment types were weak and there were too many of them, so they just split that vote between the ten of them.
plus, the media took months to start being critical about Trump, treating him as a celebrity novelty instead of a regular politician, giving him unlimited free, uncritical airtime – which totally sucked all the air out of the room for the rest of the field.
and none of that has anything to do with the state of conservatism (as i see it). Trump really is one-of-a-kind.
Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?
it sounds reasonable. but i think maybe a bit overstated.
IMO, Trump got lucky by being a celebrity tough-guy who jumped into an over-stuffed but under-powered primary field where none of the establishment types were strong enough to break away from all the other establishment types. there’s always an outsider in the GOP primaries who does pretty well at the start; but eventually the establishment leader hits his stride and the base falls in line. this time, all the establishment types were weak and there were too many of them, so they just split that vote between the ten of them.
plus, the media took months to start being critical about Trump, treating him as a celebrity novelty instead of a regular politician, giving him unlimited free, uncritical airtime – which totally sucked all the air out of the room for the rest of the field.
and none of that has anything to do with the state of conservatism (as i see it). Trump really is one-of-a-kind.
Any opinions as to the merits of its thesis?
it sounds reasonable. but i think maybe a bit overstated.
IMO, Trump got lucky by being a celebrity tough-guy who jumped into an over-stuffed but under-powered primary field where none of the establishment types were strong enough to break away from all the other establishment types. there’s always an outsider in the GOP primaries who does pretty well at the start; but eventually the establishment leader hits his stride and the base falls in line. this time, all the establishment types were weak and there were too many of them, so they just split that vote between the ten of them.
plus, the media took months to start being critical about Trump, treating him as a celebrity novelty instead of a regular politician, giving him unlimited free, uncritical airtime – which totally sucked all the air out of the room for the rest of the field.
and none of that has anything to do with the state of conservatism (as i see it). Trump really is one-of-a-kind.
CharlesWT,
Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn’t want to let them near the dangerous stuff.
In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.
Your second paragraph is definitely true.
The first is definitely false. Check out James Witt, Bill Clinton’s FEMA head.
CharlesWT,
Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn’t want to let them near the dangerous stuff.
In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.
Your second paragraph is definitely true.
The first is definitely false. Check out James Witt, Bill Clinton’s FEMA head.
CharlesWT,
Up until Katrina, FEMA was one of a number of federal agencies where presidents sent people they owed political favors, but didn’t want to let them near the dangerous stuff.
In any case, Katrina had a load of blame to go around to all levels of government.
Your second paragraph is definitely true.
The first is definitely false. Check out James Witt, Bill Clinton’s FEMA head.
GftNC, my suspicion about the absence of Crooked Timber links here is that a lot of us read them, but the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments. The other thing is that they often channel the ethos of the academy, which means ‘my reading pile is bigger’ is often the way to dismiss someone. As far as the CT post goes, I agree and disagree. Yes, American conservatism is not conservatism, but simply reactionary. But that reactionary group was only able to win by assembling the Reagan coalition, so my sense is that they are living on borrowed time. The problem is that they are willing to let the whole house fall down around their ears.
Was going to write a comment observing that everyone’s channelling the Count here, but seeing the surprise of McT lead off and Marty take up his spot as cleanup hitter has me write this.
Nice to see McT and Marty, the two Pep boys of the party of Trump (you say you hate him, but deep deep down, you know he’s your man), wading into the fray. Wading is the operative word, since you don’t know (or can’t be bothered) to figure out the difference between a hurricane and a flood. Guess they are too busy keeping up God’s (at least the God of Tony Perkins) work, I know you have to counter all of us over here pumping out our love and glaze-eyed devotion for Obama and Hillary.
Find a place where I exaggerated. I dare you.
GftNC, my suspicion about the absence of Crooked Timber links here is that a lot of us read them, but the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments. The other thing is that they often channel the ethos of the academy, which means ‘my reading pile is bigger’ is often the way to dismiss someone. As far as the CT post goes, I agree and disagree. Yes, American conservatism is not conservatism, but simply reactionary. But that reactionary group was only able to win by assembling the Reagan coalition, so my sense is that they are living on borrowed time. The problem is that they are willing to let the whole house fall down around their ears.
Was going to write a comment observing that everyone’s channelling the Count here, but seeing the surprise of McT lead off and Marty take up his spot as cleanup hitter has me write this.
Nice to see McT and Marty, the two Pep boys of the party of Trump (you say you hate him, but deep deep down, you know he’s your man), wading into the fray. Wading is the operative word, since you don’t know (or can’t be bothered) to figure out the difference between a hurricane and a flood. Guess they are too busy keeping up God’s (at least the God of Tony Perkins) work, I know you have to counter all of us over here pumping out our love and glaze-eyed devotion for Obama and Hillary.
Find a place where I exaggerated. I dare you.
GftNC, my suspicion about the absence of Crooked Timber links here is that a lot of us read them, but the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments. The other thing is that they often channel the ethos of the academy, which means ‘my reading pile is bigger’ is often the way to dismiss someone. As far as the CT post goes, I agree and disagree. Yes, American conservatism is not conservatism, but simply reactionary. But that reactionary group was only able to win by assembling the Reagan coalition, so my sense is that they are living on borrowed time. The problem is that they are willing to let the whole house fall down around their ears.
Was going to write a comment observing that everyone’s channelling the Count here, but seeing the surprise of McT lead off and Marty take up his spot as cleanup hitter has me write this.
Nice to see McT and Marty, the two Pep boys of the party of Trump (you say you hate him, but deep deep down, you know he’s your man), wading into the fray. Wading is the operative word, since you don’t know (or can’t be bothered) to figure out the difference between a hurricane and a flood. Guess they are too busy keeping up God’s (at least the God of Tony Perkins) work, I know you have to counter all of us over here pumping out our love and glaze-eyed devotion for Obama and Hillary.
Find a place where I exaggerated. I dare you.
GftNC,
I’m not overwhelmed by Robin’s analysis, but then I seldom am. I read CT sometimes, but it’s a little too something – perhaps earnestly leftist – for my tastes. I don’t think, for example, that LBJ’s downfall had a lot to do with civil rights. Mostly it was Vietnam. (Yes, sharlie, I vas dere – not in Vietnam but an adult in 1968).
GftNC,
I’m not overwhelmed by Robin’s analysis, but then I seldom am. I read CT sometimes, but it’s a little too something – perhaps earnestly leftist – for my tastes. I don’t think, for example, that LBJ’s downfall had a lot to do with civil rights. Mostly it was Vietnam. (Yes, sharlie, I vas dere – not in Vietnam but an adult in 1968).
GftNC,
I’m not overwhelmed by Robin’s analysis, but then I seldom am. I read CT sometimes, but it’s a little too something – perhaps earnestly leftist – for my tastes. I don’t think, for example, that LBJ’s downfall had a lot to do with civil rights. Mostly it was Vietnam. (Yes, sharlie, I vas dere – not in Vietnam but an adult in 1968).
Marty: “Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.”
Except from the right, including Marty, who would have a completely different reason why Trump shooting someone in the middle of 5th Ave. made him a true hero.
Mind reading and counterfactuals, they fit so well together, I know for sure that you agree.
Marty: “Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.”
Except from the right, including Marty, who would have a completely different reason why Trump shooting someone in the middle of 5th Ave. made him a true hero.
Mind reading and counterfactuals, they fit so well together, I know for sure that you agree.
Marty: “Except from the left, including wj, who would have a completely different reason why abandoning his vacation made him a true hero.”
Except from the right, including Marty, who would have a completely different reason why Trump shooting someone in the middle of 5th Ave. made him a true hero.
Mind reading and counterfactuals, they fit so well together, I know for sure that you agree.
What has become tiresome is the assumption that any criticism of Obama and Clinton shows some disguised love of Trump. (There is your exaggeration lj). I am actively campaigning for Johnson/Weld and would vote for Jill Stein before I would vote for either of them.
So I will take every accusation that Trump is somehow secretly my guy as calling me a liar, and will consider it an ad hominem attack.
I cleaned that up a lot from my two word original answer.
What has become tiresome is the assumption that any criticism of Obama and Clinton shows some disguised love of Trump. (There is your exaggeration lj). I am actively campaigning for Johnson/Weld and would vote for Jill Stein before I would vote for either of them.
So I will take every accusation that Trump is somehow secretly my guy as calling me a liar, and will consider it an ad hominem attack.
I cleaned that up a lot from my two word original answer.
What has become tiresome is the assumption that any criticism of Obama and Clinton shows some disguised love of Trump. (There is your exaggeration lj). I am actively campaigning for Johnson/Weld and would vote for Jill Stein before I would vote for either of them.
So I will take every accusation that Trump is somehow secretly my guy as calling me a liar, and will consider it an ad hominem attack.
I cleaned that up a lot from my two word original answer.
byomtov, I’d say LBJ’s downfall was civil unrest. For which Vietnam was a major contributor, but civil rights was a contributor as well.
The other contributor being our generation’s being allowed to grow up with a sense that we knew it all and our parents did not. And that we could do, and should be able to do, whatever we wanted without consequences. A lot of the carrying on (aka riots) in 1968 were as much about “let’s do something exciting!” as any real attachment to the ostensible cause.
byomtov, I’d say LBJ’s downfall was civil unrest. For which Vietnam was a major contributor, but civil rights was a contributor as well.
The other contributor being our generation’s being allowed to grow up with a sense that we knew it all and our parents did not. And that we could do, and should be able to do, whatever we wanted without consequences. A lot of the carrying on (aka riots) in 1968 were as much about “let’s do something exciting!” as any real attachment to the ostensible cause.
byomtov, I’d say LBJ’s downfall was civil unrest. For which Vietnam was a major contributor, but civil rights was a contributor as well.
The other contributor being our generation’s being allowed to grow up with a sense that we knew it all and our parents did not. And that we could do, and should be able to do, whatever we wanted without consequences. A lot of the carrying on (aka riots) in 1968 were as much about “let’s do something exciting!” as any real attachment to the ostensible cause.
i guess i’m curious to know if the issue with louisiana and obama is one of optics or substance.
i guess i’m curious to know if the issue with louisiana and obama is one of optics or substance.
i guess i’m curious to know if the issue with louisiana and obama is one of optics or substance.
russell, I think the optics is the issue. No one believes his going to Louisiana will make any effort of the local, state or federal aid work better or more smoothly. I could go whatifbushdidit, but that’s just stupid. A nice shot of him putting in Martha’s Vineyard while his constituents in Louisiana are suffering the aftermath of this flooding is at least tone deaf.
A flyover, meet with the officials on the ground, assure them whatever they need he will support them getting, a pat on the back press conference for the strength of the people and the aid workers from all over and off he goes.
Shows caring, it’s Presidential. He should actually want to. It is optics, sometimes that is the support he can give.
I think wj has it wrong. He isn’t a distraction, he brings energy and hope and appreciation.
russell, I think the optics is the issue. No one believes his going to Louisiana will make any effort of the local, state or federal aid work better or more smoothly. I could go whatifbushdidit, but that’s just stupid. A nice shot of him putting in Martha’s Vineyard while his constituents in Louisiana are suffering the aftermath of this flooding is at least tone deaf.
A flyover, meet with the officials on the ground, assure them whatever they need he will support them getting, a pat on the back press conference for the strength of the people and the aid workers from all over and off he goes.
Shows caring, it’s Presidential. He should actually want to. It is optics, sometimes that is the support he can give.
I think wj has it wrong. He isn’t a distraction, he brings energy and hope and appreciation.
russell, I think the optics is the issue. No one believes his going to Louisiana will make any effort of the local, state or federal aid work better or more smoothly. I could go whatifbushdidit, but that’s just stupid. A nice shot of him putting in Martha’s Vineyard while his constituents in Louisiana are suffering the aftermath of this flooding is at least tone deaf.
A flyover, meet with the officials on the ground, assure them whatever they need he will support them getting, a pat on the back press conference for the strength of the people and the aid workers from all over and off he goes.
Shows caring, it’s Presidential. He should actually want to. It is optics, sometimes that is the support he can give.
I think wj has it wrong. He isn’t a distraction, he brings energy and hope and appreciation.
Given what a three ring circus it is any time a President goes anywhere, it’s hard to see how it could possibly avoid being a massive distraction. Especially when the infrastructure is part of what’s disrupted.
Maybe “shows caring” is important enough, politically, to outweigh the disruption. But that sure wouldn’t be the way I would prioritize things.
Given what a three ring circus it is any time a President goes anywhere, it’s hard to see how it could possibly avoid being a massive distraction. Especially when the infrastructure is part of what’s disrupted.
Maybe “shows caring” is important enough, politically, to outweigh the disruption. But that sure wouldn’t be the way I would prioritize things.
Given what a three ring circus it is any time a President goes anywhere, it’s hard to see how it could possibly avoid being a massive distraction. Especially when the infrastructure is part of what’s disrupted.
Maybe “shows caring” is important enough, politically, to outweigh the disruption. But that sure wouldn’t be the way I would prioritize things.
So, Marty’s list is
1.Johnson/Weld
2.Stein
3.Trump
4.HRC
Good enough for the bronze, eh?
So, Marty’s list is
1.Johnson/Weld
2.Stein
3.Trump
4.HRC
Good enough for the bronze, eh?
So, Marty’s list is
1.Johnson/Weld
2.Stein
3.Trump
4.HRC
Good enough for the bronze, eh?
And btw, when my facebook feed has is getting those ‘X is marked safe’ from my high school and uni friends who are still in Louisiana and I see you trying to make hay with the flood because Obama doesn’t ‘care’ enough for you, you can keep your two words so I don’t have to give them to you.
And btw, when my facebook feed has is getting those ‘X is marked safe’ from my high school and uni friends who are still in Louisiana and I see you trying to make hay with the flood because Obama doesn’t ‘care’ enough for you, you can keep your two words so I don’t have to give them to you.
And btw, when my facebook feed has is getting those ‘X is marked safe’ from my high school and uni friends who are still in Louisiana and I see you trying to make hay with the flood because Obama doesn’t ‘care’ enough for you, you can keep your two words so I don’t have to give them to you.
Oh for crap’s sake. “Optics” is what you care about if you’re running for something. Substance is what you care about when you have no more fncks to give about the pearl-clutching, salts-smelling, concern-trolling, right-wing critics you once thought, in your kumbaya optimism, might actually be motivated by “substance”.
–TP
Oh for crap’s sake. “Optics” is what you care about if you’re running for something. Substance is what you care about when you have no more fncks to give about the pearl-clutching, salts-smelling, concern-trolling, right-wing critics you once thought, in your kumbaya optimism, might actually be motivated by “substance”.
–TP
Oh for crap’s sake. “Optics” is what you care about if you’re running for something. Substance is what you care about when you have no more fncks to give about the pearl-clutching, salts-smelling, concern-trolling, right-wing critics you once thought, in your kumbaya optimism, might actually be motivated by “substance”.
–TP
Why doesn’t Obama order the HAARP guys to redirect the rains to California where lots of water is needed to fight the fires? Or are both disasters part of his wicked plans? 😉
Would be a nice irony, if the Ark Park got hit by flooding instead.
Why doesn’t Obama order the HAARP guys to redirect the rains to California where lots of water is needed to fight the fires? Or are both disasters part of his wicked plans? 😉
Would be a nice irony, if the Ark Park got hit by flooding instead.
Why doesn’t Obama order the HAARP guys to redirect the rains to California where lots of water is needed to fight the fires? Or are both disasters part of his wicked plans? 😉
Would be a nice irony, if the Ark Park got hit by flooding instead.
“Political Schrödinger’s Cat” is an excellent description
By the way you have “Cannon” for “Bannon” in the post
“Political Schrödinger’s Cat” is an excellent description
By the way you have “Cannon” for “Bannon” in the post
“Political Schrödinger’s Cat” is an excellent description
By the way you have “Cannon” for “Bannon” in the post
Thanks Adam, although Cannon seems fitting…
Thanks Adam, although Cannon seems fitting…
Thanks Adam, although Cannon seems fitting…
A silly reply to a silly reply: no, lj, no bronze. Trump won’t ever get my vote, nor will HRC. I would write in the Count before validating either of them with a vote, and I am not sure he would make a great President.
I do not have to accept being bullied into choosing between someone with no conscience and someone with no shame, neither of them caring a twit about the American people.
A silly reply to a silly reply: no, lj, no bronze. Trump won’t ever get my vote, nor will HRC. I would write in the Count before validating either of them with a vote, and I am not sure he would make a great President.
I do not have to accept being bullied into choosing between someone with no conscience and someone with no shame, neither of them caring a twit about the American people.
A silly reply to a silly reply: no, lj, no bronze. Trump won’t ever get my vote, nor will HRC. I would write in the Count before validating either of them with a vote, and I am not sure he would make a great President.
I do not have to accept being bullied into choosing between someone with no conscience and someone with no shame, neither of them caring a twit about the American people.
I thought this was pretty good, and quite frightening.
I thought this was pretty good, and quite frightening.
I thought this was pretty good, and quite frightening.
As for your, and my, La friends, luckily I can have two thoughts at once. One that I am concerned about them and two that the Presidents visible support and commitment is never a bad thing for people in their position to see.
But there is no hay to make. Someone on the internet(here) brought up the subject so I added my opinion.
As for your, and my, La friends, luckily I can have two thoughts at once. One that I am concerned about them and two that the Presidents visible support and commitment is never a bad thing for people in their position to see.
But there is no hay to make. Someone on the internet(here) brought up the subject so I added my opinion.
As for your, and my, La friends, luckily I can have two thoughts at once. One that I am concerned about them and two that the Presidents visible support and commitment is never a bad thing for people in their position to see.
But there is no hay to make. Someone on the internet(here) brought up the subject so I added my opinion.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/louisiana-governor-dont-need-visit-president-now
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/louisiana-governor-dont-need-visit-president-now
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/louisiana-governor-dont-need-visit-president-now
luckily I can have two thoughts at once
Given that one of those thoughts is the basso ostinato of “Dems bad”, I’m not too impressed. And given that the other thought is ‘I’m worried about my LA friends, so why the hell doesn’t Obama off the golf course and get down there’, I think you are giving yourself way too much credit…
luckily I can have two thoughts at once
Given that one of those thoughts is the basso ostinato of “Dems bad”, I’m not too impressed. And given that the other thought is ‘I’m worried about my LA friends, so why the hell doesn’t Obama off the golf course and get down there’, I think you are giving yourself way too much credit…
luckily I can have two thoughts at once
Given that one of those thoughts is the basso ostinato of “Dems bad”, I’m not too impressed. And given that the other thought is ‘I’m worried about my LA friends, so why the hell doesn’t Obama off the golf course and get down there’, I think you are giving yourself way too much credit…
““It is a major ordeal, they free up the interstate for him,” Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “We have to take hundreds of local first responders, police officers, sheriffs, deputies and state troopers to provide security for that type of visit.” ”
If they did this it would be the worst planned Presidential flyover in history, or probably not.
You fly him into New Orleans, put him on a chopper, land him in a not too central area where the press is and fly him out. I don’t think anyone is talking about a walking tour.
““It is a major ordeal, they free up the interstate for him,” Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “We have to take hundreds of local first responders, police officers, sheriffs, deputies and state troopers to provide security for that type of visit.” ”
If they did this it would be the worst planned Presidential flyover in history, or probably not.
You fly him into New Orleans, put him on a chopper, land him in a not too central area where the press is and fly him out. I don’t think anyone is talking about a walking tour.
““It is a major ordeal, they free up the interstate for him,” Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Thursday. “We have to take hundreds of local first responders, police officers, sheriffs, deputies and state troopers to provide security for that type of visit.” ”
If they did this it would be the worst planned Presidential flyover in history, or probably not.
You fly him into New Orleans, put him on a chopper, land him in a not too central area where the press is and fly him out. I don’t think anyone is talking about a walking tour.
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
cleek, it’s your Law in operation. If Obama had gone to Baton Rouge, the people now whining that he hasn’t gone there would be whining that he was did so just for a photo-op and was diverting important resources away from rescuing people.
Haterz gonna hate. ODS in action.
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
cleek, it’s your Law in operation. If Obama had gone to Baton Rouge, the people now whining that he hasn’t gone there would be whining that he was did so just for a photo-op and was diverting important resources away from rescuing people.
Haterz gonna hate. ODS in action.
ultimately, what would that accomplish? how many people would be helped by having the President touch the soil in Baton Rouge ?
cleek, it’s your Law in operation. If Obama had gone to Baton Rouge, the people now whining that he hasn’t gone there would be whining that he was did so just for a photo-op and was diverting important resources away from rescuing people.
Haterz gonna hate. ODS in action.
Marty, a friend of mine was until his sudden death employed at FEMA, maintaining the network of Pacific Northwest fire alerts and other disaster stuff.
(Three quick side notes. #1. Working at FEMA meant that he and all his colleagues routinely got bomb and death threats, from people you tell us we libtards need to respect more. #2. He died fundamentally because only with the coming of the ACA could he afford the thorough whole-body evaluations that uncovered the things that killed him. I have a hard time figuring out why I shouldn’t regard all those who worked so hard for decades to keep him and others away from care as engaged in a 20-year conspiracy to commit mass murder, in moral terms. #3. Every year, hundreds to thousands of lives and vast quantities of property are saved thanks to contemporary disaster monitoring and preparedness. Every year, Congresspeople you tell us we need to respect more fight to eliminate or grossly underfund that service. Same pondering as in #2.)
By law, FEMA and its state counterparts are not allowed to assume that a presidential visit will go as planned. They have to consider contingencies up to and including destruction of landing fields and destinations. Nearby cities have to be prepared to receive an unexpected presidential party, and so on. IMHO, these are good laws, because one (1) major failure would be bad for lots of people and perhaps the country at large. But it means that what you’re talking about in your 10:25 am post is just irrelevant fantasy, as if I were to say “Yeah, but then the Democrats could just call for a vote of no confidence in the Senate and displace the current leadership.”
Marty, a friend of mine was until his sudden death employed at FEMA, maintaining the network of Pacific Northwest fire alerts and other disaster stuff.
(Three quick side notes. #1. Working at FEMA meant that he and all his colleagues routinely got bomb and death threats, from people you tell us we libtards need to respect more. #2. He died fundamentally because only with the coming of the ACA could he afford the thorough whole-body evaluations that uncovered the things that killed him. I have a hard time figuring out why I shouldn’t regard all those who worked so hard for decades to keep him and others away from care as engaged in a 20-year conspiracy to commit mass murder, in moral terms. #3. Every year, hundreds to thousands of lives and vast quantities of property are saved thanks to contemporary disaster monitoring and preparedness. Every year, Congresspeople you tell us we need to respect more fight to eliminate or grossly underfund that service. Same pondering as in #2.)
By law, FEMA and its state counterparts are not allowed to assume that a presidential visit will go as planned. They have to consider contingencies up to and including destruction of landing fields and destinations. Nearby cities have to be prepared to receive an unexpected presidential party, and so on. IMHO, these are good laws, because one (1) major failure would be bad for lots of people and perhaps the country at large. But it means that what you’re talking about in your 10:25 am post is just irrelevant fantasy, as if I were to say “Yeah, but then the Democrats could just call for a vote of no confidence in the Senate and displace the current leadership.”
Marty, a friend of mine was until his sudden death employed at FEMA, maintaining the network of Pacific Northwest fire alerts and other disaster stuff.
(Three quick side notes. #1. Working at FEMA meant that he and all his colleagues routinely got bomb and death threats, from people you tell us we libtards need to respect more. #2. He died fundamentally because only with the coming of the ACA could he afford the thorough whole-body evaluations that uncovered the things that killed him. I have a hard time figuring out why I shouldn’t regard all those who worked so hard for decades to keep him and others away from care as engaged in a 20-year conspiracy to commit mass murder, in moral terms. #3. Every year, hundreds to thousands of lives and vast quantities of property are saved thanks to contemporary disaster monitoring and preparedness. Every year, Congresspeople you tell us we need to respect more fight to eliminate or grossly underfund that service. Same pondering as in #2.)
By law, FEMA and its state counterparts are not allowed to assume that a presidential visit will go as planned. They have to consider contingencies up to and including destruction of landing fields and destinations. Nearby cities have to be prepared to receive an unexpected presidential party, and so on. IMHO, these are good laws, because one (1) major failure would be bad for lots of people and perhaps the country at large. But it means that what you’re talking about in your 10:25 am post is just irrelevant fantasy, as if I were to say “Yeah, but then the Democrats could just call for a vote of no confidence in the Senate and displace the current leadership.”
From the evil Washington Post.
Final paragraph:
That’s why Obama won’t break off his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard — or stop playing golf on said vacation — to travel to Louisiana. Because he believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics, a piece that he not only rejects but detests.
From the evil Washington Post.
Final paragraph:
That’s why Obama won’t break off his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard — or stop playing golf on said vacation — to travel to Louisiana. Because he believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics, a piece that he not only rejects but detests.
From the evil Washington Post.
Final paragraph:
That’s why Obama won’t break off his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard — or stop playing golf on said vacation — to travel to Louisiana. Because he believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics, a piece that he not only rejects but detests.
Marty, if elected, I would have you and Slart and Sebastian and charleswt in my kitchen cabinet.
Great President? I’d be so great you’d soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you’d run out of places to put it. You’d have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.
You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress. Also, throwing their clothing after them out on to the White House lawn as they flee before me.
Also, White House chandelier repair and maintenance, and making sure the dunk tank is positioned for me to sit on during my visits to aggrieved parts of the country.
I like a slight delay on the seat release into the water, into which I expect you to place hungry sharks beforehand, so I have a second or two to mug for the camera before the splash and the roiling, bloody-red waters close over my head.
That may seem like a lot duty-wise, but just between you and me, could you also hustle all of my female visitors out of the joint when no one is looking? And make sure they don’t run into each other. Single President and all. I would have you do that for me now, but you’d have nothing to do, because none of my female acquaintances are the slightest bit phased or impressed when I tell them I’m running for President.
In fact, they grab their coats and back away with a look of horror on their faces. But I expect that to change once elected, given precedent.
You might think I’ve passed over McKinneyTexas for a slot in my Administration.
You would be wrong. He would have two jobs. He would provide my daily briefing which would consist of him throwing his briefing papers and his glass of Maker’s Mark up in the air and yelling: “Mr President, you are full of shit!”.
I need someone to keep me grounded.
Job number two for MCKT would be fielding the weekly bills of impeachment pouring in from Congress. I say fielding, but what I mean is stonewalling.
Regarding flooding, I’m wondering which section of the East Coast the President, whomever that might be, will visit once Greenland and the North Pole melt.
Probably Florida, I expect.
Or will he or she be too busy sending on federal troops to rescue Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh and assorted jackasses from dismemberment, disfigurement, and ritual drowning at the hands of very wet people.
Marty, if elected, I would have you and Slart and Sebastian and charleswt in my kitchen cabinet.
Great President? I’d be so great you’d soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you’d run out of places to put it. You’d have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.
You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress. Also, throwing their clothing after them out on to the White House lawn as they flee before me.
Also, White House chandelier repair and maintenance, and making sure the dunk tank is positioned for me to sit on during my visits to aggrieved parts of the country.
I like a slight delay on the seat release into the water, into which I expect you to place hungry sharks beforehand, so I have a second or two to mug for the camera before the splash and the roiling, bloody-red waters close over my head.
That may seem like a lot duty-wise, but just between you and me, could you also hustle all of my female visitors out of the joint when no one is looking? And make sure they don’t run into each other. Single President and all. I would have you do that for me now, but you’d have nothing to do, because none of my female acquaintances are the slightest bit phased or impressed when I tell them I’m running for President.
In fact, they grab their coats and back away with a look of horror on their faces. But I expect that to change once elected, given precedent.
You might think I’ve passed over McKinneyTexas for a slot in my Administration.
You would be wrong. He would have two jobs. He would provide my daily briefing which would consist of him throwing his briefing papers and his glass of Maker’s Mark up in the air and yelling: “Mr President, you are full of shit!”.
I need someone to keep me grounded.
Job number two for MCKT would be fielding the weekly bills of impeachment pouring in from Congress. I say fielding, but what I mean is stonewalling.
Regarding flooding, I’m wondering which section of the East Coast the President, whomever that might be, will visit once Greenland and the North Pole melt.
Probably Florida, I expect.
Or will he or she be too busy sending on federal troops to rescue Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh and assorted jackasses from dismemberment, disfigurement, and ritual drowning at the hands of very wet people.
Marty, if elected, I would have you and Slart and Sebastian and charleswt in my kitchen cabinet.
Great President? I’d be so great you’d soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you’d run out of places to put it. You’d have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.
You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress. Also, throwing their clothing after them out on to the White House lawn as they flee before me.
Also, White House chandelier repair and maintenance, and making sure the dunk tank is positioned for me to sit on during my visits to aggrieved parts of the country.
I like a slight delay on the seat release into the water, into which I expect you to place hungry sharks beforehand, so I have a second or two to mug for the camera before the splash and the roiling, bloody-red waters close over my head.
That may seem like a lot duty-wise, but just between you and me, could you also hustle all of my female visitors out of the joint when no one is looking? And make sure they don’t run into each other. Single President and all. I would have you do that for me now, but you’d have nothing to do, because none of my female acquaintances are the slightest bit phased or impressed when I tell them I’m running for President.
In fact, they grab their coats and back away with a look of horror on their faces. But I expect that to change once elected, given precedent.
You might think I’ve passed over McKinneyTexas for a slot in my Administration.
You would be wrong. He would have two jobs. He would provide my daily briefing which would consist of him throwing his briefing papers and his glass of Maker’s Mark up in the air and yelling: “Mr President, you are full of shit!”.
I need someone to keep me grounded.
Job number two for MCKT would be fielding the weekly bills of impeachment pouring in from Congress. I say fielding, but what I mean is stonewalling.
Regarding flooding, I’m wondering which section of the East Coast the President, whomever that might be, will visit once Greenland and the North Pole melt.
Probably Florida, I expect.
Or will he or she be too busy sending on federal troops to rescue Marco Rubio, Rush Limbaugh and assorted jackasses from dismemberment, disfigurement, and ritual drowning at the hands of very wet people.
for the record, i never thought it was so wrong that Bush wasn’t immediately on the ground in New Orleans. it’s not like his brush clearing skills made him personally valuable in a flood rescue and relief scenario.
it was the sluggish overall govt response that made Bush look bad. the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.
for the record, i never thought it was so wrong that Bush wasn’t immediately on the ground in New Orleans. it’s not like his brush clearing skills made him personally valuable in a flood rescue and relief scenario.
it was the sluggish overall govt response that made Bush look bad. the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.
for the record, i never thought it was so wrong that Bush wasn’t immediately on the ground in New Orleans. it’s not like his brush clearing skills made him personally valuable in a flood rescue and relief scenario.
it was the sluggish overall govt response that made Bush look bad. the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.
To perhaps sum up my post less pejoratively, the idea that Trump is some sort of Foundation Mule in the greater context of regular GOP operations and voter base is simply untrue and the various attempts by national GOP leaders and pundits to try and pretend otherwise is unconvincing to me, even if they may be ultimately successful generally and, as a bonus, enable a noxious right-winger such as Paul Ryan to be portrayed as a moderate and win the presidency in 2020 on that basis.
To perhaps sum up my post less pejoratively, the idea that Trump is some sort of Foundation Mule in the greater context of regular GOP operations and voter base is simply untrue and the various attempts by national GOP leaders and pundits to try and pretend otherwise is unconvincing to me, even if they may be ultimately successful generally and, as a bonus, enable a noxious right-winger such as Paul Ryan to be portrayed as a moderate and win the presidency in 2020 on that basis.
To perhaps sum up my post less pejoratively, the idea that Trump is some sort of Foundation Mule in the greater context of regular GOP operations and voter base is simply untrue and the various attempts by national GOP leaders and pundits to try and pretend otherwise is unconvincing to me, even if they may be ultimately successful generally and, as a bonus, enable a noxious right-winger such as Paul Ryan to be portrayed as a moderate and win the presidency in 2020 on that basis.
“Great President? I’d be so great you’d soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you’d run out of places to put it. You’d have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.”
OK, I concede.
“Great President? I’d be so great you’d soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you’d run out of places to put it. You’d have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.”
OK, I concede.
“Great President? I’d be so great you’d soon grow bored with all of the greatness. So much greatness you’d run out of places to put it. You’d have to build a new wing on the White House for the overflow greatness, I tell you.”
OK, I concede.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774
What bruce b said:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774/-Flood-waters-in-Louisiana-may-look-like-Katrina-but-the-FEMA-response-does-not
I’m sure during Obama’s first days in office one of his staffers came in to brief him on measures to get FEMA on its toes again, and Barack said: “What’s a fema, bro? We gonna sequester their ass, too?”
Typical politically correct response in the accompanying pic from the liberal Obama-rejuvenated FEMA: rescuing dogs and cats first and leaving the women and children behind to mildew.
And will ya look at the grin on that liberal’s face. She’s enjoying it. No doubt the death threats and guide-dog-feminazi-if-blacks-would-only-learn-to-swim jibes are pouring in from the Trump base to get at the woman for serving others.
Bruce B’s No #2 side note will be addressed in my first term as President. The mass-murdering sadists, and there are millions of them, will be concentrated in camps and processed for execution via unsterilized catheterization with the gloves off.
Paul Ryan is up first.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774
What bruce b said:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774/-Flood-waters-in-Louisiana-may-look-like-Katrina-but-the-FEMA-response-does-not
I’m sure during Obama’s first days in office one of his staffers came in to brief him on measures to get FEMA on its toes again, and Barack said: “What’s a fema, bro? We gonna sequester their ass, too?”
Typical politically correct response in the accompanying pic from the liberal Obama-rejuvenated FEMA: rescuing dogs and cats first and leaving the women and children behind to mildew.
And will ya look at the grin on that liberal’s face. She’s enjoying it. No doubt the death threats and guide-dog-feminazi-if-blacks-would-only-learn-to-swim jibes are pouring in from the Trump base to get at the woman for serving others.
Bruce B’s No #2 side note will be addressed in my first term as President. The mass-murdering sadists, and there are millions of them, will be concentrated in camps and processed for execution via unsterilized catheterization with the gloves off.
Paul Ryan is up first.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774
What bruce b said:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/19/1561774/-Flood-waters-in-Louisiana-may-look-like-Katrina-but-the-FEMA-response-does-not
I’m sure during Obama’s first days in office one of his staffers came in to brief him on measures to get FEMA on its toes again, and Barack said: “What’s a fema, bro? We gonna sequester their ass, too?”
Typical politically correct response in the accompanying pic from the liberal Obama-rejuvenated FEMA: rescuing dogs and cats first and leaving the women and children behind to mildew.
And will ya look at the grin on that liberal’s face. She’s enjoying it. No doubt the death threats and guide-dog-feminazi-if-blacks-would-only-learn-to-swim jibes are pouring in from the Trump base to get at the woman for serving others.
Bruce B’s No #2 side note will be addressed in my first term as President. The mass-murdering sadists, and there are millions of them, will be concentrated in camps and processed for execution via unsterilized catheterization with the gloves off.
Paul Ryan is up first.
That first link doesn’t link.
That first link doesn’t link.
That first link doesn’t link.
I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn’t give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism — to give it one of its more polite names. But because the republican establishment will be able to blame Trump’s loss on his loathsome personality and amateurish campaign, they will be able to spin it as a Uniquely Personal Failure. The Ryan and Cruz can campaign in 2020 on the same old same old the Republicans have flogged forever, while returning to dog-whistle appeals to the actual motivations of the voters they cannot afford to alienate. Of course the reptilian Tailgunner Ted and the smarmy Paul “Eddie Haskell” Ryan* will set up yet another Uniquely Personal Failure narrative if 2020 doesn’t go their way.
* Is the voting population too young to get the Eddie Haskell reference, or have re-runs of Leave It to Beaver on cable nostalgia channels imprinted him into the consciousness of younger voters?
I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn’t give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism — to give it one of its more polite names. But because the republican establishment will be able to blame Trump’s loss on his loathsome personality and amateurish campaign, they will be able to spin it as a Uniquely Personal Failure. The Ryan and Cruz can campaign in 2020 on the same old same old the Republicans have flogged forever, while returning to dog-whistle appeals to the actual motivations of the voters they cannot afford to alienate. Of course the reptilian Tailgunner Ted and the smarmy Paul “Eddie Haskell” Ryan* will set up yet another Uniquely Personal Failure narrative if 2020 doesn’t go their way.
* Is the voting population too young to get the Eddie Haskell reference, or have re-runs of Leave It to Beaver on cable nostalgia channels imprinted him into the consciousness of younger voters?
I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn’t give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism — to give it one of its more polite names. But because the republican establishment will be able to blame Trump’s loss on his loathsome personality and amateurish campaign, they will be able to spin it as a Uniquely Personal Failure. The Ryan and Cruz can campaign in 2020 on the same old same old the Republicans have flogged forever, while returning to dog-whistle appeals to the actual motivations of the voters they cannot afford to alienate. Of course the reptilian Tailgunner Ted and the smarmy Paul “Eddie Haskell” Ryan* will set up yet another Uniquely Personal Failure narrative if 2020 doesn’t go their way.
* Is the voting population too young to get the Eddie Haskell reference, or have re-runs of Leave It to Beaver on cable nostalgia channels imprinted him into the consciousness of younger voters?
That first link doesn’t link.
Most likely a due breakdown of your utility function.
Go online to: http/::www.utopianthought/wallstreejournaleditorialpage.net and follow the instructions. Confirm the patent status of your function. A warranty may be available, but generally they are garbage. Lawsuits may be precluded by an arbitration clause (to check your arbitration status go to http//::sucks to be you.com).
If an army of thugs comes to your doorstep, wave the magic certificate of free market competition and invoke the watchman state.
But bribery generally works better.
This has been a message from the campaign to elect Gary Johnson. Gary has endorsed this message, and will pose in the nude for you for a small fee.
That first link doesn’t link.
Most likely a due breakdown of your utility function.
Go online to: http/::www.utopianthought/wallstreejournaleditorialpage.net and follow the instructions. Confirm the patent status of your function. A warranty may be available, but generally they are garbage. Lawsuits may be precluded by an arbitration clause (to check your arbitration status go to http//::sucks to be you.com).
If an army of thugs comes to your doorstep, wave the magic certificate of free market competition and invoke the watchman state.
But bribery generally works better.
This has been a message from the campaign to elect Gary Johnson. Gary has endorsed this message, and will pose in the nude for you for a small fee.
That first link doesn’t link.
Most likely a due breakdown of your utility function.
Go online to: http/::www.utopianthought/wallstreejournaleditorialpage.net and follow the instructions. Confirm the patent status of your function. A warranty may be available, but generally they are garbage. Lawsuits may be precluded by an arbitration clause (to check your arbitration status go to http//::sucks to be you.com).
If an army of thugs comes to your doorstep, wave the magic certificate of free market competition and invoke the watchman state.
But bribery generally works better.
This has been a message from the campaign to elect Gary Johnson. Gary has endorsed this message, and will pose in the nude for you for a small fee.
Thanks cleek, lj, byomtov and anyone else who responded re my CT link.
the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments.
I’m not 100% certain what you mean by the sharp elbows, but I have certainly noticed that their long comment streams often degenerate into extreme nitpickiness and contumely, with various of them calling for various others to be banned. Since I think you’re right, and lots of them are part of academe, I guess it’s what the germans call the narcissism of small differences. Or, to put it another way as attributed to many different academics, “Academic politics is much more vicious than real politics. We think it’s because the stakes are so small.”
Thanks cleek, lj, byomtov and anyone else who responded re my CT link.
the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments.
I’m not 100% certain what you mean by the sharp elbows, but I have certainly noticed that their long comment streams often degenerate into extreme nitpickiness and contumely, with various of them calling for various others to be banned. Since I think you’re right, and lots of them are part of academe, I guess it’s what the germans call the narcissism of small differences. Or, to put it another way as attributed to many different academics, “Academic politics is much more vicious than real politics. We think it’s because the stakes are so small.”
Thanks cleek, lj, byomtov and anyone else who responded re my CT link.
the folks there have way sharper elbows than we have here and folks here are hesitant to link to one of those threads that had 300+ comments.
I’m not 100% certain what you mean by the sharp elbows, but I have certainly noticed that their long comment streams often degenerate into extreme nitpickiness and contumely, with various of them calling for various others to be banned. Since I think you’re right, and lots of them are part of academe, I guess it’s what the germans call the narcissism of small differences. Or, to put it another way as attributed to many different academics, “Academic politics is much more vicious than real politics. We think it’s because the stakes are so small.”
And you should just SEE the fighting over who should get credit for that quotation…
And you should just SEE the fighting over who should get credit for that quotation…
And you should just SEE the fighting over who should get credit for that quotation…
GftNC, your comment made me pull up sharp elbows on the Urban dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sharp%20Elbow
My use was a little different, I wasn’t thinking ambitious, I was thinking of playing pickup basketball and there was always someone who would try to get position under the basket with ‘sharp elbows’ and if those guys got enough of a reputation, you would avoid them.
GftNC, your comment made me pull up sharp elbows on the Urban dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sharp%20Elbow
My use was a little different, I wasn’t thinking ambitious, I was thinking of playing pickup basketball and there was always someone who would try to get position under the basket with ‘sharp elbows’ and if those guys got enough of a reputation, you would avoid them.
GftNC, your comment made me pull up sharp elbows on the Urban dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sharp%20Elbow
My use was a little different, I wasn’t thinking ambitious, I was thinking of playing pickup basketball and there was always someone who would try to get position under the basket with ‘sharp elbows’ and if those guys got enough of a reputation, you would avoid them.
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
Yes, because he is losing. If he was winning, I don’t think there is the slightest chance they would be denouncing him. Why should they? He hasn;t said anything that the Republican party ahsn’t been pushing for forty years. He is more honest and open, doesn’t dog whistle, but the xenophobic hatemongering is par for the course for Republican discourse. The other thing Republican politician don;t like about him is his seemingly sincere opposition to TPP and outsourcing and he does not have a history of being an extremist of the Ryan type. But the nastiness, the hatefulness, that’s nothing new or different at all.
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
Yes, because he is losing. If he was winning, I don’t think there is the slightest chance they would be denouncing him. Why should they? He hasn;t said anything that the Republican party ahsn’t been pushing for forty years. He is more honest and open, doesn’t dog whistle, but the xenophobic hatemongering is par for the course for Republican discourse. The other thing Republican politician don;t like about him is his seemingly sincere opposition to TPP and outsourcing and he does not have a history of being an extremist of the Ryan type. But the nastiness, the hatefulness, that’s nothing new or different at all.
Plenty of conservatives–PLENTY–have denounced Trump and have been doing so for months. It is bullshit to act otherwise.
Yes, because he is losing. If he was winning, I don’t think there is the slightest chance they would be denouncing him. Why should they? He hasn;t said anything that the Republican party ahsn’t been pushing for forty years. He is more honest and open, doesn’t dog whistle, but the xenophobic hatemongering is par for the course for Republican discourse. The other thing Republican politician don;t like about him is his seemingly sincere opposition to TPP and outsourcing and he does not have a history of being an extremist of the Ryan type. But the nastiness, the hatefulness, that’s nothing new or different at all.
I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn’t give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism — to give it one of its more polite names.
That’s alwasy been the case. REpubican politicans nkow that they would never get elected if they were honest about their policies. They have to appeal to the voters by deliberately downplaying their policies, when not lying about them outright, while making emotional appeals, appeals to negative emotions. Por-bashing. gay-bashing, Democrat-bashing. Spreading lies about voter fraud. Spreading lies about Planned Parenthood. Take the dishonest hatemongering out of Republican discourse and there’s nothing left Conservative politicians do not talk in public about their real intentions.
I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn’t give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism — to give it one of its more polite names.
That’s alwasy been the case. REpubican politicans nkow that they would never get elected if they were honest about their policies. They have to appeal to the voters by deliberately downplaying their policies, when not lying about them outright, while making emotional appeals, appeals to negative emotions. Por-bashing. gay-bashing, Democrat-bashing. Spreading lies about voter fraud. Spreading lies about Planned Parenthood. Take the dishonest hatemongering out of Republican discourse and there’s nothing left Conservative politicians do not talk in public about their real intentions.
I fear you are right. What the rise of Trump showed is that a critical mass of the Republican base doesn’t give a s**t about the so-called ideas of mainstream-ish conservative Republicanism and instead gets juiced up by appeals to ethnic nationalism — to give it one of its more polite names.
That’s alwasy been the case. REpubican politicans nkow that they would never get elected if they were honest about their policies. They have to appeal to the voters by deliberately downplaying their policies, when not lying about them outright, while making emotional appeals, appeals to negative emotions. Por-bashing. gay-bashing, Democrat-bashing. Spreading lies about voter fraud. Spreading lies about Planned Parenthood. Take the dishonest hatemongering out of Republican discourse and there’s nothing left Conservative politicians do not talk in public about their real intentions.
“You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress”
hey man, that’s my gig.
me and wavy gravy are gonna be the cabinet level officials in charge of national pranks.
“the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.”
in bush’s case, I think he was playing the guitar while NOLA drowned.
in any event, the larger objection was to a lack of effective planning and response.
that, and people getting shot when they tried to walk to safety.
“You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress”
hey man, that’s my gig.
me and wavy gravy are gonna be the cabinet level officials in charge of national pranks.
“the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.”
in bush’s case, I think he was playing the guitar while NOLA drowned.
in any event, the larger objection was to a lack of effective planning and response.
that, and people getting shot when they tried to walk to safety.
“You would be in charge of preparing the cream pies for throwing during visits from the opposition in Congress”
hey man, that’s my gig.
me and wavy gravy are gonna be the cabinet level officials in charge of national pranks.
“the golf thing just became a handy symbol of that response.”
in bush’s case, I think he was playing the guitar while NOLA drowned.
in any event, the larger objection was to a lack of effective planning and response.
that, and people getting shot when they tried to walk to safety.
Nice to see you wonkie! You might get some pushback, but as I said above, we are all the Count now…
Nice to see you wonkie! You might get some pushback, but as I said above, we are all the Count now…
Nice to see you wonkie! You might get some pushback, but as I said above, we are all the Count now…
LJ, yes I only knew the ambition usage, and it didn’t seem to fit, so your basketball analogy makes much more sense. Meanwhile, back in the cesspit, Trump’s pivot appears to be holding for at least 48 hours, which is naturally very worrying. I can’t help feeling that Bannon and Ailes are going to be much better at this, having already separately succeeded in moving US discourse to the appalling end of the spectrum. I only hope I’m wrong, and that Trump proves uncontrollable.
LJ, yes I only knew the ambition usage, and it didn’t seem to fit, so your basketball analogy makes much more sense. Meanwhile, back in the cesspit, Trump’s pivot appears to be holding for at least 48 hours, which is naturally very worrying. I can’t help feeling that Bannon and Ailes are going to be much better at this, having already separately succeeded in moving US discourse to the appalling end of the spectrum. I only hope I’m wrong, and that Trump proves uncontrollable.
LJ, yes I only knew the ambition usage, and it didn’t seem to fit, so your basketball analogy makes much more sense. Meanwhile, back in the cesspit, Trump’s pivot appears to be holding for at least 48 hours, which is naturally very worrying. I can’t help feeling that Bannon and Ailes are going to be much better at this, having already separately succeeded in moving US discourse to the appalling end of the spectrum. I only hope I’m wrong, and that Trump proves uncontrollable.
GftNC,
You’re welcome.
Another reason I don’t read CT much is that many of the topics are of no interest to me. The posts on philosophy, for example, generally deal with subjects about which I know little, and am not much motivated to learn. Similarly for those that delve deeply into Marxist writers, or some other writers. My interest in science fiction is limited – I usually skip Dr. Science’s posts on the subject here.
So a non-ideological reason is simply that I am only infrequently part of the audience to whom the posts are addressed.
GftNC,
You’re welcome.
Another reason I don’t read CT much is that many of the topics are of no interest to me. The posts on philosophy, for example, generally deal with subjects about which I know little, and am not much motivated to learn. Similarly for those that delve deeply into Marxist writers, or some other writers. My interest in science fiction is limited – I usually skip Dr. Science’s posts on the subject here.
So a non-ideological reason is simply that I am only infrequently part of the audience to whom the posts are addressed.
GftNC,
You’re welcome.
Another reason I don’t read CT much is that many of the topics are of no interest to me. The posts on philosophy, for example, generally deal with subjects about which I know little, and am not much motivated to learn. Similarly for those that delve deeply into Marxist writers, or some other writers. My interest in science fiction is limited – I usually skip Dr. Science’s posts on the subject here.
So a non-ideological reason is simply that I am only infrequently part of the audience to whom the posts are addressed.
In the 18th and 19th century, one of the real responsibilities of Russian emperors was leading fire-fighting and flood response in St. Petersburg during major emergencies. This was partly because no one else had the necessary command powers to direct the movement of all military units in the capital. (Russian czars took commander-in-chief responsibilities seriously. Nicholas I began every day of his reign by attending the daily morning briefing for the officers of the guard regiment in charge of his personal security.)
Anyhow, the personal courage and command ability demonstrated during emergencies were really important. The elite looked quite closely at these as a measure of the overall effectiveness of the autocrat.
In a modern democracy, the president should not direct emergency response personally, just like it should not be necessary for him to command the Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region in person. He is responsible for building a system that works when he is playing golf. If he needs to take operational lead, he has goofed up.
In the 18th and 19th century, one of the real responsibilities of Russian emperors was leading fire-fighting and flood response in St. Petersburg during major emergencies. This was partly because no one else had the necessary command powers to direct the movement of all military units in the capital. (Russian czars took commander-in-chief responsibilities seriously. Nicholas I began every day of his reign by attending the daily morning briefing for the officers of the guard regiment in charge of his personal security.)
Anyhow, the personal courage and command ability demonstrated during emergencies were really important. The elite looked quite closely at these as a measure of the overall effectiveness of the autocrat.
In a modern democracy, the president should not direct emergency response personally, just like it should not be necessary for him to command the Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region in person. He is responsible for building a system that works when he is playing golf. If he needs to take operational lead, he has goofed up.
In the 18th and 19th century, one of the real responsibilities of Russian emperors was leading fire-fighting and flood response in St. Petersburg during major emergencies. This was partly because no one else had the necessary command powers to direct the movement of all military units in the capital. (Russian czars took commander-in-chief responsibilities seriously. Nicholas I began every day of his reign by attending the daily morning briefing for the officers of the guard regiment in charge of his personal security.)
Anyhow, the personal courage and command ability demonstrated during emergencies were really important. The elite looked quite closely at these as a measure of the overall effectiveness of the autocrat.
In a modern democracy, the president should not direct emergency response personally, just like it should not be necessary for him to command the Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region in person. He is responsible for building a system that works when he is playing golf. If he needs to take operational lead, he has goofed up.
Assuming the AP isn’t part of the Right Wing Noise Machine, here are extracts from an AP article:
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
* * *
But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
* * *
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
* * *
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
Here’s a shorter recap:
154 individuals give 84 million and have meetings with HRC or her top advisors at State.
16 countries give 170 MILLION.
Since 2000, 6000 donors have given 2 f’ing billion. How many charities raise that kind of money in 16 years?
But, she says if elected, she won’t do this anymore and neither will her husband.
So, to Ugh’s point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name. My thought is that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are nauseated full stop a the thought of these rent seekers being back in the White House.
As nauseated as I am by HRC and what seems to me to be her complete and total lack of integrity or accountability, I can’t pull the lever for Trump.
If he were only half the asshole that he is, I could probably throw up and then vote for him.
But I get the lesser of two evils argument. Because it cuts both ways.
Assuming the AP isn’t part of the Right Wing Noise Machine, here are extracts from an AP article:
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
* * *
But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
* * *
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
* * *
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
Here’s a shorter recap:
154 individuals give 84 million and have meetings with HRC or her top advisors at State.
16 countries give 170 MILLION.
Since 2000, 6000 donors have given 2 f’ing billion. How many charities raise that kind of money in 16 years?
But, she says if elected, she won’t do this anymore and neither will her husband.
So, to Ugh’s point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name. My thought is that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are nauseated full stop a the thought of these rent seekers being back in the White House.
As nauseated as I am by HRC and what seems to me to be her complete and total lack of integrity or accountability, I can’t pull the lever for Trump.
If he were only half the asshole that he is, I could probably throw up and then vote for him.
But I get the lesser of two evils argument. Because it cuts both ways.
Assuming the AP isn’t part of the Right Wing Noise Machine, here are extracts from an AP article:
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
* * *
But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
* * *
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
* * *
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
Here’s a shorter recap:
154 individuals give 84 million and have meetings with HRC or her top advisors at State.
16 countries give 170 MILLION.
Since 2000, 6000 donors have given 2 f’ing billion. How many charities raise that kind of money in 16 years?
But, she says if elected, she won’t do this anymore and neither will her husband.
So, to Ugh’s point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name. My thought is that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are nauseated full stop a the thought of these rent seekers being back in the White House.
As nauseated as I am by HRC and what seems to me to be her complete and total lack of integrity or accountability, I can’t pull the lever for Trump.
If he were only half the asshole that he is, I could probably throw up and then vote for him.
But I get the lesser of two evils argument. Because it cuts both ways.
Damn numbers.
It wasn’t 154 people giving 84 million.
It was 85 people giving 156 million.
Sorry for the error.
Damn numbers.
It wasn’t 154 people giving 84 million.
It was 85 people giving 156 million.
Sorry for the error.
Damn numbers.
It wasn’t 154 people giving 84 million.
It was 85 people giving 156 million.
Sorry for the error.
Just more Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Tex.
I can’t wait for all the heart attacks on the reactionary right when she takes the Oath of Office, and I don’t like her that much either!
And George W. Bush never spoke with a big campaign donor? Seriously?
Just more Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Tex.
I can’t wait for all the heart attacks on the reactionary right when she takes the Oath of Office, and I don’t like her that much either!
And George W. Bush never spoke with a big campaign donor? Seriously?
Just more Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Tex.
I can’t wait for all the heart attacks on the reactionary right when she takes the Oath of Office, and I don’t like her that much either!
And George W. Bush never spoke with a big campaign donor? Seriously?
I am so pleased that the Bush legacy has been so completely rehabilitated. In every discussion now the ultimate out is that surely Bush the lesser did it also, so it must be ok. But no, he probably didn’t meet, while Secretary of State, with potential donors foreign and domestic to see what he could do for them.
CDS is a typical catchphrase employed by the Clinton left too demean the person questioning them to make the focus something wrong with them, rather than what she has done. It also provides the loyalists with a motto which helps cement their inclusion in US.
But it is not a real thing, you know, she actually has done bad things.
I am so pleased that the Bush legacy has been so completely rehabilitated. In every discussion now the ultimate out is that surely Bush the lesser did it also, so it must be ok. But no, he probably didn’t meet, while Secretary of State, with potential donors foreign and domestic to see what he could do for them.
CDS is a typical catchphrase employed by the Clinton left too demean the person questioning them to make the focus something wrong with them, rather than what she has done. It also provides the loyalists with a motto which helps cement their inclusion in US.
But it is not a real thing, you know, she actually has done bad things.
I am so pleased that the Bush legacy has been so completely rehabilitated. In every discussion now the ultimate out is that surely Bush the lesser did it also, so it must be ok. But no, he probably didn’t meet, while Secretary of State, with potential donors foreign and domestic to see what he could do for them.
CDS is a typical catchphrase employed by the Clinton left too demean the person questioning them to make the focus something wrong with them, rather than what she has done. It also provides the loyalists with a motto which helps cement their inclusion in US.
But it is not a real thing, you know, she actually has done bad things.
So, BP, because someone says “there’s no story here”, that fixes the problem?
Do you think the AP is making it up?
They matched the meetings at State with the Donors and the amounts. That’s called connecting the dots.
But, keep whistling past the graveyard and telling yourself only those bad conservatives are capable of corruption.
So, BP, because someone says “there’s no story here”, that fixes the problem?
Do you think the AP is making it up?
They matched the meetings at State with the Donors and the amounts. That’s called connecting the dots.
But, keep whistling past the graveyard and telling yourself only those bad conservatives are capable of corruption.
So, BP, because someone says “there’s no story here”, that fixes the problem?
Do you think the AP is making it up?
They matched the meetings at State with the Donors and the amounts. That’s called connecting the dots.
But, keep whistling past the graveyard and telling yourself only those bad conservatives are capable of corruption.
What would be really interesting would be information on donors who got anything more than a meeting.
People give money for access all the time. Which isn’t too good, but hardly especially reprehensible either. Fortunately, we can be confident that, if there is anything even remotely resembling real quid pro quo, it will get splashed across the front pages.
What would be really interesting would be information on donors who got anything more than a meeting.
People give money for access all the time. Which isn’t too good, but hardly especially reprehensible either. Fortunately, we can be confident that, if there is anything even remotely resembling real quid pro quo, it will get splashed across the front pages.
What would be really interesting would be information on donors who got anything more than a meeting.
People give money for access all the time. Which isn’t too good, but hardly especially reprehensible either. Fortunately, we can be confident that, if there is anything even remotely resembling real quid pro quo, it will get splashed across the front pages.
Do you think the AP is making it up?
Ha ha. That’s an argument? Where did you learn that one…one of those lawyer conventions you get to write off as a business expense?
Look. Context matters. (so would a cite, by the way). How many people did she meet with? Who were they? If they were donors to the Clinton Foundation, how much did they donate?
Most importantly: What did they get from this access? Big contracts? An ambassadorship? A nice thank you note? WHAT?
In and of itself, the AP cut you posted shows absolutely nothing, and as mentioned, is totally devoid of context. Hilary Clinton meets with rich and powerful people.
This, somehow, is f*cking news? Are you kidding me? It’s not even close to connecting dots.
So I looked at another breathless non-story on this latest manifestation of CDS here.
If you read this one, too, you will find a lot of breathless couch fainting….but really…NOTHING.
Gosh, she had a breakfast ‘meeting’ with a bunch of corporate bigwigs before a ceremonial bell ringing on the stock exchange.
THAT’S REALLY SUSPICIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really? How? How is that different from a group meeting of the swells you hang out with at your country club lobbying a guest city councilman about a zoning ordinance?
The bottom line is this: You are just making shit up. Show the quid for the quo, otherwise, just sit down.
The real problem is a system that creates vast disparities of wealth that enable the Bill Gates of the world to easily get the attention of powerful politicians in the first place. That is the real “access” problem we have.
Since we have an economic system based on the social reinforcement of personal greed, this is what you get. It is a problem across party lines (hey, how do all those nonentities get promoted to corporate boards of directors, huh? Must be something criminal going on….right?).
Well, I’d agree, in a sense there is.
But this shit fro AP and WA Po? It is worthless drivel.
It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent people go off the deep end when it comes to this kind of really abjectly awful “journalism”.
Do you think the AP is making it up?
Ha ha. That’s an argument? Where did you learn that one…one of those lawyer conventions you get to write off as a business expense?
Look. Context matters. (so would a cite, by the way). How many people did she meet with? Who were they? If they were donors to the Clinton Foundation, how much did they donate?
Most importantly: What did they get from this access? Big contracts? An ambassadorship? A nice thank you note? WHAT?
In and of itself, the AP cut you posted shows absolutely nothing, and as mentioned, is totally devoid of context. Hilary Clinton meets with rich and powerful people.
This, somehow, is f*cking news? Are you kidding me? It’s not even close to connecting dots.
So I looked at another breathless non-story on this latest manifestation of CDS here.
If you read this one, too, you will find a lot of breathless couch fainting….but really…NOTHING.
Gosh, she had a breakfast ‘meeting’ with a bunch of corporate bigwigs before a ceremonial bell ringing on the stock exchange.
THAT’S REALLY SUSPICIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really? How? How is that different from a group meeting of the swells you hang out with at your country club lobbying a guest city councilman about a zoning ordinance?
The bottom line is this: You are just making shit up. Show the quid for the quo, otherwise, just sit down.
The real problem is a system that creates vast disparities of wealth that enable the Bill Gates of the world to easily get the attention of powerful politicians in the first place. That is the real “access” problem we have.
Since we have an economic system based on the social reinforcement of personal greed, this is what you get. It is a problem across party lines (hey, how do all those nonentities get promoted to corporate boards of directors, huh? Must be something criminal going on….right?).
Well, I’d agree, in a sense there is.
But this shit fro AP and WA Po? It is worthless drivel.
It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent people go off the deep end when it comes to this kind of really abjectly awful “journalism”.
Do you think the AP is making it up?
Ha ha. That’s an argument? Where did you learn that one…one of those lawyer conventions you get to write off as a business expense?
Look. Context matters. (so would a cite, by the way). How many people did she meet with? Who were they? If they were donors to the Clinton Foundation, how much did they donate?
Most importantly: What did they get from this access? Big contracts? An ambassadorship? A nice thank you note? WHAT?
In and of itself, the AP cut you posted shows absolutely nothing, and as mentioned, is totally devoid of context. Hilary Clinton meets with rich and powerful people.
This, somehow, is f*cking news? Are you kidding me? It’s not even close to connecting dots.
So I looked at another breathless non-story on this latest manifestation of CDS here.
If you read this one, too, you will find a lot of breathless couch fainting….but really…NOTHING.
Gosh, she had a breakfast ‘meeting’ with a bunch of corporate bigwigs before a ceremonial bell ringing on the stock exchange.
THAT’S REALLY SUSPICIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really? How? How is that different from a group meeting of the swells you hang out with at your country club lobbying a guest city councilman about a zoning ordinance?
The bottom line is this: You are just making shit up. Show the quid for the quo, otherwise, just sit down.
The real problem is a system that creates vast disparities of wealth that enable the Bill Gates of the world to easily get the attention of powerful politicians in the first place. That is the real “access” problem we have.
Since we have an economic system based on the social reinforcement of personal greed, this is what you get. It is a problem across party lines (hey, how do all those nonentities get promoted to corporate boards of directors, huh? Must be something criminal going on….right?).
Well, I’d agree, in a sense there is.
But this shit fro AP and WA Po? It is worthless drivel.
It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent people go off the deep end when it comes to this kind of really abjectly awful “journalism”.
Marty, Tex,
Dont’ get me wrong. I have no issue with rich people hanging around with each other. It’s a peer thing. If they did nothing else but gather at Davos and go skiing all the time, I wouldn’t give a fig.
What I object to, is they, without the slightest amount of public accountability, get to overly dictate how I live my poor miserable life….merely because they have more wealth (a good deal of which was inherited, by the way) than I do.
Call me envious, but that I tend to have issues with.
Keep you head down!
Marty, Tex,
Dont’ get me wrong. I have no issue with rich people hanging around with each other. It’s a peer thing. If they did nothing else but gather at Davos and go skiing all the time, I wouldn’t give a fig.
What I object to, is they, without the slightest amount of public accountability, get to overly dictate how I live my poor miserable life….merely because they have more wealth (a good deal of which was inherited, by the way) than I do.
Call me envious, but that I tend to have issues with.
Keep you head down!
Marty, Tex,
Dont’ get me wrong. I have no issue with rich people hanging around with each other. It’s a peer thing. If they did nothing else but gather at Davos and go skiing all the time, I wouldn’t give a fig.
What I object to, is they, without the slightest amount of public accountability, get to overly dictate how I live my poor miserable life….merely because they have more wealth (a good deal of which was inherited, by the way) than I do.
Call me envious, but that I tend to have issues with.
Keep you head down!
RuPaul’s endorsement might be appropriate to note here. Apologies for the language
http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/rupaul-emmy-nomination-trump-clinton.html
What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you’re a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you’re not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you’re living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she’s fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You’ve got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That’s more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn’t know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That’s really the question.
RuPaul’s endorsement might be appropriate to note here. Apologies for the language
http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/rupaul-emmy-nomination-trump-clinton.html
What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you’re a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you’re not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you’re living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she’s fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You’ve got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That’s more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn’t know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That’s really the question.
RuPaul’s endorsement might be appropriate to note here. Apologies for the language
http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/rupaul-emmy-nomination-trump-clinton.html
What do you think about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?
[Laughs.] I fucking love them. I have always loved them. And let me just say this: If you’re a politician — not just in Washington but in business and industry, you have to be a politician — there are a lot of things that you have to do that you’re not proud of. There are a lot of compromises you have to make because it means that you can get this other thing over here. And if you think that you can go to fucking Washington and be rainbows and butterflies the whole time, you’re living in a fucking fantasy world. So now, having said that, think about what a female has to do with that: All of those compromises, all of that shit, double it by ten. And you get to understand who this woman is and how powerful, persuasive, brilliant, and resilient she is. Any female executive, anybody who has been put to the side — women, blacks, gays — for them to succeed in a white-male-dominated culture is an act of brilliance. Of resilience, of grit, of everything you can imagine. So, what do I think of Hillary? I think she’s fucking awesome. Is she in bed with Wall Street? Goddammit, I should hope so! You’ve got to dance with the devil. So which of the horrible people do you want? That’s more of the question. Do you want a pompous braggart who doesn’t know anything about diplomacy? Or do you want a badass bitch who knows how to get shit done? That’s really the question.
So, to Ugh’s point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name.
Actually I think my post and subsequent comments were notably free of accusations of racism, whether lobbed at Trump or his supporters.
Would it be too much to say that Trump won the GOP nomination because of the horrible things he says/supports/promotes, and that Hillary won the Democratic nomination despite her issues (real or imagined) with state department email and the Clinton Foundation?
So, to Ugh’s point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name.
Actually I think my post and subsequent comments were notably free of accusations of racism, whether lobbed at Trump or his supporters.
Would it be too much to say that Trump won the GOP nomination because of the horrible things he says/supports/promotes, and that Hillary won the Democratic nomination despite her issues (real or imagined) with state department email and the Clinton Foundation?
So, to Ugh’s point, it may be that all Trump supporters are Klansmen in all but name.
Actually I think my post and subsequent comments were notably free of accusations of racism, whether lobbed at Trump or his supporters.
Would it be too much to say that Trump won the GOP nomination because of the horrible things he says/supports/promotes, and that Hillary won the Democratic nomination despite her issues (real or imagined) with state department email and the Clinton Foundation?
Tex Mac
“So, BP, because someone says “there’s no story here”, that fixes the problem?”
No, the problem is, as has been pointed out, there really isn’t a story here. I know you want there to be a story there and if you click your heels three times and wish really hard it may appear.
But neither the AP or you have produced one so far.
But honestly, good luck with that Dorothy.
Tex Mac
“So, BP, because someone says “there’s no story here”, that fixes the problem?”
No, the problem is, as has been pointed out, there really isn’t a story here. I know you want there to be a story there and if you click your heels three times and wish really hard it may appear.
But neither the AP or you have produced one so far.
But honestly, good luck with that Dorothy.
Tex Mac
“So, BP, because someone says “there’s no story here”, that fixes the problem?”
No, the problem is, as has been pointed out, there really isn’t a story here. I know you want there to be a story there and if you click your heels three times and wish really hard it may appear.
But neither the AP or you have produced one so far.
But honestly, good luck with that Dorothy.
Some things are just impossible not to share. This gem from Larry Sabato:
Trump polls 1-2% among blacks. In ’64 Goldwater got 6% after voting no on the Civil Rights Act. In ’68 segregationist George Wallace won 3%.
Think about that for a second. George Wallace got more black votes than what Donald Trump is currently polling. The mind totally boggles.
Some things are just impossible not to share. This gem from Larry Sabato:
Trump polls 1-2% among blacks. In ’64 Goldwater got 6% after voting no on the Civil Rights Act. In ’68 segregationist George Wallace won 3%.
Think about that for a second. George Wallace got more black votes than what Donald Trump is currently polling. The mind totally boggles.
Some things are just impossible not to share. This gem from Larry Sabato:
Trump polls 1-2% among blacks. In ’64 Goldwater got 6% after voting no on the Civil Rights Act. In ’68 segregationist George Wallace won 3%.
Think about that for a second. George Wallace got more black votes than what Donald Trump is currently polling. The mind totally boggles.
I have always thought that black people are smarter than white people, judging by their respective voting patterns.
–TP
I have always thought that black people are smarter than white people, judging by their respective voting patterns.
–TP
I have always thought that black people are smarter than white people, judging by their respective voting patterns.
–TP
…or pledged commitments to its international programs
I’d like to know what this means. It sounds like we may be discussing largely unavoidable intersections of people and interests on Planet Earth. The Clinton Foundation is large, prominent, international charity. It’s programs include other charities all over the world.
Maybe the answer is that if your former-president husband starts a charitable foundation that becomes large, prominent and international in scope, you simply can’t hold high political office. Is that it?
…or pledged commitments to its international programs
I’d like to know what this means. It sounds like we may be discussing largely unavoidable intersections of people and interests on Planet Earth. The Clinton Foundation is large, prominent, international charity. It’s programs include other charities all over the world.
Maybe the answer is that if your former-president husband starts a charitable foundation that becomes large, prominent and international in scope, you simply can’t hold high political office. Is that it?
…or pledged commitments to its international programs
I’d like to know what this means. It sounds like we may be discussing largely unavoidable intersections of people and interests on Planet Earth. The Clinton Foundation is large, prominent, international charity. It’s programs include other charities all over the world.
Maybe the answer is that if your former-president husband starts a charitable foundation that becomes large, prominent and international in scope, you simply can’t hold high political office. Is that it?
Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone’s heads in the sand?
Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?
Or that RuPaul is an effective spokesperson for HRC (“it’s hard being a girl in this mean boys’ world, so if you have to take a bribe here and there, sometimes a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do”)?
What is it about the Clinton Foundation’s brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?
Can someone link me to the headlines extolling the Foundation’s profound impact on the lives of others? But spare me the puff pieces from apparatchiks.
If you think this isn’t news and isn’t highly telling of your crappy-ass candidate, you are telling yourselves bedtime stories.
The fact that so many of you buy into her and her husband’s bullshit is why they keep on doing it–you allow them to do it.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That’s called stonewalling. During the stonewalling stage, the Clinton apparatchiks deny any wrongdoing, deny the existence of any evidence and claim it’s all politically motivated (the AP, that well known extension of the RNC). Then, when evidence does finally falls out, they declare it to be a nonstory, no matter what. It’s what they do and they’ve been doing it in one form or another for decades. It isn’t isolated events. It’s a clear pattern. They have a huge, reliable built-in excuse-making coterie. There is no reason for them to change.
Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone’s heads in the sand?
Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?
Or that RuPaul is an effective spokesperson for HRC (“it’s hard being a girl in this mean boys’ world, so if you have to take a bribe here and there, sometimes a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do”)?
What is it about the Clinton Foundation’s brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?
Can someone link me to the headlines extolling the Foundation’s profound impact on the lives of others? But spare me the puff pieces from apparatchiks.
If you think this isn’t news and isn’t highly telling of your crappy-ass candidate, you are telling yourselves bedtime stories.
The fact that so many of you buy into her and her husband’s bullshit is why they keep on doing it–you allow them to do it.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That’s called stonewalling. During the stonewalling stage, the Clinton apparatchiks deny any wrongdoing, deny the existence of any evidence and claim it’s all politically motivated (the AP, that well known extension of the RNC). Then, when evidence does finally falls out, they declare it to be a nonstory, no matter what. It’s what they do and they’ve been doing it in one form or another for decades. It isn’t isolated events. It’s a clear pattern. They have a huge, reliable built-in excuse-making coterie. There is no reason for them to change.
Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone’s heads in the sand?
Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?
Or that RuPaul is an effective spokesperson for HRC (“it’s hard being a girl in this mean boys’ world, so if you have to take a bribe here and there, sometimes a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do”)?
What is it about the Clinton Foundation’s brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?
Can someone link me to the headlines extolling the Foundation’s profound impact on the lives of others? But spare me the puff pieces from apparatchiks.
If you think this isn’t news and isn’t highly telling of your crappy-ass candidate, you are telling yourselves bedtime stories.
The fact that so many of you buy into her and her husband’s bullshit is why they keep on doing it–you allow them to do it.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That’s called stonewalling. During the stonewalling stage, the Clinton apparatchiks deny any wrongdoing, deny the existence of any evidence and claim it’s all politically motivated (the AP, that well known extension of the RNC). Then, when evidence does finally falls out, they declare it to be a nonstory, no matter what. It’s what they do and they’ve been doing it in one form or another for decades. It isn’t isolated events. It’s a clear pattern. They have a huge, reliable built-in excuse-making coterie. There is no reason for them to change.
It’s news because it’s news, sure. The question is what does this news mean in concrete terms. What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn’t have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?
It’s news because it’s news, sure. The question is what does this news mean in concrete terms. What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn’t have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?
It’s news because it’s news, sure. The question is what does this news mean in concrete terms. What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn’t have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?
What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn’t have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?
Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof. Lefties are absolutely convinced that corporate money perverts our electoral system, yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.
Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it’s a bride? Does she say it’s a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let’s MOVE ON.
What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn’t have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?
Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof. Lefties are absolutely convinced that corporate money perverts our electoral system, yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.
Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it’s a bride? Does she say it’s a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let’s MOVE ON.
What did someone get? What ultimately happened, materially, that shouldn’t have? How was the access people seemed to have gotten different from the access other people have gotten for various reasons throughout the history of people sitting in positions of power?
Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof. Lefties are absolutely convinced that corporate money perverts our electoral system, yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.
Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it’s a bride? Does she say it’s a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let’s MOVE ON.
…yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.
The whole system is sleazy. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is especially clean as politicians go. But I don’t think she’s nearly as dirty as you and many other people think she is, particularly within the broader context of how things work in the imperfect world. I would prefer that the Clinton Foundation had stuck to the promises made when she accepted the appointment to Sec of State. But it’s not going to prevent me from voting for her when she’s running against Donald friggin’ Trump (fer cryin’ out loud).
…yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.
The whole system is sleazy. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is especially clean as politicians go. But I don’t think she’s nearly as dirty as you and many other people think she is, particularly within the broader context of how things work in the imperfect world. I would prefer that the Clinton Foundation had stuck to the promises made when she accepted the appointment to Sec of State. But it’s not going to prevent me from voting for her when she’s running against Donald friggin’ Trump (fer cryin’ out loud).
…yet for some reason remain completely blind to the objective reality of their sleazy-ass candidate.
The whole system is sleazy. I don’t think Hillary Clinton is especially clean as politicians go. But I don’t think she’s nearly as dirty as you and many other people think she is, particularly within the broader context of how things work in the imperfect world. I would prefer that the Clinton Foundation had stuck to the promises made when she accepted the appointment to Sec of State. But it’s not going to prevent me from voting for her when she’s running against Donald friggin’ Trump (fer cryin’ out loud).
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years.
The AP filed their initial FOI request back in 2013 and finally went to court to get the release of the information. It should be noted that Clinton was not running the department during that time.
That’s called stonewalling.
That’s called bullshitting.
It’s a clear pattern.
cf “Clinton Rules” for the real clear pattern here. Same old, same old.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years.
The AP filed their initial FOI request back in 2013 and finally went to court to get the release of the information. It should be noted that Clinton was not running the department during that time.
That’s called stonewalling.
That’s called bullshitting.
It’s a clear pattern.
cf “Clinton Rules” for the real clear pattern here. Same old, same old.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years.
The AP filed their initial FOI request back in 2013 and finally went to court to get the release of the information. It should be noted that Clinton was not running the department during that time.
That’s called stonewalling.
That’s called bullshitting.
It’s a clear pattern.
cf “Clinton Rules” for the real clear pattern here. Same old, same old.
Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof.
You must be slipping, McKinney. Since you have no actual standard for burden of proof to begin with, I guess asking for actual evidence would be raising that abysmally low bar.
Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof.
You must be slipping, McKinney. Since you have no actual standard for burden of proof to begin with, I guess asking for actual evidence would be raising that abysmally low bar.
Ok, I forgot this one: either shift or raise the burden of proof.
You must be slipping, McKinney. Since you have no actual standard for burden of proof to begin with, I guess asking for actual evidence would be raising that abysmally low bar.
McTx: please clarify what the Hillary quid pro quo actually was.
Because it sounds like “A gave money to charity B, and asked for some face-time with C, which they may have gotten”
Is there more than that? Was the charitable foundation funneling money to Clinton? What was the “quid”? what was the “quo”?
“Lefties are absolutely convinced” STOP RIGHT THERE with the mind-reading and blanket accusations, unless you want to hear about how Righties are all goat-molesters.
McTx: please clarify what the Hillary quid pro quo actually was.
Because it sounds like “A gave money to charity B, and asked for some face-time with C, which they may have gotten”
Is there more than that? Was the charitable foundation funneling money to Clinton? What was the “quid”? what was the “quo”?
“Lefties are absolutely convinced” STOP RIGHT THERE with the mind-reading and blanket accusations, unless you want to hear about how Righties are all goat-molesters.
McTx: please clarify what the Hillary quid pro quo actually was.
Because it sounds like “A gave money to charity B, and asked for some face-time with C, which they may have gotten”
Is there more than that? Was the charitable foundation funneling money to Clinton? What was the “quid”? what was the “quo”?
“Lefties are absolutely convinced” STOP RIGHT THERE with the mind-reading and blanket accusations, unless you want to hear about how Righties are all goat-molesters.
WSS.
Or even, was C then doing favours for A, which resulted in financial or some other kind of quantifiable gain for A?
I’m finding it very hard to get a handle on what this accusation actually amounts to.
WSS.
Or even, was C then doing favours for A, which resulted in financial or some other kind of quantifiable gain for A?
I’m finding it very hard to get a handle on what this accusation actually amounts to.
WSS.
Or even, was C then doing favours for A, which resulted in financial or some other kind of quantifiable gain for A?
I’m finding it very hard to get a handle on what this accusation actually amounts to.
What is it about the Clinton Foundation’s brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?
could you, please, prove your insinuations? for once?
What is it about the Clinton Foundation’s brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?
could you, please, prove your insinuations? for once?
What is it about the Clinton Foundation’s brand that excites such a small number of people to write such large checks?
could you, please, prove your insinuations? for once?
I was going to write something about how, had Romney been the R nominee this time around, he’d probably be ahead in the polls at least partly because of the emails and Clinton Foundation stuff. Not that I’d be happy about it, mind you, but I wouldn’t find the situation to be the sort of utter absurdity that Trump’s campaign is, even though he’s behind and at this point looks like he’s going to get creamed in November.
At any rate, before I did get a chance to write that comment, I see this. I wouldn’t describe my feelings as nostalgia, but at least it wouldn’t be lunacy.
I was going to write something about how, had Romney been the R nominee this time around, he’d probably be ahead in the polls at least partly because of the emails and Clinton Foundation stuff. Not that I’d be happy about it, mind you, but I wouldn’t find the situation to be the sort of utter absurdity that Trump’s campaign is, even though he’s behind and at this point looks like he’s going to get creamed in November.
At any rate, before I did get a chance to write that comment, I see this. I wouldn’t describe my feelings as nostalgia, but at least it wouldn’t be lunacy.
I was going to write something about how, had Romney been the R nominee this time around, he’d probably be ahead in the polls at least partly because of the emails and Clinton Foundation stuff. Not that I’d be happy about it, mind you, but I wouldn’t find the situation to be the sort of utter absurdity that Trump’s campaign is, even though he’s behind and at this point looks like he’s going to get creamed in November.
At any rate, before I did get a chance to write that comment, I see this. I wouldn’t describe my feelings as nostalgia, but at least it wouldn’t be lunacy.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That’s called stonewalling.
There’s no question in my mind that the Clintons are seriously paranoid. And it gets them into entirely avoidable trouble now and again. This being only one example.
There’s also no doubt that they have some reason to be paranoid. Or, if you prefer, “even paranoids can have real enemies who are out to get them.”
The challenge, it seems to me, is for those accusing them to show that what they have done is different and more egregious than what virtually all politicians do. Preferably seriously more egregious. Otherwise, why are you getting excited?
This isn’t a matter of defending them by saying, “Well, other people do it.” It’s a matter of not having double standards. (We might want to raise those standards, but that’s a different discussion.**)
** Anyone looking to discuss ways to “clean up politics” should probably read this article from last month’s Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
If only for a lesson in unintended consequences.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That’s called stonewalling.
There’s no question in my mind that the Clintons are seriously paranoid. And it gets them into entirely avoidable trouble now and again. This being only one example.
There’s also no doubt that they have some reason to be paranoid. Or, if you prefer, “even paranoids can have real enemies who are out to get them.”
The challenge, it seems to me, is for those accusing them to show that what they have done is different and more egregious than what virtually all politicians do. Preferably seriously more egregious. Otherwise, why are you getting excited?
This isn’t a matter of defending them by saying, “Well, other people do it.” It’s a matter of not having double standards. (We might want to raise those standards, but that’s a different discussion.**)
** Anyone looking to discuss ways to “clean up politics” should probably read this article from last month’s Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
If only for a lesson in unintended consequences.
Note that the AP had to sue the State Department to get this info. It took 3 years. That’s called stonewalling.
There’s no question in my mind that the Clintons are seriously paranoid. And it gets them into entirely avoidable trouble now and again. This being only one example.
There’s also no doubt that they have some reason to be paranoid. Or, if you prefer, “even paranoids can have real enemies who are out to get them.”
The challenge, it seems to me, is for those accusing them to show that what they have done is different and more egregious than what virtually all politicians do. Preferably seriously more egregious. Otherwise, why are you getting excited?
This isn’t a matter of defending them by saying, “Well, other people do it.” It’s a matter of not having double standards. (We might want to raise those standards, but that’s a different discussion.**)
** Anyone looking to discuss ways to “clean up politics” should probably read this article from last month’s Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
If only for a lesson in unintended consequences.
AP – The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.
Does not appear to violate legal agreements but fuels perceptions of potential conflicts of interest.
There ya go. That’s pretty much what they’ve got.
That’s what LeTourneau at the Washington Monthly thinks as well.
Is this anything more than yet another round of “optics?”
AP – The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.
Does not appear to violate legal agreements but fuels perceptions of potential conflicts of interest.
There ya go. That’s pretty much what they’ve got.
That’s what LeTourneau at the Washington Monthly thinks as well.
Is this anything more than yet another round of “optics?”
AP – The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.
Does not appear to violate legal agreements but fuels perceptions of potential conflicts of interest.
There ya go. That’s pretty much what they’ve got.
That’s what LeTourneau at the Washington Monthly thinks as well.
Is this anything more than yet another round of “optics?”
Is this anything more than yet another round of “optics?”
no, and it doesn’t have to be.
the GOP knows that simply pushing these non-stories into the news fuels keeps a shadow over the Clintons. even if nothing is proved (and none of it ever is), the allegations are enough to keep people suspicious.
“all this smoke, there must be fire somewhere!” whispers Reince Priebus from behind the smoke machine.
and, the shit-stupid media is more than willing to push the comfortable narrative.
Is this anything more than yet another round of “optics?”
no, and it doesn’t have to be.
the GOP knows that simply pushing these non-stories into the news fuels keeps a shadow over the Clintons. even if nothing is proved (and none of it ever is), the allegations are enough to keep people suspicious.
“all this smoke, there must be fire somewhere!” whispers Reince Priebus from behind the smoke machine.
and, the shit-stupid media is more than willing to push the comfortable narrative.
Is this anything more than yet another round of “optics?”
no, and it doesn’t have to be.
the GOP knows that simply pushing these non-stories into the news fuels keeps a shadow over the Clintons. even if nothing is proved (and none of it ever is), the allegations are enough to keep people suspicious.
“all this smoke, there must be fire somewhere!” whispers Reince Priebus from behind the smoke machine.
and, the shit-stupid media is more than willing to push the comfortable narrative.
and, the shit-stupid media is more than willing to push the comfortable narrative.
Sadly, it’s not just Republicans that buy it. The “hold my nose” Democrats are gullible as well.
and, the shit-stupid media is more than willing to push the comfortable narrative.
Sadly, it’s not just Republicans that buy it. The “hold my nose” Democrats are gullible as well.
and, the shit-stupid media is more than willing to push the comfortable narrative.
Sadly, it’s not just Republicans that buy it. The “hold my nose” Democrats are gullible as well.
Nous, that’s a great piece by Nancy LaTourneau. The comments are also worthwhile.
Nous, that’s a great piece by Nancy LaTourneau. The comments are also worthwhile.
Nous, that’s a great piece by Nancy LaTourneau. The comments are also worthwhile.
From Nous’ link:
One has to wonder why the AP chose this story of Clinton’s 30+ year relationship with a Nobel Peace Prize recipient committed to combating global poverty as the one to highlight in their efforts to suggest that the Secretary of State met with people because of their donations to the Clinton Foundation.
She’s diabolical!!!
From Nous’ link:
One has to wonder why the AP chose this story of Clinton’s 30+ year relationship with a Nobel Peace Prize recipient committed to combating global poverty as the one to highlight in their efforts to suggest that the Secretary of State met with people because of their donations to the Clinton Foundation.
She’s diabolical!!!
From Nous’ link:
One has to wonder why the AP chose this story of Clinton’s 30+ year relationship with a Nobel Peace Prize recipient committed to combating global poverty as the one to highlight in their efforts to suggest that the Secretary of State met with people because of their donations to the Clinton Foundation.
She’s diabolical!!!
Okay, I’ll bite: Clinton is a horribly sleazy transactional rent seeker. Now what? What can I expect of her (potential) administration?
Okay, I’ll bite: Clinton is a horribly sleazy transactional rent seeker. Now what? What can I expect of her (potential) administration?
Okay, I’ll bite: Clinton is a horribly sleazy transactional rent seeker. Now what? What can I expect of her (potential) administration?
from wj’s Atlantic link:
“The biggest obstacle (to an effective national politics-ed BP), I think, is the general public’s reflexive, unreasoning hostility to politicians and the process of politics. Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry. Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.”
Good article.
from wj’s Atlantic link:
“The biggest obstacle (to an effective national politics-ed BP), I think, is the general public’s reflexive, unreasoning hostility to politicians and the process of politics. Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry. Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.”
Good article.
from wj’s Atlantic link:
“The biggest obstacle (to an effective national politics-ed BP), I think, is the general public’s reflexive, unreasoning hostility to politicians and the process of politics. Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry. Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.”
Good article.
What can I expect of her (potential) administration?
you can expect baseline moderate liberal policies with bonus more-liberal policies when the Congressional stars align.
What can I expect of her (potential) administration?
you can expect baseline moderate liberal policies with bonus more-liberal policies when the Congressional stars align.
What can I expect of her (potential) administration?
you can expect baseline moderate liberal policies with bonus more-liberal policies when the Congressional stars align.
I second bobbyp. wj’s link is really thought provoking. It’s a far better version of generally kinda-sorta-the-same argument Andrew Sullivan made (horribly) in this piece back in May, which, rather than making me think much at all, made me all eye-rolly.
The Atlantic piece has me rethinking a lot of stuff. The really short version: We traded making sausage for randomly throwing hash at the walls.
I also didn’t detect much of a partisan slant.
I second bobbyp. wj’s link is really thought provoking. It’s a far better version of generally kinda-sorta-the-same argument Andrew Sullivan made (horribly) in this piece back in May, which, rather than making me think much at all, made me all eye-rolly.
The Atlantic piece has me rethinking a lot of stuff. The really short version: We traded making sausage for randomly throwing hash at the walls.
I also didn’t detect much of a partisan slant.
I second bobbyp. wj’s link is really thought provoking. It’s a far better version of generally kinda-sorta-the-same argument Andrew Sullivan made (horribly) in this piece back in May, which, rather than making me think much at all, made me all eye-rolly.
The Atlantic piece has me rethinking a lot of stuff. The really short version: We traded making sausage for randomly throwing hash at the walls.
I also didn’t detect much of a partisan slant.
yes indeed, that Atlantic piece is interesting.
yes indeed, that Atlantic piece is interesting.
yes indeed, that Atlantic piece is interesting.
Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone’s heads in the sand?
Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?
Then I think somewhere else McKinney asks whether “the lefties here” have anything from outside the lefty bubble which shows this isn’t some kind of egregious, stinking corruption (my words).
Now it seemed to me that Nous’s link to LeTourneau in the Washington Monthly wasn’t bad, but of course I am handicapped by not knowing whether or not McKinney would consider the Washington Monthly part of the lefty bubble. I see that its politics are considered “centre left”, does this disqualify it? Is there any source that both the reasonable left and the reasonable right would consider, if not authoritative, then at least reasonably unbiased? Is everything, even among non-ideologues (among whom I consider most of our number), so completely polarised? I have noticed in the past that McKinney throws such stones into our pond, then disappears (admittedly possibly to work) leaving the ripples, and never addressing what seem like good answers to his questions. It’s hard to know whether he’s lost interest, considers the answers so hopeless they don’t merit a response, or finds some of them hard to argue with. Somehow, I doubt it’s the latter.
Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone’s heads in the sand?
Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?
Then I think somewhere else McKinney asks whether “the lefties here” have anything from outside the lefty bubble which shows this isn’t some kind of egregious, stinking corruption (my words).
Now it seemed to me that Nous’s link to LeTourneau in the Washington Monthly wasn’t bad, but of course I am handicapped by not knowing whether or not McKinney would consider the Washington Monthly part of the lefty bubble. I see that its politics are considered “centre left”, does this disqualify it? Is there any source that both the reasonable left and the reasonable right would consider, if not authoritative, then at least reasonably unbiased? Is everything, even among non-ideologues (among whom I consider most of our number), so completely polarised? I have noticed in the past that McKinney throws such stones into our pond, then disappears (admittedly possibly to work) leaving the ripples, and never addressing what seem like good answers to his questions. It’s hard to know whether he’s lost interest, considers the answers so hopeless they don’t merit a response, or finds some of them hard to argue with. Somehow, I doubt it’s the latter.
Does anyone need a link to the AP article or are everyone’s heads in the sand?
Seriously, do the lefties here really think that declaring the AP article to be nonstory will make it go away?
Then I think somewhere else McKinney asks whether “the lefties here” have anything from outside the lefty bubble which shows this isn’t some kind of egregious, stinking corruption (my words).
Now it seemed to me that Nous’s link to LeTourneau in the Washington Monthly wasn’t bad, but of course I am handicapped by not knowing whether or not McKinney would consider the Washington Monthly part of the lefty bubble. I see that its politics are considered “centre left”, does this disqualify it? Is there any source that both the reasonable left and the reasonable right would consider, if not authoritative, then at least reasonably unbiased? Is everything, even among non-ideologues (among whom I consider most of our number), so completely polarised? I have noticed in the past that McKinney throws such stones into our pond, then disappears (admittedly possibly to work) leaving the ripples, and never addressing what seem like good answers to his questions. It’s hard to know whether he’s lost interest, considers the answers so hopeless they don’t merit a response, or finds some of them hard to argue with. Somehow, I doubt it’s the latter.
OK, off to read the Atlantic piece now
OK, off to read the Atlantic piece now
OK, off to read the Atlantic piece now
I expect status quo from a Clinton administration. Independent of the question in whose hands Congress is, btw. At best some things that are still a bit shaky could be stabilized (Obamacare for example).
It will take a lot of energy though because the other side will not rest to work on achieving their goals of change for the worse.
I expect status quo from a Clinton administration. Independent of the question in whose hands Congress is, btw. At best some things that are still a bit shaky could be stabilized (Obamacare for example).
It will take a lot of energy though because the other side will not rest to work on achieving their goals of change for the worse.
I expect status quo from a Clinton administration. Independent of the question in whose hands Congress is, btw. At best some things that are still a bit shaky could be stabilized (Obamacare for example).
It will take a lot of energy though because the other side will not rest to work on achieving their goals of change for the worse.
I expect continued gridlock for a Clinton administration. Just not quite as bad as currently. Because, much as the far right has a long and happy history of demonizing the Clintons, at least she doesn’t have a permanent suntan.
And yes, while lots of people disagree with Obama on policy grounds, the level of vitriol he has seen is race-based beyond any reasonable doubt.
I expect continued gridlock for a Clinton administration. Just not quite as bad as currently. Because, much as the far right has a long and happy history of demonizing the Clintons, at least she doesn’t have a permanent suntan.
And yes, while lots of people disagree with Obama on policy grounds, the level of vitriol he has seen is race-based beyond any reasonable doubt.
I expect continued gridlock for a Clinton administration. Just not quite as bad as currently. Because, much as the far right has a long and happy history of demonizing the Clintons, at least she doesn’t have a permanent suntan.
And yes, while lots of people disagree with Obama on policy grounds, the level of vitriol he has seen is race-based beyond any reasonable doubt.
/cue the ‘conservatives’ to tell us it’s because he’s a divisive America-hating ultra-liberal racist.
/cue the ‘conservatives’ to tell us it’s because he’s a divisive America-hating ultra-liberal racist.
/cue the ‘conservatives’ to tell us it’s because he’s a divisive America-hating ultra-liberal racist.
here’s what Vox thinks of that AP piece.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting
they are not impressed.
nor am i.
here’s what Vox thinks of that AP piece.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting
they are not impressed.
nor am i.
here’s what Vox thinks of that AP piece.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting
they are not impressed.
nor am i.
nor are they impressed with the AP’s click-baiting ‘social media’ handling of the story, nor the AP’s defense of it.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
nor are they impressed with the AP’s click-baiting ‘social media’ handling of the story, nor the AP’s defense of it.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
nor are they impressed with the AP’s click-baiting ‘social media’ handling of the story, nor the AP’s defense of it.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation
The Vox piece was also linked, and recommended, by Hilary Bok, whom some of you may remember: https://www.facebook.com/hilary.bok/posts/10209554881485463?from_close_friend=1¬if_t=close_friend_activity¬if_id=1472062131756261
The Vox piece was also linked, and recommended, by Hilary Bok, whom some of you may remember: https://www.facebook.com/hilary.bok/posts/10209554881485463?from_close_friend=1¬if_t=close_friend_activity¬if_id=1472062131756261
The Vox piece was also linked, and recommended, by Hilary Bok, whom some of you may remember: https://www.facebook.com/hilary.bok/posts/10209554881485463?from_close_friend=1¬if_t=close_friend_activity¬if_id=1472062131756261
Hilary’s comment (in case you can’t access her Facebook page):
It really is [a mess]. I was particularly stuck by the (large!) part of the story about Yunus, who the writers seem not to be familiar with, despite the Nobel Peace Prize and all that. I heard of him about 20 years ago, I think, but the Clintons were much more on the ball than I was, having invited him to Arkansas to talk about microcredit in 1983. Which is just to say: there’s nothing at all odd about the State Department helping him out, and his relationship with Hillary Clinton precedes the existence of the Clinton Foundation by nearly two decades.
I wish someone would come up with an example of an actual favor granted in exchange for contributions. (Where favor means something more than a meeting; the reasons meetings are problematic, I think, is that you can use them to ask for favors or make the case for a policy you favor, not that being in the presence of Hillary Clinton is its own reward.)
Hilary’s comment (in case you can’t access her Facebook page):
It really is [a mess]. I was particularly stuck by the (large!) part of the story about Yunus, who the writers seem not to be familiar with, despite the Nobel Peace Prize and all that. I heard of him about 20 years ago, I think, but the Clintons were much more on the ball than I was, having invited him to Arkansas to talk about microcredit in 1983. Which is just to say: there’s nothing at all odd about the State Department helping him out, and his relationship with Hillary Clinton precedes the existence of the Clinton Foundation by nearly two decades.
I wish someone would come up with an example of an actual favor granted in exchange for contributions. (Where favor means something more than a meeting; the reasons meetings are problematic, I think, is that you can use them to ask for favors or make the case for a policy you favor, not that being in the presence of Hillary Clinton is its own reward.)
Hilary’s comment (in case you can’t access her Facebook page):
It really is [a mess]. I was particularly stuck by the (large!) part of the story about Yunus, who the writers seem not to be familiar with, despite the Nobel Peace Prize and all that. I heard of him about 20 years ago, I think, but the Clintons were much more on the ball than I was, having invited him to Arkansas to talk about microcredit in 1983. Which is just to say: there’s nothing at all odd about the State Department helping him out, and his relationship with Hillary Clinton precedes the existence of the Clinton Foundation by nearly two decades.
I wish someone would come up with an example of an actual favor granted in exchange for contributions. (Where favor means something more than a meeting; the reasons meetings are problematic, I think, is that you can use them to ask for favors or make the case for a policy you favor, not that being in the presence of Hillary Clinton is its own reward.)
(To make it clear – Hilary Bok’s link was to he first Vox piece cited by cleek, not the second, which s/he posted while I was trying to get my act together. Don’t think it changes anything, but we try to be as clear as possible.)
(To make it clear – Hilary Bok’s link was to he first Vox piece cited by cleek, not the second, which s/he posted while I was trying to get my act together. Don’t think it changes anything, but we try to be as clear as possible.)
(To make it clear – Hilary Bok’s link was to he first Vox piece cited by cleek, not the second, which s/he posted while I was trying to get my act together. Don’t think it changes anything, but we try to be as clear as possible.)
For those of you interested…
The Clinton Rules.
For those of you interested…
The Clinton Rules.
For those of you interested…
The Clinton Rules.
the GOP seems to be trying to make hay out of the fact that people are generally unfamiliar with what the SoS’s job entails.
the GOP seems to be trying to make hay out of the fact that people are generally unfamiliar with what the SoS’s job entails.
the GOP seems to be trying to make hay out of the fact that people are generally unfamiliar with what the SoS’s job entails.
Sheesh, I didn’t realize that a lot of this revolved around the Muhammad Yunus. I have half a mind to put in a literacy test for commenting on this blog, and make people answer questions about the Grameen Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank
before they can post. (not that I have the programming chops to do that, but if I did…at any rate, you can tell I’m a liberal cause I’m giving a cheat sheet to pass the test)
I was asked to get Yunus to speak at my university when he was in Japan and I had a chance to read up on him. Innovative and seriously impressive thinking about dealing with the problems of third world poverty.
But instead of figuring out what goes on in our world, some folks are more interested in recycling whatever shit Dreher vomits up. Whatever.
Sheesh, I didn’t realize that a lot of this revolved around the Muhammad Yunus. I have half a mind to put in a literacy test for commenting on this blog, and make people answer questions about the Grameen Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank
before they can post. (not that I have the programming chops to do that, but if I did…at any rate, you can tell I’m a liberal cause I’m giving a cheat sheet to pass the test)
I was asked to get Yunus to speak at my university when he was in Japan and I had a chance to read up on him. Innovative and seriously impressive thinking about dealing with the problems of third world poverty.
But instead of figuring out what goes on in our world, some folks are more interested in recycling whatever shit Dreher vomits up. Whatever.
Sheesh, I didn’t realize that a lot of this revolved around the Muhammad Yunus. I have half a mind to put in a literacy test for commenting on this blog, and make people answer questions about the Grameen Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grameen_Bank
before they can post. (not that I have the programming chops to do that, but if I did…at any rate, you can tell I’m a liberal cause I’m giving a cheat sheet to pass the test)
I was asked to get Yunus to speak at my university when he was in Japan and I had a chance to read up on him. Innovative and seriously impressive thinking about dealing with the problems of third world poverty.
But instead of figuring out what goes on in our world, some folks are more interested in recycling whatever shit Dreher vomits up. Whatever.
OK, off to read the Atlantic piece now
Upon finishing it, see this response and the links provided.
OK, off to read the Atlantic piece now
Upon finishing it, see this response and the links provided.
OK, off to read the Atlantic piece now
Upon finishing it, see this response and the links provided.
The Atlantic piece was a bit of Very Serious Person nostalgia– the giveaway was the pining for the Grand Bargain that wasn’t in 2011.
The Atlantic piece was a bit of Very Serious Person nostalgia– the giveaway was the pining for the Grand Bargain that wasn’t in 2011.
The Atlantic piece was a bit of Very Serious Person nostalgia– the giveaway was the pining for the Grand Bargain that wasn’t in 2011.
And smoke filled rooms and lack of transparency, whatever their alleged virtues in formulating domestic policy ( which I doubt) are probably needed to have policies like this overseas–
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/09/acceptable-losses/
I wish we’d take some time off looking at alleged Russian influence and start talking more openly about the influence of other countries in our policy making decisions. Saudi Arabia, in this case.
Getting back to domestic policy, the smoke filled room environment seems less likely to produce good results for working people if labor unions aren’t at the table.
And smoke filled rooms and lack of transparency, whatever their alleged virtues in formulating domestic policy ( which I doubt) are probably needed to have policies like this overseas–
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/09/acceptable-losses/
I wish we’d take some time off looking at alleged Russian influence and start talking more openly about the influence of other countries in our policy making decisions. Saudi Arabia, in this case.
Getting back to domestic policy, the smoke filled room environment seems less likely to produce good results for working people if labor unions aren’t at the table.
And smoke filled rooms and lack of transparency, whatever their alleged virtues in formulating domestic policy ( which I doubt) are probably needed to have policies like this overseas–
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/09/acceptable-losses/
I wish we’d take some time off looking at alleged Russian influence and start talking more openly about the influence of other countries in our policy making decisions. Saudi Arabia, in this case.
Getting back to domestic policy, the smoke filled room environment seems less likely to produce good results for working people if labor unions aren’t at the table.
I tried to post a comment earlier that was eaten, but am abandoning that subject matter.
I wish we’d take some time off looking at alleged Russian influence and start talking more openly about the influence of other countries in our policy making decisions. Saudi Arabia, in this case.
I agree. However, since I don’t think that Obama would blandly support bombing civilians, I’m moved to try to figure out what might be going on. My suspicion is that Obama thinks that the Iran deal is an extremely important diplomatic effort to foreclose any disastrous action by Israel against Iran, and that Saudi assent was important to that diplomatic effort. Indeed, it seems that John Kerry is trying to persuade the Saudis to cut it out, and that this effort has been going on for some time.
International relations are ugly, and purism isn’t an option. It definitely would be interesting to scrutinize the reasons for this or that diplomatic or foreign policy effort, but this thread demonstrates that the popular media is not without its own agenda, and that explaining it all for Donald Johnson’s benefit is not necessarily in the best interests of the Iran deal, etc.
(Incidentally, diplomatic efforts such as the Iran deal, which could operate to save millions of lives, are not the subject of critique from the likes of Donald Johnson or others, because what might have happened, and isn’t happening, isn’t so easy to point fingers at.)
Oh, and Donald Johnson, I think that in the Democratic Party, unions were very much a part of smoke filled rooms back in the day when there were such things.
I tried to post a comment earlier that was eaten, but am abandoning that subject matter.
I wish we’d take some time off looking at alleged Russian influence and start talking more openly about the influence of other countries in our policy making decisions. Saudi Arabia, in this case.
I agree. However, since I don’t think that Obama would blandly support bombing civilians, I’m moved to try to figure out what might be going on. My suspicion is that Obama thinks that the Iran deal is an extremely important diplomatic effort to foreclose any disastrous action by Israel against Iran, and that Saudi assent was important to that diplomatic effort. Indeed, it seems that John Kerry is trying to persuade the Saudis to cut it out, and that this effort has been going on for some time.
International relations are ugly, and purism isn’t an option. It definitely would be interesting to scrutinize the reasons for this or that diplomatic or foreign policy effort, but this thread demonstrates that the popular media is not without its own agenda, and that explaining it all for Donald Johnson’s benefit is not necessarily in the best interests of the Iran deal, etc.
(Incidentally, diplomatic efforts such as the Iran deal, which could operate to save millions of lives, are not the subject of critique from the likes of Donald Johnson or others, because what might have happened, and isn’t happening, isn’t so easy to point fingers at.)
Oh, and Donald Johnson, I think that in the Democratic Party, unions were very much a part of smoke filled rooms back in the day when there were such things.
I tried to post a comment earlier that was eaten, but am abandoning that subject matter.
I wish we’d take some time off looking at alleged Russian influence and start talking more openly about the influence of other countries in our policy making decisions. Saudi Arabia, in this case.
I agree. However, since I don’t think that Obama would blandly support bombing civilians, I’m moved to try to figure out what might be going on. My suspicion is that Obama thinks that the Iran deal is an extremely important diplomatic effort to foreclose any disastrous action by Israel against Iran, and that Saudi assent was important to that diplomatic effort. Indeed, it seems that John Kerry is trying to persuade the Saudis to cut it out, and that this effort has been going on for some time.
International relations are ugly, and purism isn’t an option. It definitely would be interesting to scrutinize the reasons for this or that diplomatic or foreign policy effort, but this thread demonstrates that the popular media is not without its own agenda, and that explaining it all for Donald Johnson’s benefit is not necessarily in the best interests of the Iran deal, etc.
(Incidentally, diplomatic efforts such as the Iran deal, which could operate to save millions of lives, are not the subject of critique from the likes of Donald Johnson or others, because what might have happened, and isn’t happening, isn’t so easy to point fingers at.)
Oh, and Donald Johnson, I think that in the Democratic Party, unions were very much a part of smoke filled rooms back in the day when there were such things.
“Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it’s a bride? Does she say it’s a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let’s MOVE ON.”
buckley v valeo
citizens united
mcdonnell
show us the quid pro quo or stand down
liberals didnt make those rules, nor did we want them.
“Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it’s a bride? Does she say it’s a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let’s MOVE ON.”
buckley v valeo
citizens united
mcdonnell
show us the quid pro quo or stand down
liberals didnt make those rules, nor did we want them.
“Does anyone have a picture of HRC taking a bribe? How do we know it’s a bride? Does she say it’s a bribe? She denies it. There you go, case closed. Nothing to see here, let’s MOVE ON.”
buckley v valeo
citizens united
mcdonnell
show us the quid pro quo or stand down
liberals didnt make those rules, nor did we want them.
“OR stand down”
Uh no
“OR stand down”
Uh no
“OR stand down”
Uh no
Circle the wagons and see no evil. Any criticism short of an indictable crime is low rent, deceitful politics. Got it.
Circle the wagons and see no evil. Any criticism short of an indictable crime is low rent, deceitful politics. Got it.
Circle the wagons and see no evil. Any criticism short of an indictable crime is low rent, deceitful politics. Got it.
Produce something of consequence. What, specifically, is Clinton guilty of, and what do you think should be done about it? Demonstrate to me what should make her unacceptable to me as a presidential candidate, particularly in light of the fact that she running against (and this still, after all this time, sounds like a bad joke) Donald fncking Trump.
She had an email server in her basement? She spoke to some people who directly or indirectly donated to the Clinton Foundation? Her husband got a blow job? Conspiracy theorists (on the same order as those who think Dick Cheney staged 9/11) think she had dozens of people killed? What?
Produce something of consequence. What, specifically, is Clinton guilty of, and what do you think should be done about it? Demonstrate to me what should make her unacceptable to me as a presidential candidate, particularly in light of the fact that she running against (and this still, after all this time, sounds like a bad joke) Donald fncking Trump.
She had an email server in her basement? She spoke to some people who directly or indirectly donated to the Clinton Foundation? Her husband got a blow job? Conspiracy theorists (on the same order as those who think Dick Cheney staged 9/11) think she had dozens of people killed? What?
Produce something of consequence. What, specifically, is Clinton guilty of, and what do you think should be done about it? Demonstrate to me what should make her unacceptable to me as a presidential candidate, particularly in light of the fact that she running against (and this still, after all this time, sounds like a bad joke) Donald fncking Trump.
She had an email server in her basement? She spoke to some people who directly or indirectly donated to the Clinton Foundation? Her husband got a blow job? Conspiracy theorists (on the same order as those who think Dick Cheney staged 9/11) think she had dozens of people killed? What?
no, you dont “got it”.
people go after clinton like shes freaking beelzebub and all of the illuminati rolled up into one, for things which are dead normal in our political culture.
people no doubt make large donations to the clinton foundation in order to gain access to, and favorable attention from, the clintons, who are people in a position to influence public policy, and/or, to curry personal favors.
is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.
i invite the conservatives of the world to mount their petards and prepare to be hoist.
geese, ganders. if it doesnt suit, get off your butt and do something about the law.
short of that, if you want to cry “corruption” you need to show us itemized receipts.
it aint a world we lefties made.
no, you dont “got it”.
people go after clinton like shes freaking beelzebub and all of the illuminati rolled up into one, for things which are dead normal in our political culture.
people no doubt make large donations to the clinton foundation in order to gain access to, and favorable attention from, the clintons, who are people in a position to influence public policy, and/or, to curry personal favors.
is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.
i invite the conservatives of the world to mount their petards and prepare to be hoist.
geese, ganders. if it doesnt suit, get off your butt and do something about the law.
short of that, if you want to cry “corruption” you need to show us itemized receipts.
it aint a world we lefties made.
no, you dont “got it”.
people go after clinton like shes freaking beelzebub and all of the illuminati rolled up into one, for things which are dead normal in our political culture.
people no doubt make large donations to the clinton foundation in order to gain access to, and favorable attention from, the clintons, who are people in a position to influence public policy, and/or, to curry personal favors.
is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.
i invite the conservatives of the world to mount their petards and prepare to be hoist.
geese, ganders. if it doesnt suit, get off your butt and do something about the law.
short of that, if you want to cry “corruption” you need to show us itemized receipts.
it aint a world we lefties made.
see no evil
prove the evil.
see no evil
prove the evil.
see no evil
prove the evil.
“is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.
”
This is crap, a bribe is still a bribe. Giving money to get a specific result, including a meeting you couldn’t get otherwise with the SoS, is a bribe. It is illegal. And only the most generous interpretation of the law and the activity keep it from being an indictable offense.
She has lied directly to Congress, Barry Bonds found out that is illegal.
In addition to all that she just lies regularly, and treats any question of her actions as if she is above answering, move on. Those things make her unfit, right along with Trump.
“is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.
”
This is crap, a bribe is still a bribe. Giving money to get a specific result, including a meeting you couldn’t get otherwise with the SoS, is a bribe. It is illegal. And only the most generous interpretation of the law and the activity keep it from being an indictable offense.
She has lied directly to Congress, Barry Bonds found out that is illegal.
In addition to all that she just lies regularly, and treats any question of her actions as if she is above answering, move on. Those things make her unfit, right along with Trump.
“is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.
”
This is crap, a bribe is still a bribe. Giving money to get a specific result, including a meeting you couldn’t get otherwise with the SoS, is a bribe. It is illegal. And only the most generous interpretation of the law and the activity keep it from being an indictable offense.
She has lied directly to Congress, Barry Bonds found out that is illegal.
In addition to all that she just lies regularly, and treats any question of her actions as if she is above answering, move on. Those things make her unfit, right along with Trump.
“”is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.”
I would also like to answer this another way.
Do you mean this russell? You believe it is corrupt but its ok with you because some Republican made it harder to convict?
“I believe it is corrupt” is enough for me to disqualify her in my mind.
“I believe he is a racist, among other things” is enough to disqualify him.
I recognize YMMV, but do you really think I am unreasonable in not accepting her corruption?
I would also point out in any comparison of policy positions she comes in last with me also, but we cant quite get around to discussing that.
“”is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.”
I would also like to answer this another way.
Do you mean this russell? You believe it is corrupt but its ok with you because some Republican made it harder to convict?
“I believe it is corrupt” is enough for me to disqualify her in my mind.
“I believe he is a racist, among other things” is enough to disqualify him.
I recognize YMMV, but do you really think I am unreasonable in not accepting her corruption?
I would also point out in any comparison of policy positions she comes in last with me also, but we cant quite get around to discussing that.
“”is that corrupt? actually, i think it is. but through the concerted efforts of a couple of generations of conservative actors, we are no longer allowed to consider such things to be the baksheesh that they are.
nowadays, we must call them “speech”.”
I would also like to answer this another way.
Do you mean this russell? You believe it is corrupt but its ok with you because some Republican made it harder to convict?
“I believe it is corrupt” is enough for me to disqualify her in my mind.
“I believe he is a racist, among other things” is enough to disqualify him.
I recognize YMMV, but do you really think I am unreasonable in not accepting her corruption?
I would also point out in any comparison of policy positions she comes in last with me also, but we cant quite get around to discussing that.
so much mind reading. so many assumptions. so much bad faith.
so much mind reading. so many assumptions. so much bad faith.
so much mind reading. so many assumptions. so much bad faith.
Sapient, there are often good reasons for people to commit murder or help others to do so and as it happens, everyone agrees with you on Obama’s motives in this case. So that’s good. And when some new terror organizations form to get revenge for our conscious decision to help the Saudis devastate Yemen, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that very serious folks thought it was all for a good cause. Keeping the Saudi thugs happy, basically.
As for unions, yes, once upon a time they did have influence. My point was to point out a flaw in the Atlantic piece with its nostalgic look back at the past. The author has a fetish about being realistic about sausage making and how it was done in the good old days. Fine. I think, though, that unless people effected by those deals made in the smoke filled rooms have a voice that genuinely sides with them you are likely to have results that aren’t going to be good for the people most effected by the decisions made. And anyway, people who are going to be effected should know what is going on inside those rooms, so I don’t tthink the smoke filled room is a very good idea no matter what.
On corruption, Bill Curry in this interview seems about right. He says more or less what russell said above–
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17095
Sapient, there are often good reasons for people to commit murder or help others to do so and as it happens, everyone agrees with you on Obama’s motives in this case. So that’s good. And when some new terror organizations form to get revenge for our conscious decision to help the Saudis devastate Yemen, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that very serious folks thought it was all for a good cause. Keeping the Saudi thugs happy, basically.
As for unions, yes, once upon a time they did have influence. My point was to point out a flaw in the Atlantic piece with its nostalgic look back at the past. The author has a fetish about being realistic about sausage making and how it was done in the good old days. Fine. I think, though, that unless people effected by those deals made in the smoke filled rooms have a voice that genuinely sides with them you are likely to have results that aren’t going to be good for the people most effected by the decisions made. And anyway, people who are going to be effected should know what is going on inside those rooms, so I don’t tthink the smoke filled room is a very good idea no matter what.
On corruption, Bill Curry in this interview seems about right. He says more or less what russell said above–
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17095
Sapient, there are often good reasons for people to commit murder or help others to do so and as it happens, everyone agrees with you on Obama’s motives in this case. So that’s good. And when some new terror organizations form to get revenge for our conscious decision to help the Saudis devastate Yemen, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that very serious folks thought it was all for a good cause. Keeping the Saudi thugs happy, basically.
As for unions, yes, once upon a time they did have influence. My point was to point out a flaw in the Atlantic piece with its nostalgic look back at the past. The author has a fetish about being realistic about sausage making and how it was done in the good old days. Fine. I think, though, that unless people effected by those deals made in the smoke filled rooms have a voice that genuinely sides with them you are likely to have results that aren’t going to be good for the people most effected by the decisions made. And anyway, people who are going to be effected should know what is going on inside those rooms, so I don’t tthink the smoke filled room is a very good idea no matter what.
On corruption, Bill Curry in this interview seems about right. He says more or less what russell said above–
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17095
Incidentally, sapient, some Democrats disagree with Obama. It’s almost as if they don’t think the rights and wrongs of a policy should be determined by how one feels about him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-hospital-bombing.html?ref=world
Incidentally, sapient, some Democrats disagree with Obama. It’s almost as if they don’t think the rights and wrongs of a policy should be determined by how one feels about him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-hospital-bombing.html?ref=world
Incidentally, sapient, some Democrats disagree with Obama. It’s almost as if they don’t think the rights and wrongs of a policy should be determined by how one feels about him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-arabia-hospital-bombing.html?ref=world
the idea of transparency is great.
but the US system of government absolutely requires compromise to function. and if transparency means that compromise is impossible – because everybody is afraid of running afoul of whatever the Purity Enforcement Squad has decided today’s orthodoxy should be – we might not be better off.
… to paraphrase that article.
the idea of transparency is great.
but the US system of government absolutely requires compromise to function. and if transparency means that compromise is impossible – because everybody is afraid of running afoul of whatever the Purity Enforcement Squad has decided today’s orthodoxy should be – we might not be better off.
… to paraphrase that article.
the idea of transparency is great.
but the US system of government absolutely requires compromise to function. and if transparency means that compromise is impossible – because everybody is afraid of running afoul of whatever the Purity Enforcement Squad has decided today’s orthodoxy should be – we might not be better off.
… to paraphrase that article.
McKinney,
“Low-rent, deceitful politics” is piety-mouthing philanderers impeaching Bill Clinton over a blowjob. It is thrice-married right-wingers holding Hillary Clinton’s lifelong marriage against her on family values grounds. It is trust-fund billionaires buying themselves tax cuts by contributing to charities like The Heritage Foundation which do great work that not-at-all-incidentally benefits themselves. It is, in short, S.O.P. for the G.O.P. And not the He, Trump wing of the GOP, either.
Marty,
You come so close to chanting “Lock her up!” that you remind me of something I’ve heard somewhere before.
–TP
McKinney,
“Low-rent, deceitful politics” is piety-mouthing philanderers impeaching Bill Clinton over a blowjob. It is thrice-married right-wingers holding Hillary Clinton’s lifelong marriage against her on family values grounds. It is trust-fund billionaires buying themselves tax cuts by contributing to charities like The Heritage Foundation which do great work that not-at-all-incidentally benefits themselves. It is, in short, S.O.P. for the G.O.P. And not the He, Trump wing of the GOP, either.
Marty,
You come so close to chanting “Lock her up!” that you remind me of something I’ve heard somewhere before.
–TP
McKinney,
“Low-rent, deceitful politics” is piety-mouthing philanderers impeaching Bill Clinton over a blowjob. It is thrice-married right-wingers holding Hillary Clinton’s lifelong marriage against her on family values grounds. It is trust-fund billionaires buying themselves tax cuts by contributing to charities like The Heritage Foundation which do great work that not-at-all-incidentally benefits themselves. It is, in short, S.O.P. for the G.O.P. And not the He, Trump wing of the GOP, either.
Marty,
You come so close to chanting “Lock her up!” that you remind me of something I’ve heard somewhere before.
–TP
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=Hitler+Finds+out#id=4&vid=80318f89e7ddd9bc6f1e4b90a15563e3&action=click
Whoops!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545aq1V1upM
I’d like to thank Donald Johnson for mentioning Yemen in this conversation. It’s the one issue on which I break completely with Obama and his collusion with the Saudis (an American past time, regardless of which Party is in power) and I’m pissed that the bribe of my votes in 2008 and 2012 have no purchase on this genocide.
It’s the one truly impeachable decision he has made but all of we (the royal we) purists on both sides never mention it.
Marty wrote:
“I would also point out in any comparison of policy positions she comes in last with me also, but we cant quite get around to discussing that.”
You mean the others are more susceptible to the bribery of your support and vote on the majority of issues and you are afraid that Clinton, in this case, is adamantly NOT lying about her policy agenda, despite the fact that she lies to all regularly.
I guess the most admirable thing we can say about Paul Ryan is that he absolutely doesn’t lie about reading “Atlas Shrugged” a dozen times and the murder of millions of Americans he will carry out via its policy prescriptions is therefore copacetic.
At least he speaks the truth, right?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=Hitler+Finds+out#id=4&vid=80318f89e7ddd9bc6f1e4b90a15563e3&action=click
Whoops!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545aq1V1upM
I’d like to thank Donald Johnson for mentioning Yemen in this conversation. It’s the one issue on which I break completely with Obama and his collusion with the Saudis (an American past time, regardless of which Party is in power) and I’m pissed that the bribe of my votes in 2008 and 2012 have no purchase on this genocide.
It’s the one truly impeachable decision he has made but all of we (the royal we) purists on both sides never mention it.
Marty wrote:
“I would also point out in any comparison of policy positions she comes in last with me also, but we cant quite get around to discussing that.”
You mean the others are more susceptible to the bribery of your support and vote on the majority of issues and you are afraid that Clinton, in this case, is adamantly NOT lying about her policy agenda, despite the fact that she lies to all regularly.
I guess the most admirable thing we can say about Paul Ryan is that he absolutely doesn’t lie about reading “Atlas Shrugged” a dozen times and the murder of millions of Americans he will carry out via its policy prescriptions is therefore copacetic.
At least he speaks the truth, right?
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=Hitler+Finds+out#id=4&vid=80318f89e7ddd9bc6f1e4b90a15563e3&action=click
Whoops!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545aq1V1upM
I’d like to thank Donald Johnson for mentioning Yemen in this conversation. It’s the one issue on which I break completely with Obama and his collusion with the Saudis (an American past time, regardless of which Party is in power) and I’m pissed that the bribe of my votes in 2008 and 2012 have no purchase on this genocide.
It’s the one truly impeachable decision he has made but all of we (the royal we) purists on both sides never mention it.
Marty wrote:
“I would also point out in any comparison of policy positions she comes in last with me also, but we cant quite get around to discussing that.”
You mean the others are more susceptible to the bribery of your support and vote on the majority of issues and you are afraid that Clinton, in this case, is adamantly NOT lying about her policy agenda, despite the fact that she lies to all regularly.
I guess the most admirable thing we can say about Paul Ryan is that he absolutely doesn’t lie about reading “Atlas Shrugged” a dozen times and the murder of millions of Americans he will carry out via its policy prescriptions is therefore copacetic.
At least he speaks the truth, right?
….but we cant quite get around to discussing that.
go back through the detritus of this thread and tell us who brought this subject up in the first place.
….but we cant quite get around to discussing that.
go back through the detritus of this thread and tell us who brought this subject up in the first place.
….but we cant quite get around to discussing that.
go back through the detritus of this thread and tell us who brought this subject up in the first place.
Back on Topic!
Back on Topic!
Back on Topic!
“Do you mean this russell? You believe it is corrupt but its ok with you because some Republican made it harder to convict?”
No, its not ok with me. I think it sucks.
my point is that as far as I can tell Clinton is at most right about average on the corruption-o-meter for American national politics.
so when folks go on about how profoundly and uniquely evil she is, i just tune it out.
pay for access *is absolutely the norm*. being less than truthful when talking to congress, the press, or basically anywhere, is *absolutely the norm*.
its not “OK with me”, but its how things are.
i’d love to see that change, but the political impediments are overwhelming.
long story short, i find clinton’s corruption, such as it is, to be unremarkable, and in context not a disqualifying factor.
because nobody running for or holding office at the national level is immune.
“Do you mean this russell? You believe it is corrupt but its ok with you because some Republican made it harder to convict?”
No, its not ok with me. I think it sucks.
my point is that as far as I can tell Clinton is at most right about average on the corruption-o-meter for American national politics.
so when folks go on about how profoundly and uniquely evil she is, i just tune it out.
pay for access *is absolutely the norm*. being less than truthful when talking to congress, the press, or basically anywhere, is *absolutely the norm*.
its not “OK with me”, but its how things are.
i’d love to see that change, but the political impediments are overwhelming.
long story short, i find clinton’s corruption, such as it is, to be unremarkable, and in context not a disqualifying factor.
because nobody running for or holding office at the national level is immune.
“Do you mean this russell? You believe it is corrupt but its ok with you because some Republican made it harder to convict?”
No, its not ok with me. I think it sucks.
my point is that as far as I can tell Clinton is at most right about average on the corruption-o-meter for American national politics.
so when folks go on about how profoundly and uniquely evil she is, i just tune it out.
pay for access *is absolutely the norm*. being less than truthful when talking to congress, the press, or basically anywhere, is *absolutely the norm*.
its not “OK with me”, but its how things are.
i’d love to see that change, but the political impediments are overwhelming.
long story short, i find clinton’s corruption, such as it is, to be unremarkable, and in context not a disqualifying factor.
because nobody running for or holding office at the national level is immune.
I applaud the corruption of the few responsible Republican politicians at the national level who signed Grover Norquist’s never-gonna-increase-taxes-for-eternity pledge AND lied to their easily-bribed tax-hating constituents, but had the guts to break their promises via a change of mind.
I mean, at least some of the bombs slaughtering Yemeni civilians, among the poorest in the world, are paid for upfront by the lovers of bombing people into submission, but who didn’t want to pay for it.
George Bush the First was a hero of mine in some ways, what with the misreading of his lips by those who gave monetary bribes to his campaign to insure their taxes didn’t rise, and his good sense in telling them to go f*ck themselves later.
Of course, in the process the Gingrich crowd rose to prominence with their premonitory Tea Party/Trump strict adherence to the their pigf*cking truths that have damaged my country.
I applaud the corruption of the few responsible Republican politicians at the national level who signed Grover Norquist’s never-gonna-increase-taxes-for-eternity pledge AND lied to their easily-bribed tax-hating constituents, but had the guts to break their promises via a change of mind.
I mean, at least some of the bombs slaughtering Yemeni civilians, among the poorest in the world, are paid for upfront by the lovers of bombing people into submission, but who didn’t want to pay for it.
George Bush the First was a hero of mine in some ways, what with the misreading of his lips by those who gave monetary bribes to his campaign to insure their taxes didn’t rise, and his good sense in telling them to go f*ck themselves later.
Of course, in the process the Gingrich crowd rose to prominence with their premonitory Tea Party/Trump strict adherence to the their pigf*cking truths that have damaged my country.
I applaud the corruption of the few responsible Republican politicians at the national level who signed Grover Norquist’s never-gonna-increase-taxes-for-eternity pledge AND lied to their easily-bribed tax-hating constituents, but had the guts to break their promises via a change of mind.
I mean, at least some of the bombs slaughtering Yemeni civilians, among the poorest in the world, are paid for upfront by the lovers of bombing people into submission, but who didn’t want to pay for it.
George Bush the First was a hero of mine in some ways, what with the misreading of his lips by those who gave monetary bribes to his campaign to insure their taxes didn’t rise, and his good sense in telling them to go f*ck themselves later.
Of course, in the process the Gingrich crowd rose to prominence with their premonitory Tea Party/Trump strict adherence to the their pigf*cking truths that have damaged my country.
I love the smell of corruption in the morning!
I love the smell of corruption in the morning!
I love the smell of corruption in the morning!
The ‘corruption’ thing is bollocks, IMHO.
That said, it’s difficult to hold that a family who have made many millions of dollars out of politics (which they clearly have) have any right to describe themselves as public servants. (And yes, that applies also to Blair.)
Perhaps my biggest gripe with the Clintons is their apparent comfort in socialising with despots (“I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family…” etc.)
And yet, had I a vote in this election, it would be inked in for Clinton.
The ‘corruption’ thing is bollocks, IMHO.
That said, it’s difficult to hold that a family who have made many millions of dollars out of politics (which they clearly have) have any right to describe themselves as public servants. (And yes, that applies also to Blair.)
Perhaps my biggest gripe with the Clintons is their apparent comfort in socialising with despots (“I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family…” etc.)
And yet, had I a vote in this election, it would be inked in for Clinton.
The ‘corruption’ thing is bollocks, IMHO.
That said, it’s difficult to hold that a family who have made many millions of dollars out of politics (which they clearly have) have any right to describe themselves as public servants. (And yes, that applies also to Blair.)
Perhaps my biggest gripe with the Clintons is their apparent comfort in socialising with despots (“I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family…” etc.)
And yet, had I a vote in this election, it would be inked in for Clinton.
I must say, the the Washington Monthly piece, the VOX piece, and pushback since, suggests that the AP article is just another poisonous belch from the Mathmos about the Clintons. So if AP is capable of sensationalising and slanting data in this way, I repeat my question (with very little hope of having it answered): Is there any source that both the reasonable left and the reasonable right would consider, if not authoritative, then at least reasonably unbiased?
I notice McKinney has not come back since people started really drilling down into it with any specifics about why the AP piece is worthy of the amount of disgust it has engendered, in him among others. Just out of interest, does he also dismiss the opinion of Hilzoy, that almost perfect exemplar of sense and rationality, not to mention that she’s an ethicist? In the absence of a journalistic source that most agree is unbiased, I’m really beginning to think that it’s no longer possible for even the reasonable left and the reasonable right to talk to each other about this stuff. How depressing, if true.
I must say, the the Washington Monthly piece, the VOX piece, and pushback since, suggests that the AP article is just another poisonous belch from the Mathmos about the Clintons. So if AP is capable of sensationalising and slanting data in this way, I repeat my question (with very little hope of having it answered): Is there any source that both the reasonable left and the reasonable right would consider, if not authoritative, then at least reasonably unbiased?
I notice McKinney has not come back since people started really drilling down into it with any specifics about why the AP piece is worthy of the amount of disgust it has engendered, in him among others. Just out of interest, does he also dismiss the opinion of Hilzoy, that almost perfect exemplar of sense and rationality, not to mention that she’s an ethicist? In the absence of a journalistic source that most agree is unbiased, I’m really beginning to think that it’s no longer possible for even the reasonable left and the reasonable right to talk to each other about this stuff. How depressing, if true.
I must say, the the Washington Monthly piece, the VOX piece, and pushback since, suggests that the AP article is just another poisonous belch from the Mathmos about the Clintons. So if AP is capable of sensationalising and slanting data in this way, I repeat my question (with very little hope of having it answered): Is there any source that both the reasonable left and the reasonable right would consider, if not authoritative, then at least reasonably unbiased?
I notice McKinney has not come back since people started really drilling down into it with any specifics about why the AP piece is worthy of the amount of disgust it has engendered, in him among others. Just out of interest, does he also dismiss the opinion of Hilzoy, that almost perfect exemplar of sense and rationality, not to mention that she’s an ethicist? In the absence of a journalistic source that most agree is unbiased, I’m really beginning to think that it’s no longer possible for even the reasonable left and the reasonable right to talk to each other about this stuff. How depressing, if true.
I would second what russell has said in the past about the Christian Science Monitor. They seem to be as spin and slant free as it gets, especially these days.
I would second what russell has said in the past about the Christian Science Monitor. They seem to be as spin and slant free as it gets, especially these days.
I would second what russell has said in the past about the Christian Science Monitor. They seem to be as spin and slant free as it gets, especially these days.
The hysterical accusations about corruption on the part of the Clintons are, in my opinion, just as ridiculous as the accusations (from the other side) that the Bush II administration was “the most corrupt in US history.”
It’s great hyperbole. But it doesn’t survive even a modest knowledge of US history. (Cf the Harding administration. Today’s politicians are pikers.)
Those who doubt it might consider the quote from Simon Cameron (Lincoln’s Secretary of War at the start of the Civil War): “An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.” Ah, over a century of tradition!
The hysterical accusations about corruption on the part of the Clintons are, in my opinion, just as ridiculous as the accusations (from the other side) that the Bush II administration was “the most corrupt in US history.”
It’s great hyperbole. But it doesn’t survive even a modest knowledge of US history. (Cf the Harding administration. Today’s politicians are pikers.)
Those who doubt it might consider the quote from Simon Cameron (Lincoln’s Secretary of War at the start of the Civil War): “An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.” Ah, over a century of tradition!
The hysterical accusations about corruption on the part of the Clintons are, in my opinion, just as ridiculous as the accusations (from the other side) that the Bush II administration was “the most corrupt in US history.”
It’s great hyperbole. But it doesn’t survive even a modest knowledge of US history. (Cf the Harding administration. Today’s politicians are pikers.)
Those who doubt it might consider the quote from Simon Cameron (Lincoln’s Secretary of War at the start of the Civil War): “An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.” Ah, over a century of tradition!
PS. Note that Cameron was forced out as Secretary of War due to accusations of . . . corruption. The man knew whereof he spoke.
PS. Note that Cameron was forced out as Secretary of War due to accusations of . . . corruption. The man knew whereof he spoke.
PS. Note that Cameron was forced out as Secretary of War due to accusations of . . . corruption. The man knew whereof he spoke.
Thanks hsh, I’ve heard of them of course, but had sort of forgotten. I’ll give them a whirl.
Thanks hsh, I’ve heard of them of course, but had sort of forgotten. I’ll give them a whirl.
Thanks hsh, I’ve heard of them of course, but had sort of forgotten. I’ll give them a whirl.
I’ve always thought the principle of “those who don’t work, don’t eat” a universal sort of bribery.
In fact, the entire concept of the “Invisible Hand” always seemed to be an admittal that unless my palm is greased sufficiently, I can’t be bothered to produce accidental societal goods because my self-interest is not adequately compensated (but let’s keep it all on the down-low, shall we?), unless of course the accidental societal goods are not particularly useful or good, like a box of Chicken McNuggets, but you’ll bloody well take that job serving them if it’s the only job you can get, because as you know, those who don’t work, don’t eat.
Here’s a small bribe to serve the McNuggets and if you think it too small, I can bloody well get somehow else to do it who is just a little closer to experiencing the universal condition contained in “those who don’t work, don’t eat”, in fact, for a smaller bribe.
I would like to see all corruption eliminated from government, but I don’t see how we can do that if we must also submit to conservative demands that government operate as a business wherein all quids demand a quo and vice versa.
In fact, I’ve never understood why private vaccine producers, for example, or antibiotic producers refuse to spend the research dollars to develop new cutting-edge drugs because the market bribes, I mean, payoffs, ….. sorry, dang it, I can never get the buzzwords right for how we tell ourselves we’re so f*cking righteous … the market incentives, are not sufficiently large.
But the NIH, for example, is will to develop the drugs if only they are provided the funds to expand their labs, staff, and equipment budgets, without paying any individual a cent more .. in fact, we constantly remind them that they are overpaid leeches on the body politic .. but they put their heads down to do the work anyhoo.
Which one is the hoax? Which one is corrupt? Which one is noble?
I’ve always thought the principle of “those who don’t work, don’t eat” a universal sort of bribery.
In fact, the entire concept of the “Invisible Hand” always seemed to be an admittal that unless my palm is greased sufficiently, I can’t be bothered to produce accidental societal goods because my self-interest is not adequately compensated (but let’s keep it all on the down-low, shall we?), unless of course the accidental societal goods are not particularly useful or good, like a box of Chicken McNuggets, but you’ll bloody well take that job serving them if it’s the only job you can get, because as you know, those who don’t work, don’t eat.
Here’s a small bribe to serve the McNuggets and if you think it too small, I can bloody well get somehow else to do it who is just a little closer to experiencing the universal condition contained in “those who don’t work, don’t eat”, in fact, for a smaller bribe.
I would like to see all corruption eliminated from government, but I don’t see how we can do that if we must also submit to conservative demands that government operate as a business wherein all quids demand a quo and vice versa.
In fact, I’ve never understood why private vaccine producers, for example, or antibiotic producers refuse to spend the research dollars to develop new cutting-edge drugs because the market bribes, I mean, payoffs, ….. sorry, dang it, I can never get the buzzwords right for how we tell ourselves we’re so f*cking righteous … the market incentives, are not sufficiently large.
But the NIH, for example, is will to develop the drugs if only they are provided the funds to expand their labs, staff, and equipment budgets, without paying any individual a cent more .. in fact, we constantly remind them that they are overpaid leeches on the body politic .. but they put their heads down to do the work anyhoo.
Which one is the hoax? Which one is corrupt? Which one is noble?
I’ve always thought the principle of “those who don’t work, don’t eat” a universal sort of bribery.
In fact, the entire concept of the “Invisible Hand” always seemed to be an admittal that unless my palm is greased sufficiently, I can’t be bothered to produce accidental societal goods because my self-interest is not adequately compensated (but let’s keep it all on the down-low, shall we?), unless of course the accidental societal goods are not particularly useful or good, like a box of Chicken McNuggets, but you’ll bloody well take that job serving them if it’s the only job you can get, because as you know, those who don’t work, don’t eat.
Here’s a small bribe to serve the McNuggets and if you think it too small, I can bloody well get somehow else to do it who is just a little closer to experiencing the universal condition contained in “those who don’t work, don’t eat”, in fact, for a smaller bribe.
I would like to see all corruption eliminated from government, but I don’t see how we can do that if we must also submit to conservative demands that government operate as a business wherein all quids demand a quo and vice versa.
In fact, I’ve never understood why private vaccine producers, for example, or antibiotic producers refuse to spend the research dollars to develop new cutting-edge drugs because the market bribes, I mean, payoffs, ….. sorry, dang it, I can never get the buzzwords right for how we tell ourselves we’re so f*cking righteous … the market incentives, are not sufficiently large.
But the NIH, for example, is will to develop the drugs if only they are provided the funds to expand their labs, staff, and equipment budgets, without paying any individual a cent more .. in fact, we constantly remind them that they are overpaid leeches on the body politic .. but they put their heads down to do the work anyhoo.
Which one is the hoax? Which one is corrupt? Which one is noble?
as David Byrne once rapped: facts all come with points of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g8lFmsCXhg
as David Byrne once rapped: facts all come with points of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g8lFmsCXhg
as David Byrne once rapped: facts all come with points of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g8lFmsCXhg
In fact, I’ve never understood why private vaccine producers, for example, or antibiotic producers refuse to spend the research dollars to develop new cutting-edge drugs because the market bribes, I mean, payoffs, ….. sorry, dang it, I can never get the buzzwords right for how we tell ourselves we’re so f*cking righteous … the market incentives, are not sufficiently large.
Well, there are plenty of private companies who have/are developed/developing vaccines for all sorts of stuff, because there is money in it – the point of effective vaccines is that they get used, and are profitable, and cost effective.
In contrast, effective novel antibiotics are both tougher and more costly to develop, and if/when developed, don’t get used unless absolutely necessary, for fear of developing resistance. And limited patent lives mean that even a successful new antibiotic will quite possibly never recoup its development costs.
Biotech and pharmaceutical companies have lost a very large amount of money over recent decades trying to develop novel antibiotics. Many have given up.
(As for the NIH, it funds research; generally speaking, it doesn’t develop useable drugs.)
The (far) bigger problem is healthcare funding as a whole, especially in the US – and is what sets overall incentives. The process of novel drug development is actually pretty effective, when all is said and done.
In fact, I’ve never understood why private vaccine producers, for example, or antibiotic producers refuse to spend the research dollars to develop new cutting-edge drugs because the market bribes, I mean, payoffs, ….. sorry, dang it, I can never get the buzzwords right for how we tell ourselves we’re so f*cking righteous … the market incentives, are not sufficiently large.
Well, there are plenty of private companies who have/are developed/developing vaccines for all sorts of stuff, because there is money in it – the point of effective vaccines is that they get used, and are profitable, and cost effective.
In contrast, effective novel antibiotics are both tougher and more costly to develop, and if/when developed, don’t get used unless absolutely necessary, for fear of developing resistance. And limited patent lives mean that even a successful new antibiotic will quite possibly never recoup its development costs.
Biotech and pharmaceutical companies have lost a very large amount of money over recent decades trying to develop novel antibiotics. Many have given up.
(As for the NIH, it funds research; generally speaking, it doesn’t develop useable drugs.)
The (far) bigger problem is healthcare funding as a whole, especially in the US – and is what sets overall incentives. The process of novel drug development is actually pretty effective, when all is said and done.
In fact, I’ve never understood why private vaccine producers, for example, or antibiotic producers refuse to spend the research dollars to develop new cutting-edge drugs because the market bribes, I mean, payoffs, ….. sorry, dang it, I can never get the buzzwords right for how we tell ourselves we’re so f*cking righteous … the market incentives, are not sufficiently large.
Well, there are plenty of private companies who have/are developed/developing vaccines for all sorts of stuff, because there is money in it – the point of effective vaccines is that they get used, and are profitable, and cost effective.
In contrast, effective novel antibiotics are both tougher and more costly to develop, and if/when developed, don’t get used unless absolutely necessary, for fear of developing resistance. And limited patent lives mean that even a successful new antibiotic will quite possibly never recoup its development costs.
Biotech and pharmaceutical companies have lost a very large amount of money over recent decades trying to develop novel antibiotics. Many have given up.
(As for the NIH, it funds research; generally speaking, it doesn’t develop useable drugs.)
The (far) bigger problem is healthcare funding as a whole, especially in the US – and is what sets overall incentives. The process of novel drug development is actually pretty effective, when all is said and done.
If you’re really interested in the topic, this is quite a good place to start (though clearly the blogger has his own interested POV):
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/academia-vs-industry
If you’re really interested in the topic, this is quite a good place to start (though clearly the blogger has his own interested POV):
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/academia-vs-industry
If you’re really interested in the topic, this is quite a good place to start (though clearly the blogger has his own interested POV):
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/academia-vs-industry
Two questions to, perhaps, further discussion of whether or not the Clinton Foundation donations should be proscribed:
If giving money to gain face time with a politician is wrong, does that spell the end of those $300 a plate chicken dinners? If not, what is the key distinction to be made between the two?
Should Muhammad Yunus be forbidden from meeting with Clinton in any official capacity because he has contributed money to the Clinton’s charity? If not, what is the clear standard by which we can tell who should and should not be allowed access to the SoS?
Two questions to, perhaps, further discussion of whether or not the Clinton Foundation donations should be proscribed:
If giving money to gain face time with a politician is wrong, does that spell the end of those $300 a plate chicken dinners? If not, what is the key distinction to be made between the two?
Should Muhammad Yunus be forbidden from meeting with Clinton in any official capacity because he has contributed money to the Clinton’s charity? If not, what is the clear standard by which we can tell who should and should not be allowed access to the SoS?
Two questions to, perhaps, further discussion of whether or not the Clinton Foundation donations should be proscribed:
If giving money to gain face time with a politician is wrong, does that spell the end of those $300 a plate chicken dinners? If not, what is the key distinction to be made between the two?
Should Muhammad Yunus be forbidden from meeting with Clinton in any official capacity because he has contributed money to the Clinton’s charity? If not, what is the clear standard by which we can tell who should and should not be allowed access to the SoS?
Proscribed; forbidden ?
I would suggest not.
Deprecated, perhaps.
Proscribed; forbidden ?
I would suggest not.
Deprecated, perhaps.
Proscribed; forbidden ?
I would suggest not.
Deprecated, perhaps.
And limited patent lives mean that even a successful new antibiotic will quite possibly never recoup its development costs.
Well, that is a business risk decision, no? If the public policy goal(patent duration)is to ensure that each and every new drug “turns a profit”, then drug companies should be regulated utilities.
Overall, the drug industry is certainly no laggard when it comes to the bottom line.
And limited patent lives mean that even a successful new antibiotic will quite possibly never recoup its development costs.
Well, that is a business risk decision, no? If the public policy goal(patent duration)is to ensure that each and every new drug “turns a profit”, then drug companies should be regulated utilities.
Overall, the drug industry is certainly no laggard when it comes to the bottom line.
And limited patent lives mean that even a successful new antibiotic will quite possibly never recoup its development costs.
Well, that is a business risk decision, no? If the public policy goal(patent duration)is to ensure that each and every new drug “turns a profit”, then drug companies should be regulated utilities.
Overall, the drug industry is certainly no laggard when it comes to the bottom line.
Censured?
(And while we are at it, that should be “Clintons’.”)
Censured?
(And while we are at it, that should be “Clintons’.”)
Censured?
(And while we are at it, that should be “Clintons’.”)
Well, that is a business risk decision, no? If the public policy goal(patent duration)is to ensure that each and every new drug “turns a profit”, then drug companies should be regulated utilities.
Well, no.
In most other cases, private company drugs development seems to be a reasonably effective way of getting novel drugs to the market – and one which does not seem to have been bettered by other means. The patent system means that any drug company price gouging is time limited, probably now even in the case of tough to replicate biologics.
Antibiotic development has become a notable exception, and requires a public policy solution pretty urgently.
Well, that is a business risk decision, no? If the public policy goal(patent duration)is to ensure that each and every new drug “turns a profit”, then drug companies should be regulated utilities.
Well, no.
In most other cases, private company drugs development seems to be a reasonably effective way of getting novel drugs to the market – and one which does not seem to have been bettered by other means. The patent system means that any drug company price gouging is time limited, probably now even in the case of tough to replicate biologics.
Antibiotic development has become a notable exception, and requires a public policy solution pretty urgently.
Well, that is a business risk decision, no? If the public policy goal(patent duration)is to ensure that each and every new drug “turns a profit”, then drug companies should be regulated utilities.
Well, no.
In most other cases, private company drugs development seems to be a reasonably effective way of getting novel drugs to the market – and one which does not seem to have been bettered by other means. The patent system means that any drug company price gouging is time limited, probably now even in the case of tough to replicate biologics.
Antibiotic development has become a notable exception, and requires a public policy solution pretty urgently.
Deprecated, perhaps.
No. Unwritten constitutions, etc., may work in the UK, but here we have positive law.
Nothing wrong happened with this false scandal. End of story. No laws were broken, and no new ones are necessary with regard to a foundation which has disclosed all of its donors, etc. What was the bribe? The AIDS victims who received medicine were the beneficiaries – should we sue them?
Check out the Clinton Foundation website, or Facebook page, to know what it does.
There is nothing unethical happening here. It’s the usual rightwing bs, accompanied by some leftie Clinton haters.
Deprecated, perhaps.
No. Unwritten constitutions, etc., may work in the UK, but here we have positive law.
Nothing wrong happened with this false scandal. End of story. No laws were broken, and no new ones are necessary with regard to a foundation which has disclosed all of its donors, etc. What was the bribe? The AIDS victims who received medicine were the beneficiaries – should we sue them?
Check out the Clinton Foundation website, or Facebook page, to know what it does.
There is nothing unethical happening here. It’s the usual rightwing bs, accompanied by some leftie Clinton haters.
Deprecated, perhaps.
No. Unwritten constitutions, etc., may work in the UK, but here we have positive law.
Nothing wrong happened with this false scandal. End of story. No laws were broken, and no new ones are necessary with regard to a foundation which has disclosed all of its donors, etc. What was the bribe? The AIDS victims who received medicine were the beneficiaries – should we sue them?
Check out the Clinton Foundation website, or Facebook page, to know what it does.
There is nothing unethical happening here. It’s the usual rightwing bs, accompanied by some leftie Clinton haters.
In most other cases, private company drugs development seems to be a reasonably effective way of getting novel drugs to the market – and one which does not seem to have been bettered by other means.
This is true.
In most other cases, private company drugs development seems to be a reasonably effective way of getting novel drugs to the market – and one which does not seem to have been bettered by other means.
This is true.
In most other cases, private company drugs development seems to be a reasonably effective way of getting novel drugs to the market – and one which does not seem to have been bettered by other means.
This is true.
And should you wish to regulate drug company profitability, something along the lines of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be a reasonable approach.
https://www.nice.org.uk
Regulated utilities would almost certainly unduly stymie the rate of progress.
The outsize profits of drug companies have (IMO) rather more to do with the model of healthcare funding in the US, which is by quite some way their most lucrative market.
And should you wish to regulate drug company profitability, something along the lines of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be a reasonable approach.
https://www.nice.org.uk
Regulated utilities would almost certainly unduly stymie the rate of progress.
The outsize profits of drug companies have (IMO) rather more to do with the model of healthcare funding in the US, which is by quite some way their most lucrative market.
And should you wish to regulate drug company profitability, something along the lines of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be a reasonable approach.
https://www.nice.org.uk
Regulated utilities would almost certainly unduly stymie the rate of progress.
The outsize profits of drug companies have (IMO) rather more to do with the model of healthcare funding in the US, which is by quite some way their most lucrative market.
“Antibiotic development has become a notable exception, and requires a public policy solution pretty urgently.”
YES. Those little buggers are evolving far too quickly, and overuse of antibiotics (in agriculture and in medicine) is making things worse.
This is a WAR, people. Us members of the Metazoan Kingdom have ALWAYS been at war with the Microbe menace, both as species and as individuals.
When we lose a battle, they eat us. Stand strong!
“Antibiotic development has become a notable exception, and requires a public policy solution pretty urgently.”
YES. Those little buggers are evolving far too quickly, and overuse of antibiotics (in agriculture and in medicine) is making things worse.
This is a WAR, people. Us members of the Metazoan Kingdom have ALWAYS been at war with the Microbe menace, both as species and as individuals.
When we lose a battle, they eat us. Stand strong!
“Antibiotic development has become a notable exception, and requires a public policy solution pretty urgently.”
YES. Those little buggers are evolving far too quickly, and overuse of antibiotics (in agriculture and in medicine) is making things worse.
This is a WAR, people. Us members of the Metazoan Kingdom have ALWAYS been at war with the Microbe menace, both as species and as individuals.
When we lose a battle, they eat us. Stand strong!
When we lose a battle, they eat us. Stand strong!
I like the turn this conversation is taking!
When we lose a battle, they eat us. Stand strong!
I like the turn this conversation is taking!
When we lose a battle, they eat us. Stand strong!
I like the turn this conversation is taking!
Quite right, it is a war, but one which we’re not really fighting at the moment.
Untreatable bacterial infections are beyond unpleasant; they are downright scary. I’m an optimist in terms of the science, but developing new antibiotics is an expensive and protracted business, and the lack of effort on the part of either government or industry could conceivably see a decade where we effectively return to pre-WW2 medicine as far as bacteria are concerned.
Though, on the bright side, I suppose the threat of death from infection might cut down on unnecessary surgical procedures…
Quite right, it is a war, but one which we’re not really fighting at the moment.
Untreatable bacterial infections are beyond unpleasant; they are downright scary. I’m an optimist in terms of the science, but developing new antibiotics is an expensive and protracted business, and the lack of effort on the part of either government or industry could conceivably see a decade where we effectively return to pre-WW2 medicine as far as bacteria are concerned.
Though, on the bright side, I suppose the threat of death from infection might cut down on unnecessary surgical procedures…
Quite right, it is a war, but one which we’re not really fighting at the moment.
Untreatable bacterial infections are beyond unpleasant; they are downright scary. I’m an optimist in terms of the science, but developing new antibiotics is an expensive and protracted business, and the lack of effort on the part of either government or industry could conceivably see a decade where we effectively return to pre-WW2 medicine as far as bacteria are concerned.
Though, on the bright side, I suppose the threat of death from infection might cut down on unnecessary surgical procedures…
This is a WAR, people. Us members of the Metazoan Kingdom have ALWAYS been at war with the Microbe menace, both as species and as individuals.
When we lose a battle, they eat us.
What to do when involved in a tough war? Get allies!**
In this case, enlist some viruses. Bacteriophages infect, and can kill/eat, bacteria. Want to deal with MRSAs? There’s a phage that will kill them, anti-biotic resistance notwithstanding.
The down side? You can’t patent a virus which already exists in nature. At most, you can package and sell it the same way that you can package and sell water or blueberries. Nowhere near as much of a money-spinner.
** Of course, that does require accepting the idea that we might need allies. Some people may have a problem with that….
This is a WAR, people. Us members of the Metazoan Kingdom have ALWAYS been at war with the Microbe menace, both as species and as individuals.
When we lose a battle, they eat us.
What to do when involved in a tough war? Get allies!**
In this case, enlist some viruses. Bacteriophages infect, and can kill/eat, bacteria. Want to deal with MRSAs? There’s a phage that will kill them, anti-biotic resistance notwithstanding.
The down side? You can’t patent a virus which already exists in nature. At most, you can package and sell it the same way that you can package and sell water or blueberries. Nowhere near as much of a money-spinner.
** Of course, that does require accepting the idea that we might need allies. Some people may have a problem with that….
This is a WAR, people. Us members of the Metazoan Kingdom have ALWAYS been at war with the Microbe menace, both as species and as individuals.
When we lose a battle, they eat us.
What to do when involved in a tough war? Get allies!**
In this case, enlist some viruses. Bacteriophages infect, and can kill/eat, bacteria. Want to deal with MRSAs? There’s a phage that will kill them, anti-biotic resistance notwithstanding.
The down side? You can’t patent a virus which already exists in nature. At most, you can package and sell it the same way that you can package and sell water or blueberries. Nowhere near as much of a money-spinner.
** Of course, that does require accepting the idea that we might need allies. Some people may have a problem with that….
The problem I have with the Atlantic article is the assumption that our problems come from all those darn citizens taking too much interest in issues and imposing their purity notions on the practical politicians. In practice people point to two things– lefties nominated McGovern who lost in a landslide, when the smoke filled room denizens would have picked someone who might have won. And then there is the apparent self destruction of the Republican Party, where they have lost control of their own extremists and sown so much hatred in some of their voters a person like Trump can come along and win the nomination.
On McGovern, boohoo. There will always be a conflict between the center left and further left within the party. So one time the far left got the nomination and lost the election. So what?
The Republican case is more serious. I agree with some of the posters at the Crooked Timber blog– Trump is the culmination of decades of Republican dog whistling, but Trump doesn’t bother with plausible deniability. He just comes out with it. And before him, the Tea Party is again a Republican creation that escaped the control of the leadership. If the leaders of a party play these sorts of games, encouraging crackpot notions about government takeovers and Islamophobia, then the country will become ungovernable if Republican politicians feel they have to keep feeding the monster they created. This has nothing to do with the need for smoke filled rooms or keeping policy discussions about domestic issues a deep secret so the final compromise that is hammered out can be sprung on voters as a fait accompli. ( sp?)
The problem I have with the Atlantic article is the assumption that our problems come from all those darn citizens taking too much interest in issues and imposing their purity notions on the practical politicians. In practice people point to two things– lefties nominated McGovern who lost in a landslide, when the smoke filled room denizens would have picked someone who might have won. And then there is the apparent self destruction of the Republican Party, where they have lost control of their own extremists and sown so much hatred in some of their voters a person like Trump can come along and win the nomination.
On McGovern, boohoo. There will always be a conflict between the center left and further left within the party. So one time the far left got the nomination and lost the election. So what?
The Republican case is more serious. I agree with some of the posters at the Crooked Timber blog– Trump is the culmination of decades of Republican dog whistling, but Trump doesn’t bother with plausible deniability. He just comes out with it. And before him, the Tea Party is again a Republican creation that escaped the control of the leadership. If the leaders of a party play these sorts of games, encouraging crackpot notions about government takeovers and Islamophobia, then the country will become ungovernable if Republican politicians feel they have to keep feeding the monster they created. This has nothing to do with the need for smoke filled rooms or keeping policy discussions about domestic issues a deep secret so the final compromise that is hammered out can be sprung on voters as a fait accompli. ( sp?)
The problem I have with the Atlantic article is the assumption that our problems come from all those darn citizens taking too much interest in issues and imposing their purity notions on the practical politicians. In practice people point to two things– lefties nominated McGovern who lost in a landslide, when the smoke filled room denizens would have picked someone who might have won. And then there is the apparent self destruction of the Republican Party, where they have lost control of their own extremists and sown so much hatred in some of their voters a person like Trump can come along and win the nomination.
On McGovern, boohoo. There will always be a conflict between the center left and further left within the party. So one time the far left got the nomination and lost the election. So what?
The Republican case is more serious. I agree with some of the posters at the Crooked Timber blog– Trump is the culmination of decades of Republican dog whistling, but Trump doesn’t bother with plausible deniability. He just comes out with it. And before him, the Tea Party is again a Republican creation that escaped the control of the leadership. If the leaders of a party play these sorts of games, encouraging crackpot notions about government takeovers and Islamophobia, then the country will become ungovernable if Republican politicians feel they have to keep feeding the monster they created. This has nothing to do with the need for smoke filled rooms or keeping policy discussions about domestic issues a deep secret so the final compromise that is hammered out can be sprung on voters as a fait accompli. ( sp?)
I forgot to add that in the McGovern case, the backdrop was Vietnam. The Very Serious People of their day had discredited themselves. I suspect most Americans really couldn’t care less about politics if their lives are going fairly well and we aren’t involved in some pointless war that kills Americans. If the VSP’s don’t want interference from the stupid voters, they should try not doing stupid stuff themselves.
Getting back to Yemen ( and thanks for the kind words, Count), we have the ideal of a smoke filled room right now, though that may be starting to change. So long as no new terrorist groups form intent on revenge, American politicians can support whatever war crimes our allies want to commit secure in the knowledge that nobody is going to vote them out of office because of it.
I forgot to add that in the McGovern case, the backdrop was Vietnam. The Very Serious People of their day had discredited themselves. I suspect most Americans really couldn’t care less about politics if their lives are going fairly well and we aren’t involved in some pointless war that kills Americans. If the VSP’s don’t want interference from the stupid voters, they should try not doing stupid stuff themselves.
Getting back to Yemen ( and thanks for the kind words, Count), we have the ideal of a smoke filled room right now, though that may be starting to change. So long as no new terrorist groups form intent on revenge, American politicians can support whatever war crimes our allies want to commit secure in the knowledge that nobody is going to vote them out of office because of it.
I forgot to add that in the McGovern case, the backdrop was Vietnam. The Very Serious People of their day had discredited themselves. I suspect most Americans really couldn’t care less about politics if their lives are going fairly well and we aren’t involved in some pointless war that kills Americans. If the VSP’s don’t want interference from the stupid voters, they should try not doing stupid stuff themselves.
Getting back to Yemen ( and thanks for the kind words, Count), we have the ideal of a smoke filled room right now, though that may be starting to change. So long as no new terrorist groups form intent on revenge, American politicians can support whatever war crimes our allies want to commit secure in the knowledge that nobody is going to vote them out of office because of it.
Regulated utilities would almost certainly unduly stymie the rate of progress.
Why? If antibiotic research is becoming so costly that the private sector is abandoning it, then it follows that a public policy to address this would involve subsidy and/or public investment. Regulated utilities are basically guarantied a decent, but not outrageous, return on equity.
There are other ways to promote research that do not involve granting a private entity monopoly profit.
Furthermore, the “basic research” done by the public efforts of the NIH plays a much greater role in innovation than you seem willing to grant. Their work provides the foundation upon which other private research builds.
As to our domestic pricing. Yes, our system does not allow (a.) importation of less expensive drugs; and (b.) does not allow Medicare/medicaid to negotiate with suppliers, which is, frankly, insane.
It is also questionable as to how granting long term government enforced monopolies to private actors encourages “progress” on this healthcare front.
Thanks.
Regulated utilities would almost certainly unduly stymie the rate of progress.
Why? If antibiotic research is becoming so costly that the private sector is abandoning it, then it follows that a public policy to address this would involve subsidy and/or public investment. Regulated utilities are basically guarantied a decent, but not outrageous, return on equity.
There are other ways to promote research that do not involve granting a private entity monopoly profit.
Furthermore, the “basic research” done by the public efforts of the NIH plays a much greater role in innovation than you seem willing to grant. Their work provides the foundation upon which other private research builds.
As to our domestic pricing. Yes, our system does not allow (a.) importation of less expensive drugs; and (b.) does not allow Medicare/medicaid to negotiate with suppliers, which is, frankly, insane.
It is also questionable as to how granting long term government enforced monopolies to private actors encourages “progress” on this healthcare front.
Thanks.
Regulated utilities would almost certainly unduly stymie the rate of progress.
Why? If antibiotic research is becoming so costly that the private sector is abandoning it, then it follows that a public policy to address this would involve subsidy and/or public investment. Regulated utilities are basically guarantied a decent, but not outrageous, return on equity.
There are other ways to promote research that do not involve granting a private entity monopoly profit.
Furthermore, the “basic research” done by the public efforts of the NIH plays a much greater role in innovation than you seem willing to grant. Their work provides the foundation upon which other private research builds.
As to our domestic pricing. Yes, our system does not allow (a.) importation of less expensive drugs; and (b.) does not allow Medicare/medicaid to negotiate with suppliers, which is, frankly, insane.
It is also questionable as to how granting long term government enforced monopolies to private actors encourages “progress” on this healthcare front.
Thanks.
The down side? You can’t patent a virus which already exists in nature. At most, you can package and sell it the same way that you can package and sell water or blueberries. Nowhere near as much of a money-spinner…
Actually that’s probably not quite true of therapies involving bacteriophages, but it’s certainly an issue. The bigger one is that there simply isn’t a good regulatory structure (certainly in the US) to facilitate commercial (or other) development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy#Obstacles
There is a European clinical trial ongoing, the first I’m aware of, but it apparently has encountered issues (I don’t have a subscription, so am unable to read this full article):
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1506
The slides of a recent presentation give some idea of what those might be:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-gyQt1SI_xuSmpJeEFzSWRVNUk/view?pref=2&pli=1
The down side? You can’t patent a virus which already exists in nature. At most, you can package and sell it the same way that you can package and sell water or blueberries. Nowhere near as much of a money-spinner…
Actually that’s probably not quite true of therapies involving bacteriophages, but it’s certainly an issue. The bigger one is that there simply isn’t a good regulatory structure (certainly in the US) to facilitate commercial (or other) development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy#Obstacles
There is a European clinical trial ongoing, the first I’m aware of, but it apparently has encountered issues (I don’t have a subscription, so am unable to read this full article):
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1506
The slides of a recent presentation give some idea of what those might be:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-gyQt1SI_xuSmpJeEFzSWRVNUk/view?pref=2&pli=1
The down side? You can’t patent a virus which already exists in nature. At most, you can package and sell it the same way that you can package and sell water or blueberries. Nowhere near as much of a money-spinner…
Actually that’s probably not quite true of therapies involving bacteriophages, but it’s certainly an issue. The bigger one is that there simply isn’t a good regulatory structure (certainly in the US) to facilitate commercial (or other) development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy#Obstacles
There is a European clinical trial ongoing, the first I’m aware of, but it apparently has encountered issues (I don’t have a subscription, so am unable to read this full article):
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1506
The slides of a recent presentation give some idea of what those might be:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-gyQt1SI_xuSmpJeEFzSWRVNUk/view?pref=2&pli=1
It is also questionable as to how granting long term government enforced monopolies to private actors encourages “progress” on this healthcare front
What constitutes long term in your view ?
Patents last 20 years, but given the time it takes to bring a drug to market, the enforced monopoly is nowhere near that.
A more difficult issue is how to produce copies of biological therapies, as effective monopolies there can extend long beyond patent term expiry. Again the problems here are as much regulatory as science. There are plenty of efforts to produce generic ‘biosimilars’; getting FAD approval without running through many years of trials to prove equivalence is problematic.
It is also questionable as to how granting long term government enforced monopolies to private actors encourages “progress” on this healthcare front
What constitutes long term in your view ?
Patents last 20 years, but given the time it takes to bring a drug to market, the enforced monopoly is nowhere near that.
A more difficult issue is how to produce copies of biological therapies, as effective monopolies there can extend long beyond patent term expiry. Again the problems here are as much regulatory as science. There are plenty of efforts to produce generic ‘biosimilars’; getting FAD approval without running through many years of trials to prove equivalence is problematic.
It is also questionable as to how granting long term government enforced monopolies to private actors encourages “progress” on this healthcare front
What constitutes long term in your view ?
Patents last 20 years, but given the time it takes to bring a drug to market, the enforced monopoly is nowhere near that.
A more difficult issue is how to produce copies of biological therapies, as effective monopolies there can extend long beyond patent term expiry. Again the problems here are as much regulatory as science. There are plenty of efforts to produce generic ‘biosimilars’; getting FAD approval without running through many years of trials to prove equivalence is problematic.
Why? If antibiotic research is becoming so costly that the private sector is abandoning it, then it follows that a public policy to address this would involve subsidy and/or public investment…
Agreed.
Regulated utilities are basically guarantied a decent, but not outrageous, return on equity…
How might that work; do you just fund everyone, irrespective of success ? One thing the market does quite well is weed out companies which don’t succeed.
If not, what constitutes a ‘decent’ return to make up for failures elsewhere ?
No one is going to run a business with a high chance of failure, and meagre returns in case of success – which is essentially the problem with antibiotic development now.
(Typo above – should have been ‘FDA’.)
Why? If antibiotic research is becoming so costly that the private sector is abandoning it, then it follows that a public policy to address this would involve subsidy and/or public investment…
Agreed.
Regulated utilities are basically guarantied a decent, but not outrageous, return on equity…
How might that work; do you just fund everyone, irrespective of success ? One thing the market does quite well is weed out companies which don’t succeed.
If not, what constitutes a ‘decent’ return to make up for failures elsewhere ?
No one is going to run a business with a high chance of failure, and meagre returns in case of success – which is essentially the problem with antibiotic development now.
(Typo above – should have been ‘FDA’.)
Why? If antibiotic research is becoming so costly that the private sector is abandoning it, then it follows that a public policy to address this would involve subsidy and/or public investment…
Agreed.
Regulated utilities are basically guarantied a decent, but not outrageous, return on equity…
How might that work; do you just fund everyone, irrespective of success ? One thing the market does quite well is weed out companies which don’t succeed.
If not, what constitutes a ‘decent’ return to make up for failures elsewhere ?
No one is going to run a business with a high chance of failure, and meagre returns in case of success – which is essentially the problem with antibiotic development now.
(Typo above – should have been ‘FDA’.)
The Very Serious People
Just for the record, that concept (and phrasing) is wearing very thin.
American politicians can support whatever war crimes our allies want to commit secure in the knowledge that nobody is going to vote them out of office because of it.
You still seem to suggest that supporting the Saudis is some kind of ultimate preferred policy goal, when actually it’s probably an attempt to forestall a much larger conflagration over Iran and nukes. Do you think our just staying out of it is going to result in Peace Now? There are a whole lot of places in the world where that’s just not happening.
Nigel, you make good points regarding drug development. Part of the problem is the monopolies that still somehow control drugs out of patent, like epinephrine, which is cheap, but also its expensive delivery method, the EpiPen.
Even if there are sanctioned monopolies, there has to be a some kind of regulatory cap on pricing.
The Very Serious People
Just for the record, that concept (and phrasing) is wearing very thin.
American politicians can support whatever war crimes our allies want to commit secure in the knowledge that nobody is going to vote them out of office because of it.
You still seem to suggest that supporting the Saudis is some kind of ultimate preferred policy goal, when actually it’s probably an attempt to forestall a much larger conflagration over Iran and nukes. Do you think our just staying out of it is going to result in Peace Now? There are a whole lot of places in the world where that’s just not happening.
Nigel, you make good points regarding drug development. Part of the problem is the monopolies that still somehow control drugs out of patent, like epinephrine, which is cheap, but also its expensive delivery method, the EpiPen.
Even if there are sanctioned monopolies, there has to be a some kind of regulatory cap on pricing.
The Very Serious People
Just for the record, that concept (and phrasing) is wearing very thin.
American politicians can support whatever war crimes our allies want to commit secure in the knowledge that nobody is going to vote them out of office because of it.
You still seem to suggest that supporting the Saudis is some kind of ultimate preferred policy goal, when actually it’s probably an attempt to forestall a much larger conflagration over Iran and nukes. Do you think our just staying out of it is going to result in Peace Now? There are a whole lot of places in the world where that’s just not happening.
Nigel, you make good points regarding drug development. Part of the problem is the monopolies that still somehow control drugs out of patent, like epinephrine, which is cheap, but also its expensive delivery method, the EpiPen.
Even if there are sanctioned monopolies, there has to be a some kind of regulatory cap on pricing.
How might that work
It was just a suggestion, perhaps not the best one. They work because the understanding is that in return for limited market entry, the firm agrees to limited profit.
I agree with your point regarding the absence of effective regulatory structure.
I am always chagrined to read claims about how effective markets are at “weeding out” failure. Those failures expend resources. When government expends resources in a futile way, it is called “waste”.
Sometimes you just can’t win.
Thanks for the conversation.
How might that work
It was just a suggestion, perhaps not the best one. They work because the understanding is that in return for limited market entry, the firm agrees to limited profit.
I agree with your point regarding the absence of effective regulatory structure.
I am always chagrined to read claims about how effective markets are at “weeding out” failure. Those failures expend resources. When government expends resources in a futile way, it is called “waste”.
Sometimes you just can’t win.
Thanks for the conversation.
How might that work
It was just a suggestion, perhaps not the best one. They work because the understanding is that in return for limited market entry, the firm agrees to limited profit.
I agree with your point regarding the absence of effective regulatory structure.
I am always chagrined to read claims about how effective markets are at “weeding out” failure. Those failures expend resources. When government expends resources in a futile way, it is called “waste”.
Sometimes you just can’t win.
Thanks for the conversation.
I like the poetic symmetry of a comment thread about Andrew Breitbat’s posthumous political influence eventually discussing untreatable bacterial infections. Well done everyone! 🙂
I like the poetic symmetry of a comment thread about Andrew Breitbat’s posthumous political influence eventually discussing untreatable bacterial infections. Well done everyone! 🙂
I like the poetic symmetry of a comment thread about Andrew Breitbat’s posthumous political influence eventually discussing untreatable bacterial infections. Well done everyone! 🙂
Do you think our just staying out of it is going to result in Peace Now? There are a whole lot of places in the world where that’s just not happening.
The question is, in the places where there are still active wars, https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b5ce#.8kx2vck8i , can we impact the war or the aftermath positively? Or, as in many places in the world, does our leaving actually leave them to sort it out?
Do you think our just staying out of it is going to result in Peace Now? There are a whole lot of places in the world where that’s just not happening.
The question is, in the places where there are still active wars, https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b5ce#.8kx2vck8i , can we impact the war or the aftermath positively? Or, as in many places in the world, does our leaving actually leave them to sort it out?
Do you think our just staying out of it is going to result in Peace Now? There are a whole lot of places in the world where that’s just not happening.
The question is, in the places where there are still active wars, https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b5ce#.8kx2vck8i , can we impact the war or the aftermath positively? Or, as in many places in the world, does our leaving actually leave them to sort it out?
I am always chagrined to read claims about how effective markets are at “weeding out” failure. Those failures expend resources. When government expends resources in a futile way, it is called “waste”.
Which is precisely the problem; public sector incentives are somewhat different from those in the private sector. Until politicians are prepared to accept necessary risks and concomitant failures (which the whole political process tends to militate against), innovation is a great deal harder….something I’m reminded of every time I read about the UK’s House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Accounts_Committee_(United_Kingdom)
There’s nothing magic about the private sector, and the people working there aren’t necessarily smarter; it’s that it is a more pluralistic environment, and more accepting of risk.
(A similar consideration applies to academia: how many scientific papers get published with negative results ?)
I am always chagrined to read claims about how effective markets are at “weeding out” failure. Those failures expend resources. When government expends resources in a futile way, it is called “waste”.
Which is precisely the problem; public sector incentives are somewhat different from those in the private sector. Until politicians are prepared to accept necessary risks and concomitant failures (which the whole political process tends to militate against), innovation is a great deal harder….something I’m reminded of every time I read about the UK’s House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Accounts_Committee_(United_Kingdom)
There’s nothing magic about the private sector, and the people working there aren’t necessarily smarter; it’s that it is a more pluralistic environment, and more accepting of risk.
(A similar consideration applies to academia: how many scientific papers get published with negative results ?)
I am always chagrined to read claims about how effective markets are at “weeding out” failure. Those failures expend resources. When government expends resources in a futile way, it is called “waste”.
Which is precisely the problem; public sector incentives are somewhat different from those in the private sector. Until politicians are prepared to accept necessary risks and concomitant failures (which the whole political process tends to militate against), innovation is a great deal harder….something I’m reminded of every time I read about the UK’s House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Accounts_Committee_(United_Kingdom)
There’s nothing magic about the private sector, and the people working there aren’t necessarily smarter; it’s that it is a more pluralistic environment, and more accepting of risk.
(A similar consideration applies to academia: how many scientific papers get published with negative results ?)
“can we impact the war or the aftermath positively? Or, as in many places in the world, does our leaving actually leave them to sort it out?”
That’s a great question.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
Because either one side has to get completely stomped, or the combatants have to fight to exhaustion, and decide for themselves that they don’t want to fight any more. Yes, those can be bad outcomes; but it’s not at all clear that intervention gives a less bad outcome.
Of course, there’s always a ‘technological solution’, but progress on the Open Source Time Machine is distressingly slow. I think Obama is using his own private Time Machine to sabotage the work. Dastardly.
“can we impact the war or the aftermath positively? Or, as in many places in the world, does our leaving actually leave them to sort it out?”
That’s a great question.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
Because either one side has to get completely stomped, or the combatants have to fight to exhaustion, and decide for themselves that they don’t want to fight any more. Yes, those can be bad outcomes; but it’s not at all clear that intervention gives a less bad outcome.
Of course, there’s always a ‘technological solution’, but progress on the Open Source Time Machine is distressingly slow. I think Obama is using his own private Time Machine to sabotage the work. Dastardly.
“can we impact the war or the aftermath positively? Or, as in many places in the world, does our leaving actually leave them to sort it out?”
That’s a great question.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
Because either one side has to get completely stomped, or the combatants have to fight to exhaustion, and decide for themselves that they don’t want to fight any more. Yes, those can be bad outcomes; but it’s not at all clear that intervention gives a less bad outcome.
Of course, there’s always a ‘technological solution’, but progress on the Open Source Time Machine is distressingly slow. I think Obama is using his own private Time Machine to sabotage the work. Dastardly.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
Agreed, and I’d add that in recent years we have been both terribly, and well, informed.
Kosovo was, arguably at least, an exception. Are there any others ?
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
Agreed, and I’d add that in recent years we have been both terribly, and well, informed.
Kosovo was, arguably at least, an exception. Are there any others ?
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
Agreed, and I’d add that in recent years we have been both terribly, and well, informed.
Kosovo was, arguably at least, an exception. Are there any others ?
The Very Serious People
Just for the record, that concept (and phrasing) is wearing very thin.
It makes me think the likes of The Onion, Fafblog, Jon Stewart and his various progeny are the only ones who can (or could – *sad face*) make legitimate political commentary because they throw in lots of jokes and humor, thereby not being Very Serious.
Oh, and the Count. Him, too.
The Very Serious People
Just for the record, that concept (and phrasing) is wearing very thin.
It makes me think the likes of The Onion, Fafblog, Jon Stewart and his various progeny are the only ones who can (or could – *sad face*) make legitimate political commentary because they throw in lots of jokes and humor, thereby not being Very Serious.
Oh, and the Count. Him, too.
The Very Serious People
Just for the record, that concept (and phrasing) is wearing very thin.
It makes me think the likes of The Onion, Fafblog, Jon Stewart and his various progeny are the only ones who can (or could – *sad face*) make legitimate political commentary because they throw in lots of jokes and humor, thereby not being Very Serious.
Oh, and the Count. Him, too.
Some ack-ack on drug pricing:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/in-november-ballot-initiative.html
Also, some seriously funny Twitter stuff. I hate Twitter, but this guy cracks me up. You need to scroll down to get the zing. I especially love how his “Ryan” says absolutely nothing. Just like real life.
https://twitter.com/onlxn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Some ack-ack on drug pricing:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/in-november-ballot-initiative.html
Also, some seriously funny Twitter stuff. I hate Twitter, but this guy cracks me up. You need to scroll down to get the zing. I especially love how his “Ryan” says absolutely nothing. Just like real life.
https://twitter.com/onlxn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Some ack-ack on drug pricing:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/in-november-ballot-initiative.html
Also, some seriously funny Twitter stuff. I hate Twitter, but this guy cracks me up. You need to scroll down to get the zing. I especially love how his “Ryan” says absolutely nothing. Just like real life.
https://twitter.com/onlxn?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
(A similar consideration applies to academia: how many scientific papers get published with negative results ?)
That would be in essence my PhD thesis.
It’s mainly explaining why the basic idea did not work out so well. The project was partially publicly financed btw.
(A similar consideration applies to academia: how many scientific papers get published with negative results ?)
That would be in essence my PhD thesis.
It’s mainly explaining why the basic idea did not work out so well. The project was partially publicly financed btw.
(A similar consideration applies to academia: how many scientific papers get published with negative results ?)
That would be in essence my PhD thesis.
It’s mainly explaining why the basic idea did not work out so well. The project was partially publicly financed btw.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
That would be ideal. On the other hand, what is a “civil war” when outsiders aren’t staying out? Or what is a “civil war” in a region where national borders were made up by outsiders, where national identity isn’t a deciding political factor, and where the consequences of the “civil war” affects the rest of the world?
As to Yemen, “we” aren’t really officially in the fight. “We” are supporting Saudi Arabia, in exchange for their support for the Iran deal. (Is it a civil war when Saudi Arabia and Iran are also involved?)
The most significant question, it seems to me, is whether the Iran deal is worth the support we had to give to Saudi Arabia to get its cooperation. Most “hawks” don’t like the Iran deal, because it interferes with their intentions regarding open war with Iran. What’s your view on what the Iran deal is worth?
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
That would be ideal. On the other hand, what is a “civil war” when outsiders aren’t staying out? Or what is a “civil war” in a region where national borders were made up by outsiders, where national identity isn’t a deciding political factor, and where the consequences of the “civil war” affects the rest of the world?
As to Yemen, “we” aren’t really officially in the fight. “We” are supporting Saudi Arabia, in exchange for their support for the Iran deal. (Is it a civil war when Saudi Arabia and Iran are also involved?)
The most significant question, it seems to me, is whether the Iran deal is worth the support we had to give to Saudi Arabia to get its cooperation. Most “hawks” don’t like the Iran deal, because it interferes with their intentions regarding open war with Iran. What’s your view on what the Iran deal is worth?
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
That would be ideal. On the other hand, what is a “civil war” when outsiders aren’t staying out? Or what is a “civil war” in a region where national borders were made up by outsiders, where national identity isn’t a deciding political factor, and where the consequences of the “civil war” affects the rest of the world?
As to Yemen, “we” aren’t really officially in the fight. “We” are supporting Saudi Arabia, in exchange for their support for the Iran deal. (Is it a civil war when Saudi Arabia and Iran are also involved?)
The most significant question, it seems to me, is whether the Iran deal is worth the support we had to give to Saudi Arabia to get its cooperation. Most “hawks” don’t like the Iran deal, because it interferes with their intentions regarding open war with Iran. What’s your view on what the Iran deal is worth?
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
I’d say probably yes, depending on what kind of civil war it is.
Kosovo was, arguably at least, an exception. Are there any others?
Kosovo would be an exception because that civil war was not about taking over the country as a whole, but about splitting a country which was mostly segregated between two groups. The Kurds in Iraq would be a similar case, if it came to full scale military conflict.
The reason that they are exceptions is that it is possible to end the conflict without one side getting “completely stomped,” and without both sides getting utterly exhausted. It just takes one side accepting that it cannot successfully reconquer the other.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
I’d say probably yes, depending on what kind of civil war it is.
Kosovo was, arguably at least, an exception. Are there any others?
Kosovo would be an exception because that civil war was not about taking over the country as a whole, but about splitting a country which was mostly segregated between two groups. The Kurds in Iraq would be a similar case, if it came to full scale military conflict.
The reason that they are exceptions is that it is possible to end the conflict without one side getting “completely stomped,” and without both sides getting utterly exhausted. It just takes one side accepting that it cannot successfully reconquer the other.
My own, not so terribly well-informed, opinion is that for CIVIL wars, outsiders should stay out, as the default condition.
I’d say probably yes, depending on what kind of civil war it is.
Kosovo was, arguably at least, an exception. Are there any others?
Kosovo would be an exception because that civil war was not about taking over the country as a whole, but about splitting a country which was mostly segregated between two groups. The Kurds in Iraq would be a similar case, if it came to full scale military conflict.
The reason that they are exceptions is that it is possible to end the conflict without one side getting “completely stomped,” and without both sides getting utterly exhausted. It just takes one side accepting that it cannot successfully reconquer the other.
speaking of Breitbart…
Bannon turns out to be a wife beater!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/bannons-bad-news/497612/
can you imagine what kind of cabinet Trump would put together?
speaking of Breitbart…
Bannon turns out to be a wife beater!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/bannons-bad-news/497612/
can you imagine what kind of cabinet Trump would put together?
speaking of Breitbart…
Bannon turns out to be a wife beater!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/bannons-bad-news/497612/
can you imagine what kind of cabinet Trump would put together?
Well, we can assume it wouldn’t be a “kitchen cabinet”….
Well, we can assume it wouldn’t be a “kitchen cabinet”….
Well, we can assume it wouldn’t be a “kitchen cabinet”….
OMFG.
now he’s gone and hired someone from right in the middle of Christie’s bridge scandal.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-s-razor-will-cut-you-up
OMFG.
now he’s gone and hired someone from right in the middle of Christie’s bridge scandal.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-s-razor-will-cut-you-up
OMFG.
now he’s gone and hired someone from right in the middle of Christie’s bridge scandal.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-s-razor-will-cut-you-up
He has to be sabotaging his campaign on purpose because he doesn’t want the responsibilities of the presidency.
He has to be sabotaging his campaign on purpose because he doesn’t want the responsibilities of the presidency.
He has to be sabotaging his campaign on purpose because he doesn’t want the responsibilities of the presidency.
Cleek, have you considered the possibility that nobody else is willing to sign on with him? At this point, anyone with ambitions for a future in politics might see association with the Trump campaign as career suicide.
Cleek, have you considered the possibility that nobody else is willing to sign on with him? At this point, anyone with ambitions for a future in politics might see association with the Trump campaign as career suicide.
Cleek, have you considered the possibility that nobody else is willing to sign on with him? At this point, anyone with ambitions for a future in politics might see association with the Trump campaign as career suicide.
My God, those Clintons ARE diabolical!
Paying their taxes in full AND doling out the entire Clinton Foundation endowment to Trump as his fee for the most exquisite ratfucking (using experienced ratfuckers familiar to all of us, too!) operation since Abraham Lincoln put Democrats on the hook for slavery so he could become a Republican martyr for the Second Amendment.
The mind would boggle but the synapses are fried.
My God, those Clintons ARE diabolical!
Paying their taxes in full AND doling out the entire Clinton Foundation endowment to Trump as his fee for the most exquisite ratfucking (using experienced ratfuckers familiar to all of us, too!) operation since Abraham Lincoln put Democrats on the hook for slavery so he could become a Republican martyr for the Second Amendment.
The mind would boggle but the synapses are fried.
My God, those Clintons ARE diabolical!
Paying their taxes in full AND doling out the entire Clinton Foundation endowment to Trump as his fee for the most exquisite ratfucking (using experienced ratfuckers familiar to all of us, too!) operation since Abraham Lincoln put Democrats on the hook for slavery so he could become a Republican martyr for the Second Amendment.
The mind would boggle but the synapses are fried.
And it’s amazing how that sinister brat, Chelsea, can take time out from handing out free AIDS meds in Africa to throw her voice so convincingly as she reads directly from the long-standing horseshit, pigf*cking traditional Republican playbook:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/eric-trump-holiday-tree-white-house
As Trump settles in to consider his cabinet and Supreme Court nominations, I guess socialists are out of luck:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-lepage-voicemail-gattine-racist
Now your regular old racist mainstream Republican c8cksuckers (I use the term as Republicans use it .. to slur the OTHER while dangling jobs in front of FOX blondes as incentive to get them to s*ck their dicks and go on the air AND slur the Other as part of the well-worn journalism motto: “we upchuck, you buy it”) will stand in good stead for those positions.
True, the ultimate c*cksucking piece of dog sh*t, Ted Cruz, has put himself out of the running despite meeting all of Trump’s criteria, which seems a hell of a way to run a clown show, pushing the most accomplished clowns to the side.
And Paul Ryan, the bugger of the poor, already has a job getting up the backside of the indigent without actually quoting any numbers.
Funny New Yorker cartoon this week. A guy gazing at his computer screen in his work cubicle. His boss pops in behind him and admonishes (I paraphrase): “Enough looking at butterflies on the Net during work hours, Fenster. We have a porn empire to run around here.”
Which raises interesting questions regarding what behavior in the workplace is regarded as out of bounds in that “industry”.
“Quiet on the set!” and “A second take! Do you have any idea what we’re paying for this abandoned warehouse?” would seem to be the only admonitions in the employee handbook.
And it’s amazing how that sinister brat, Chelsea, can take time out from handing out free AIDS meds in Africa to throw her voice so convincingly as she reads directly from the long-standing horseshit, pigf*cking traditional Republican playbook:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/eric-trump-holiday-tree-white-house
As Trump settles in to consider his cabinet and Supreme Court nominations, I guess socialists are out of luck:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-lepage-voicemail-gattine-racist
Now your regular old racist mainstream Republican c8cksuckers (I use the term as Republicans use it .. to slur the OTHER while dangling jobs in front of FOX blondes as incentive to get them to s*ck their dicks and go on the air AND slur the Other as part of the well-worn journalism motto: “we upchuck, you buy it”) will stand in good stead for those positions.
True, the ultimate c*cksucking piece of dog sh*t, Ted Cruz, has put himself out of the running despite meeting all of Trump’s criteria, which seems a hell of a way to run a clown show, pushing the most accomplished clowns to the side.
And Paul Ryan, the bugger of the poor, already has a job getting up the backside of the indigent without actually quoting any numbers.
Funny New Yorker cartoon this week. A guy gazing at his computer screen in his work cubicle. His boss pops in behind him and admonishes (I paraphrase): “Enough looking at butterflies on the Net during work hours, Fenster. We have a porn empire to run around here.”
Which raises interesting questions regarding what behavior in the workplace is regarded as out of bounds in that “industry”.
“Quiet on the set!” and “A second take! Do you have any idea what we’re paying for this abandoned warehouse?” would seem to be the only admonitions in the employee handbook.
And it’s amazing how that sinister brat, Chelsea, can take time out from handing out free AIDS meds in Africa to throw her voice so convincingly as she reads directly from the long-standing horseshit, pigf*cking traditional Republican playbook:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/eric-trump-holiday-tree-white-house
As Trump settles in to consider his cabinet and Supreme Court nominations, I guess socialists are out of luck:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-lepage-voicemail-gattine-racist
Now your regular old racist mainstream Republican c8cksuckers (I use the term as Republicans use it .. to slur the OTHER while dangling jobs in front of FOX blondes as incentive to get them to s*ck their dicks and go on the air AND slur the Other as part of the well-worn journalism motto: “we upchuck, you buy it”) will stand in good stead for those positions.
True, the ultimate c*cksucking piece of dog sh*t, Ted Cruz, has put himself out of the running despite meeting all of Trump’s criteria, which seems a hell of a way to run a clown show, pushing the most accomplished clowns to the side.
And Paul Ryan, the bugger of the poor, already has a job getting up the backside of the indigent without actually quoting any numbers.
Funny New Yorker cartoon this week. A guy gazing at his computer screen in his work cubicle. His boss pops in behind him and admonishes (I paraphrase): “Enough looking at butterflies on the Net during work hours, Fenster. We have a porn empire to run around here.”
Which raises interesting questions regarding what behavior in the workplace is regarded as out of bounds in that “industry”.
“Quiet on the set!” and “A second take! Do you have any idea what we’re paying for this abandoned warehouse?” would seem to be the only admonitions in the employee handbook.
This lifeboat is getting mighty crowded:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-wolfowitz-may-vote-clinton
It’s starting to feel like one of those WWII Navy movies wherein both the American ship and the German U-boat sink to the bottom and the lifeboat full of Americans hauls the German U-Boat Captain out of the soup too.
Or maybe we’re going to have a tiger by the tail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbVD0V0IdyU
This lifeboat is getting mighty crowded:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-wolfowitz-may-vote-clinton
It’s starting to feel like one of those WWII Navy movies wherein both the American ship and the German U-boat sink to the bottom and the lifeboat full of Americans hauls the German U-Boat Captain out of the soup too.
Or maybe we’re going to have a tiger by the tail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbVD0V0IdyU
This lifeboat is getting mighty crowded:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-wolfowitz-may-vote-clinton
It’s starting to feel like one of those WWII Navy movies wherein both the American ship and the German U-boat sink to the bottom and the lifeboat full of Americans hauls the German U-Boat Captain out of the soup too.
Or maybe we’re going to have a tiger by the tail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbVD0V0IdyU
Other than raw misogyny to outdo the raw racism of the Obama years and enough assassination plots to make the Secret Service wish they were working for Indira Gandhi or Yitzhak Rabin, this is what I expect during a Clinton Administration, if she wins:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/26/begin-the-beguine/
If Trump wins, I expect to miss most of the fun on account of my rendition to Guantanamo for the new and improved torture regime.
Other than raw misogyny to outdo the raw racism of the Obama years and enough assassination plots to make the Secret Service wish they were working for Indira Gandhi or Yitzhak Rabin, this is what I expect during a Clinton Administration, if she wins:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/26/begin-the-beguine/
If Trump wins, I expect to miss most of the fun on account of my rendition to Guantanamo for the new and improved torture regime.
Other than raw misogyny to outdo the raw racism of the Obama years and enough assassination plots to make the Secret Service wish they were working for Indira Gandhi or Yitzhak Rabin, this is what I expect during a Clinton Administration, if she wins:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/26/begin-the-beguine/
If Trump wins, I expect to miss most of the fun on account of my rendition to Guantanamo for the new and improved torture regime.
Cleek, have you considered the possibility that nobody else is willing to sign on with him?
heh.
you’re probably right about that.
Cleek, have you considered the possibility that nobody else is willing to sign on with him?
heh.
you’re probably right about that.
Cleek, have you considered the possibility that nobody else is willing to sign on with him?
heh.
you’re probably right about that.
This
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/the-grand-old-alt-right-party
This
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/the-grand-old-alt-right-party
This
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/08/the-grand-old-alt-right-party