411 thoughts on “Quo Vadis? — Inauguration Thread”

  1. From President Trump’s Inaugural Address:

    The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.

    So true. And we shall see what we shall see.

    Reply
  2. From President Trump’s Inaugural Address:

    The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.

    So true. And we shall see what we shall see.

    Reply
  3. From President Trump’s Inaugural Address:

    The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.

    So true. And we shall see what we shall see.

    Reply
  4. I don’t recall any vandalism, tear gas or pepper spray at the prior 3.
    From what I’ve seen, which is as of yet quite limited, the vandalism seems to be the work of a specific group. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    They tend to show up everywhere and make enormous PITA’s of themselves.

    Reply
  5. I don’t recall any vandalism, tear gas or pepper spray at the prior 3.
    From what I’ve seen, which is as of yet quite limited, the vandalism seems to be the work of a specific group. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    They tend to show up everywhere and make enormous PITA’s of themselves.

    Reply
  6. I don’t recall any vandalism, tear gas or pepper spray at the prior 3.
    From what I’ve seen, which is as of yet quite limited, the vandalism seems to be the work of a specific group. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    They tend to show up everywhere and make enormous PITA’s of themselves.

    Reply
  7. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    And I guess we really don’t know who they are, or whether someone sent them. We need to be very careful about attributing violence to people these days.

    Reply
  8. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    And I guess we really don’t know who they are, or whether someone sent them. We need to be very careful about attributing violence to people these days.

    Reply
  9. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    And I guess we really don’t know who they are, or whether someone sent them. We need to be very careful about attributing violence to people these days.

    Reply
  10. Keep in mind Sarah Kendzior, and a quote from Trump that she has discussed many times:
    “You know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [chuckles], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great.” [Interview link]

    Reply
  11. Keep in mind Sarah Kendzior, and a quote from Trump that she has discussed many times:
    “You know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [chuckles], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great.” [Interview link]

    Reply
  12. Keep in mind Sarah Kendzior, and a quote from Trump that she has discussed many times:
    “You know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [chuckles], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great.” [Interview link]

    Reply
  13. It seems that the mainstream press is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that Trump is perfectly okay with lying about everything, lies large and small, whether about something that can be disproved in 30 seconds or 30 days.
    Really, it’s quite a sight to see when a Trump tweet goes out and it gets repeated in the press as gospel truth – because no one lies to them and/or the President (or P-elect) wouldn’t spread lies! – and then after they dutifully repeat it it is walked back, or disavowed, or repudiated, or explained to mean the opposite of what it means, etc.
    Granted they are in a hard spot – when POTUS says/tweets something it’s difficult for them to ignore it until they can investigate the truth of the matter asserted and only then report what he said and whether it’s true (or even makes sense).
    This goes to the norm breaking touched upon in lots of places – it’s very hard for US democracy (or really any democracy) if those in power have no problem spreading lies and BS publicly and repeatedly. So, up until now, we expect POTUS to tell the truth, and if he’s inclined to give a misleading impression, such statements are generally carefully worded so that they can be explained to mean something else later and not a “lie.”
    This is part of what so pisses me off about Paul Ryan, he knows the media won’t challenge him on his lies about, e.g., the ACA and Medicare, because they don’t expect to be lied to and he has his policy wanker reputation.
    The sad thing (or one of them) will be that if the press ever does catch on to this and adjusts accordingly, all the politicians or that next POTUS that are not inclined to operate in Trump’s manner will be handicapped and at a disadvantage.

    Reply
  14. It seems that the mainstream press is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that Trump is perfectly okay with lying about everything, lies large and small, whether about something that can be disproved in 30 seconds or 30 days.
    Really, it’s quite a sight to see when a Trump tweet goes out and it gets repeated in the press as gospel truth – because no one lies to them and/or the President (or P-elect) wouldn’t spread lies! – and then after they dutifully repeat it it is walked back, or disavowed, or repudiated, or explained to mean the opposite of what it means, etc.
    Granted they are in a hard spot – when POTUS says/tweets something it’s difficult for them to ignore it until they can investigate the truth of the matter asserted and only then report what he said and whether it’s true (or even makes sense).
    This goes to the norm breaking touched upon in lots of places – it’s very hard for US democracy (or really any democracy) if those in power have no problem spreading lies and BS publicly and repeatedly. So, up until now, we expect POTUS to tell the truth, and if he’s inclined to give a misleading impression, such statements are generally carefully worded so that they can be explained to mean something else later and not a “lie.”
    This is part of what so pisses me off about Paul Ryan, he knows the media won’t challenge him on his lies about, e.g., the ACA and Medicare, because they don’t expect to be lied to and he has his policy wanker reputation.
    The sad thing (or one of them) will be that if the press ever does catch on to this and adjusts accordingly, all the politicians or that next POTUS that are not inclined to operate in Trump’s manner will be handicapped and at a disadvantage.

    Reply
  15. It seems that the mainstream press is having a hard time adjusting to the fact that Trump is perfectly okay with lying about everything, lies large and small, whether about something that can be disproved in 30 seconds or 30 days.
    Really, it’s quite a sight to see when a Trump tweet goes out and it gets repeated in the press as gospel truth – because no one lies to them and/or the President (or P-elect) wouldn’t spread lies! – and then after they dutifully repeat it it is walked back, or disavowed, or repudiated, or explained to mean the opposite of what it means, etc.
    Granted they are in a hard spot – when POTUS says/tweets something it’s difficult for them to ignore it until they can investigate the truth of the matter asserted and only then report what he said and whether it’s true (or even makes sense).
    This goes to the norm breaking touched upon in lots of places – it’s very hard for US democracy (or really any democracy) if those in power have no problem spreading lies and BS publicly and repeatedly. So, up until now, we expect POTUS to tell the truth, and if he’s inclined to give a misleading impression, such statements are generally carefully worded so that they can be explained to mean something else later and not a “lie.”
    This is part of what so pisses me off about Paul Ryan, he knows the media won’t challenge him on his lies about, e.g., the ACA and Medicare, because they don’t expect to be lied to and he has his policy wanker reputation.
    The sad thing (or one of them) will be that if the press ever does catch on to this and adjusts accordingly, all the politicians or that next POTUS that are not inclined to operate in Trump’s manner will be handicapped and at a disadvantage.

    Reply
  16. I’m generalizing and probably overstating the truthiness of politicians in the above, but Trump really is playing a completely different game.

    Reply
  17. I’m generalizing and probably overstating the truthiness of politicians in the above, but Trump really is playing a completely different game.

    Reply
  18. I’m generalizing and probably overstating the truthiness of politicians in the above, but Trump really is playing a completely different game.

    Reply
  19. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    Yep. They show up all the time, expressly to break stuff, in situations where there’s enough crowd cover to make it harder for them to get caught.
    Any big enough protest, you’ll see a clump of those morons.

    Reply
  20. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    Yep. They show up all the time, expressly to break stuff, in situations where there’s enough crowd cover to make it harder for them to get caught.
    Any big enough protest, you’ll see a clump of those morons.

    Reply
  21. Most of whom look like the usual crew of 20-something anarchist wanna-be’s wearing black bandanas around their faces.
    Yep. They show up all the time, expressly to break stuff, in situations where there’s enough crowd cover to make it harder for them to get caught.
    Any big enough protest, you’ll see a clump of those morons.

    Reply
  22. I guess it’s on us to determine the truth. One way we can do it is to figure out who benefits from certain narratives.
    It’s problematic that some events occur for which no video evidence exists. (The until-recent history of police violence against certain racial groups is an example of this.) Truth is going to be difficult to discern in some cases, and people will have to use their own judgment. Sadly, this may reinforce the tendency of people to judge situations according to preexisting biases, so people have to try to be open-minded and apply common sense at the same time.
    Nobody ever said that the pursuit of truth is easy, especially under authoritarianism. But the beneficiary of violence in this weekend’s anti-Trump protests is Trump, whether the perpetrators are misguided anti-Trump people, or Trump saboteurs. He’s even said so.
    As to Trump himself, and his lies, I think we are safe never to believe his self-promotion, and always to believe the worst unless proof exists otherwise. At least we’ll be prepared to fight under that plan.

    Reply
  23. I guess it’s on us to determine the truth. One way we can do it is to figure out who benefits from certain narratives.
    It’s problematic that some events occur for which no video evidence exists. (The until-recent history of police violence against certain racial groups is an example of this.) Truth is going to be difficult to discern in some cases, and people will have to use their own judgment. Sadly, this may reinforce the tendency of people to judge situations according to preexisting biases, so people have to try to be open-minded and apply common sense at the same time.
    Nobody ever said that the pursuit of truth is easy, especially under authoritarianism. But the beneficiary of violence in this weekend’s anti-Trump protests is Trump, whether the perpetrators are misguided anti-Trump people, or Trump saboteurs. He’s even said so.
    As to Trump himself, and his lies, I think we are safe never to believe his self-promotion, and always to believe the worst unless proof exists otherwise. At least we’ll be prepared to fight under that plan.

    Reply
  24. I guess it’s on us to determine the truth. One way we can do it is to figure out who benefits from certain narratives.
    It’s problematic that some events occur for which no video evidence exists. (The until-recent history of police violence against certain racial groups is an example of this.) Truth is going to be difficult to discern in some cases, and people will have to use their own judgment. Sadly, this may reinforce the tendency of people to judge situations according to preexisting biases, so people have to try to be open-minded and apply common sense at the same time.
    Nobody ever said that the pursuit of truth is easy, especially under authoritarianism. But the beneficiary of violence in this weekend’s anti-Trump protests is Trump, whether the perpetrators are misguided anti-Trump people, or Trump saboteurs. He’s even said so.
    As to Trump himself, and his lies, I think we are safe never to believe his self-promotion, and always to believe the worst unless proof exists otherwise. At least we’ll be prepared to fight under that plan.

    Reply
  25. yes, i saw that. The House rules now include a clause such that any legislation which would transfer public land to a state, private person, or tribe, does not have to consider the lost real value or lost income.
    basically, if Congress wants to give away public land, they can do so without booking the lost value to the nation.
    read that, then read the new White House statement on energy policy, posted within an hour of the inauguration. and take two guesses about where that’s all headed.
    hint – you’ll only need one.

    Reply
  26. yes, i saw that. The House rules now include a clause such that any legislation which would transfer public land to a state, private person, or tribe, does not have to consider the lost real value or lost income.
    basically, if Congress wants to give away public land, they can do so without booking the lost value to the nation.
    read that, then read the new White House statement on energy policy, posted within an hour of the inauguration. and take two guesses about where that’s all headed.
    hint – you’ll only need one.

    Reply
  27. yes, i saw that. The House rules now include a clause such that any legislation which would transfer public land to a state, private person, or tribe, does not have to consider the lost real value or lost income.
    basically, if Congress wants to give away public land, they can do so without booking the lost value to the nation.
    read that, then read the new White House statement on energy policy, posted within an hour of the inauguration. and take two guesses about where that’s all headed.
    hint – you’ll only need one.

    Reply
  28. and melania’s bio page on the white house website has a brief, tasteful plug for her timepieces and jewelry line on QVC.
    Not looking to pick on Melania, who basically seems like somebody who didn’t really ask for any of this First Lady business. But doesn’t anybody in that circle have any sense of propriety?

    Reply
  29. and melania’s bio page on the white house website has a brief, tasteful plug for her timepieces and jewelry line on QVC.
    Not looking to pick on Melania, who basically seems like somebody who didn’t really ask for any of this First Lady business. But doesn’t anybody in that circle have any sense of propriety?

    Reply
  30. and melania’s bio page on the white house website has a brief, tasteful plug for her timepieces and jewelry line on QVC.
    Not looking to pick on Melania, who basically seems like somebody who didn’t really ask for any of this First Lady business. But doesn’t anybody in that circle have any sense of propriety?

    Reply
  31. From one of my tax news feeds:
    Tax credits couldn’t be used to pay for health insurance plans that cover abortions under legislation scheduled for a House vote on Jan. 24.
    The bill (H.R. 7) would disallow refundable credits and small employer health insurance credits for plans that include abortion coverage. House Republicans have previously passed bills with similar language, including as part of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
    The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).

    Reply
  32. From one of my tax news feeds:
    Tax credits couldn’t be used to pay for health insurance plans that cover abortions under legislation scheduled for a House vote on Jan. 24.
    The bill (H.R. 7) would disallow refundable credits and small employer health insurance credits for plans that include abortion coverage. House Republicans have previously passed bills with similar language, including as part of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
    The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).

    Reply
  33. From one of my tax news feeds:
    Tax credits couldn’t be used to pay for health insurance plans that cover abortions under legislation scheduled for a House vote on Jan. 24.
    The bill (H.R. 7) would disallow refundable credits and small employer health insurance credits for plans that include abortion coverage. House Republicans have previously passed bills with similar language, including as part of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
    The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.).

    Reply
  34. A very minor addition to the degradation overtaking the US: Nigel Farage hired as a political analyst by Fox News.

    Reply
  35. A very minor addition to the degradation overtaking the US: Nigel Farage hired as a political analyst by Fox News.

    Reply
  36. A very minor addition to the degradation overtaking the US: Nigel Farage hired as a political analyst by Fox News.

    Reply
  37. The Department of Justice was scheduled to argue that the Texas voter ID law had a discriminatory intent on Tuesday. Trump administration has already asked for a postponement.
    John Gore, a key lawyer defending North Carolina’s bathroom bill, has been appointed as deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division.

    Reply
  38. The Department of Justice was scheduled to argue that the Texas voter ID law had a discriminatory intent on Tuesday. Trump administration has already asked for a postponement.
    John Gore, a key lawyer defending North Carolina’s bathroom bill, has been appointed as deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division.

    Reply
  39. The Department of Justice was scheduled to argue that the Texas voter ID law had a discriminatory intent on Tuesday. Trump administration has already asked for a postponement.
    John Gore, a key lawyer defending North Carolina’s bathroom bill, has been appointed as deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division.

    Reply
  40. I’m pretty sure the Count left because his performance art wouldn’t be able to top reality. Including that thing that he was going to be banned for.

    Reply
  41. I’m pretty sure the Count left because his performance art wouldn’t be able to top reality. Including that thing that he was going to be banned for.

    Reply
  42. I’m pretty sure the Count left because his performance art wouldn’t be able to top reality. Including that thing that he was going to be banned for.

    Reply
  43. Including that thing that he was going to be banned for.
    for the record, the “thing he was to be banned for” was in reference to people bringing AR-15s to public town hall discussions of the ACA.
    not saying his comment wasn’t de trop, just offering some context. it’s easy to forget things.

    Reply
  44. Including that thing that he was going to be banned for.
    for the record, the “thing he was to be banned for” was in reference to people bringing AR-15s to public town hall discussions of the ACA.
    not saying his comment wasn’t de trop, just offering some context. it’s easy to forget things.

    Reply
  45. Including that thing that he was going to be banned for.
    for the record, the “thing he was to be banned for” was in reference to people bringing AR-15s to public town hall discussions of the ACA.
    not saying his comment wasn’t de trop, just offering some context. it’s easy to forget things.

    Reply
  46. Honestly, I totally missed the rape threat part of whatever, but maybe I wasn’t reading that carefully, or maybe I’m kinda dumb. Either way, moot.

    Reply
  47. Honestly, I totally missed the rape threat part of whatever, but maybe I wasn’t reading that carefully, or maybe I’m kinda dumb. Either way, moot.

    Reply
  48. Honestly, I totally missed the rape threat part of whatever, but maybe I wasn’t reading that carefully, or maybe I’m kinda dumb. Either way, moot.

    Reply
  49. Wow, he actually got to the third paragraph before the first definitively false to fact (as opposed to merely hype) statement. One wonders whether he, or his website folks, think nobody reading there will know that he didn’t really graduate from Wharton?
    Or is it just an indication that reality-free will be a hallmark of the administration? Quell surprise.

    Reply
  50. Wow, he actually got to the third paragraph before the first definitively false to fact (as opposed to merely hype) statement. One wonders whether he, or his website folks, think nobody reading there will know that he didn’t really graduate from Wharton?
    Or is it just an indication that reality-free will be a hallmark of the administration? Quell surprise.

    Reply
  51. Wow, he actually got to the third paragraph before the first definitively false to fact (as opposed to merely hype) statement. One wonders whether he, or his website folks, think nobody reading there will know that he didn’t really graduate from Wharton?
    Or is it just an indication that reality-free will be a hallmark of the administration? Quell surprise.

    Reply
  52. Donald J. Trump once killed a grizzly bear with his bare hands in the Australian outback, garnering millions of newly red votes through viscous trading in cattle prod futures and winning from day one for the American worker and against China and the bad things.
    Donald J. Trump, man and President, Winner, you should see the Mar a Lago, really, the best.

    Reply
  53. Donald J. Trump once killed a grizzly bear with his bare hands in the Australian outback, garnering millions of newly red votes through viscous trading in cattle prod futures and winning from day one for the American worker and against China and the bad things.
    Donald J. Trump, man and President, Winner, you should see the Mar a Lago, really, the best.

    Reply
  54. Donald J. Trump once killed a grizzly bear with his bare hands in the Australian outback, garnering millions of newly red votes through viscous trading in cattle prod futures and winning from day one for the American worker and against China and the bad things.
    Donald J. Trump, man and President, Winner, you should see the Mar a Lago, really, the best.

    Reply
  55. Left “truthy” behind?
    Hell, you can’t even see truthy in the rear-view mirror any more. It’s just a distant glow on the horizon.
    Or maybe that’s a hydrogen bomb. We’ll find out soon enough.

    Reply
  56. Left “truthy” behind?
    Hell, you can’t even see truthy in the rear-view mirror any more. It’s just a distant glow on the horizon.
    Or maybe that’s a hydrogen bomb. We’ll find out soon enough.

    Reply
  57. Left “truthy” behind?
    Hell, you can’t even see truthy in the rear-view mirror any more. It’s just a distant glow on the horizon.
    Or maybe that’s a hydrogen bomb. We’ll find out soon enough.

    Reply
  58. Reaching back to Roger Zelazny’s Lord of Light

    “No?” Yama smiled. “Well, it was your simile to begin with, not mine. What’s truth, anyway? Truth is what you make it.”

    Nothing new under the sun.

    Reply
  59. Reaching back to Roger Zelazny’s Lord of Light

    “No?” Yama smiled. “Well, it was your simile to begin with, not mine. What’s truth, anyway? Truth is what you make it.”

    Nothing new under the sun.

    Reply
  60. Reaching back to Roger Zelazny’s Lord of Light

    “No?” Yama smiled. “Well, it was your simile to begin with, not mine. What’s truth, anyway? Truth is what you make it.”

    Nothing new under the sun.

    Reply
  61. Can we keep him chasing shiny objects for four years?
    I keep waiting for him to say “you look marvelous!”.
    I’m here all week, try the veal.

    Reply
  62. Can we keep him chasing shiny objects for four years?
    I keep waiting for him to say “you look marvelous!”.
    I’m here all week, try the veal.

    Reply
  63. Can we keep him chasing shiny objects for four years?
    I keep waiting for him to say “you look marvelous!”.
    I’m here all week, try the veal.

    Reply
  64. The entire Washington press corp is appalled at Spicer’s statement, which Ari Fleischer (vomit) said on twitter was likely something Trump commanded Spicer read.
    And apparently even loathsome toad Charles Krauthammer can’t believe Trump’s antics at CIA today (if I’m reading the twitters correctly).
    Might stay up to watch SNL L tonight.

    Reply
  65. The entire Washington press corp is appalled at Spicer’s statement, which Ari Fleischer (vomit) said on twitter was likely something Trump commanded Spicer read.
    And apparently even loathsome toad Charles Krauthammer can’t believe Trump’s antics at CIA today (if I’m reading the twitters correctly).
    Might stay up to watch SNL L tonight.

    Reply
  66. The entire Washington press corp is appalled at Spicer’s statement, which Ari Fleischer (vomit) said on twitter was likely something Trump commanded Spicer read.
    And apparently even loathsome toad Charles Krauthammer can’t believe Trump’s antics at CIA today (if I’m reading the twitters correctly).
    Might stay up to watch SNL L tonight.

    Reply
  67. Speaking of SNL, Laura Rozen on twitter just now:
    “The eeriest thing of all would be if SNL does Trump CIA remarks and Spicer briefing word for word.”

    Reply
  68. Speaking of SNL, Laura Rozen on twitter just now:
    “The eeriest thing of all would be if SNL does Trump CIA remarks and Spicer briefing word for word.”

    Reply
  69. Speaking of SNL, Laura Rozen on twitter just now:
    “The eeriest thing of all would be if SNL does Trump CIA remarks and Spicer briefing word for word.”

    Reply
  70. my wife and I were at the Boston march today. a great big sh*tload of people, I guess 100 or 125K, which for Boston is a hell of a lot. took the train into town from Salem, extra cars and I guess an extra train was needed.
    big crowds and people barking at me through a bullhorn and trying to get me to chant along with “this is what democracy looks like!” pretty much push all of my cranky introvert buttons. crappy drumming, too. so there were one or two near-meltdown moments when I really wanted a cookie and a nap, but my wife and our friends got me through it.
    the Arlington St UU church had their bell-ringers playing patriotic songs and protest classics like “we shall overcome”. they still ring by hand which was pretty cool. and we all sang along. plus, bubbles, because UU, of course.
    No problems, no issues, no cop hassles, no anarchist black bloc asshole kids to break stuff and generally piss everyone off. The usual amount of “aren’t we all awesome!!” self-congratulatory glad-handing, but that just comes with the territory.
    Mostly just a hell of a lot of people expressing their displeasure with the new POTUS and his agenda.
    It was a pretty good day.

    Reply
  71. my wife and I were at the Boston march today. a great big sh*tload of people, I guess 100 or 125K, which for Boston is a hell of a lot. took the train into town from Salem, extra cars and I guess an extra train was needed.
    big crowds and people barking at me through a bullhorn and trying to get me to chant along with “this is what democracy looks like!” pretty much push all of my cranky introvert buttons. crappy drumming, too. so there were one or two near-meltdown moments when I really wanted a cookie and a nap, but my wife and our friends got me through it.
    the Arlington St UU church had their bell-ringers playing patriotic songs and protest classics like “we shall overcome”. they still ring by hand which was pretty cool. and we all sang along. plus, bubbles, because UU, of course.
    No problems, no issues, no cop hassles, no anarchist black bloc asshole kids to break stuff and generally piss everyone off. The usual amount of “aren’t we all awesome!!” self-congratulatory glad-handing, but that just comes with the territory.
    Mostly just a hell of a lot of people expressing their displeasure with the new POTUS and his agenda.
    It was a pretty good day.

    Reply
  72. my wife and I were at the Boston march today. a great big sh*tload of people, I guess 100 or 125K, which for Boston is a hell of a lot. took the train into town from Salem, extra cars and I guess an extra train was needed.
    big crowds and people barking at me through a bullhorn and trying to get me to chant along with “this is what democracy looks like!” pretty much push all of my cranky introvert buttons. crappy drumming, too. so there were one or two near-meltdown moments when I really wanted a cookie and a nap, but my wife and our friends got me through it.
    the Arlington St UU church had their bell-ringers playing patriotic songs and protest classics like “we shall overcome”. they still ring by hand which was pretty cool. and we all sang along. plus, bubbles, because UU, of course.
    No problems, no issues, no cop hassles, no anarchist black bloc asshole kids to break stuff and generally piss everyone off. The usual amount of “aren’t we all awesome!!” self-congratulatory glad-handing, but that just comes with the territory.
    Mostly just a hell of a lot of people expressing their displeasure with the new POTUS and his agenda.
    It was a pretty good day.

    Reply
  73. Seattle march was peaceful and mostly silent, though one group kept trying to get chants going. We did do “wave cheers,” with a cheer starting at one end of the march and rippling to the other end. Those were fun.
    Possible anarchist sighting at an intersection, where a lot of people all in black were hanging out, but happily none of them joined the march.
    Seattle news orgs are saying this was the biggest march in city history, with 100,000 there. Pre-march estimates were more in the 50-75,000 range. It should be noted that the police were terrific.

    Reply
  74. Seattle march was peaceful and mostly silent, though one group kept trying to get chants going. We did do “wave cheers,” with a cheer starting at one end of the march and rippling to the other end. Those were fun.
    Possible anarchist sighting at an intersection, where a lot of people all in black were hanging out, but happily none of them joined the march.
    Seattle news orgs are saying this was the biggest march in city history, with 100,000 there. Pre-march estimates were more in the 50-75,000 range. It should be noted that the police were terrific.

    Reply
  75. Seattle march was peaceful and mostly silent, though one group kept trying to get chants going. We did do “wave cheers,” with a cheer starting at one end of the march and rippling to the other end. Those were fun.
    Possible anarchist sighting at an intersection, where a lot of people all in black were hanging out, but happily none of them joined the march.
    Seattle news orgs are saying this was the biggest march in city history, with 100,000 there. Pre-march estimates were more in the 50-75,000 range. It should be noted that the police were terrific.

    Reply
  76. CaseyL’s wave cheer reminds me to tell anybody who’s interested that what you all call a wave, or possibly the wave, in England is called a Mexican wave. American friends were very taken aback the first time they heard it.

    Reply
  77. CaseyL’s wave cheer reminds me to tell anybody who’s interested that what you all call a wave, or possibly the wave, in England is called a Mexican wave. American friends were very taken aback the first time they heard it.

    Reply
  78. CaseyL’s wave cheer reminds me to tell anybody who’s interested that what you all call a wave, or possibly the wave, in England is called a Mexican wave. American friends were very taken aback the first time they heard it.

    Reply
  79. 888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
    10. Punitive Articles
    Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
    Do you think the number 88 here is just a coincidence?

    Reply
  80. 888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
    10. Punitive Articles
    Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
    Do you think the number 88 here is just a coincidence?

    Reply
  81. 888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
    10. Punitive Articles
    Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
    Do you think the number 88 here is just a coincidence?

    Reply
  82. Could he be removed on the narrow ground of mental incapacity? Politicians tell blatant lies on a regular basis but the claim that the media made up the quarrel wth the CIA isn’t one he could expect to get away with. Even the lie about the imaginary Muslim celebration after 9/11 was more rational– he was appealing to bigots. Here he has been going directly after the CIA which has been a big story and then pretending the media made it up. There is no way to see this as rational even from the most amoral perspective. There is no ideology driving this lie. It’s pure narcissism. Trump himself must always be right even if it involves telling lies that nobody could be expected to endorse. If he keeps doing this now that he is President it seems like you could argue for removal on the grounds that he is delusional. I don’t expect Republicans do do this easily, but if we have an episode like this on an almost daily basis things might change.
    We would then have Pence who will be as bad or worse on policy in every way– frankly, on foreign policy many of Trump’s critics are as sickening as he is, just in different ways. But they aren’t delusional like this on a personal level.

    Reply
  83. Could he be removed on the narrow ground of mental incapacity? Politicians tell blatant lies on a regular basis but the claim that the media made up the quarrel wth the CIA isn’t one he could expect to get away with. Even the lie about the imaginary Muslim celebration after 9/11 was more rational– he was appealing to bigots. Here he has been going directly after the CIA which has been a big story and then pretending the media made it up. There is no way to see this as rational even from the most amoral perspective. There is no ideology driving this lie. It’s pure narcissism. Trump himself must always be right even if it involves telling lies that nobody could be expected to endorse. If he keeps doing this now that he is President it seems like you could argue for removal on the grounds that he is delusional. I don’t expect Republicans do do this easily, but if we have an episode like this on an almost daily basis things might change.
    We would then have Pence who will be as bad or worse on policy in every way– frankly, on foreign policy many of Trump’s critics are as sickening as he is, just in different ways. But they aren’t delusional like this on a personal level.

    Reply
  84. Could he be removed on the narrow ground of mental incapacity? Politicians tell blatant lies on a regular basis but the claim that the media made up the quarrel wth the CIA isn’t one he could expect to get away with. Even the lie about the imaginary Muslim celebration after 9/11 was more rational– he was appealing to bigots. Here he has been going directly after the CIA which has been a big story and then pretending the media made it up. There is no way to see this as rational even from the most amoral perspective. There is no ideology driving this lie. It’s pure narcissism. Trump himself must always be right even if it involves telling lies that nobody could be expected to endorse. If he keeps doing this now that he is President it seems like you could argue for removal on the grounds that he is delusional. I don’t expect Republicans do do this easily, but if we have an episode like this on an almost daily basis things might change.
    We would then have Pence who will be as bad or worse on policy in every way– frankly, on foreign policy many of Trump’s critics are as sickening as he is, just in different ways. But they aren’t delusional like this on a personal level.

    Reply
  85. How do you fight this?
    We can start by insisting on our status as the majority of the country, by focussing on issues (using facts to support our views), and stop helping him by making false equivalencies (for example, “many of Trump’s critics are as sickening as he is”). That would be our first step.

    Reply
  86. How do you fight this?
    We can start by insisting on our status as the majority of the country, by focussing on issues (using facts to support our views), and stop helping him by making false equivalencies (for example, “many of Trump’s critics are as sickening as he is”). That would be our first step.

    Reply
  87. How do you fight this?
    We can start by insisting on our status as the majority of the country, by focussing on issues (using facts to support our views), and stop helping him by making false equivalencies (for example, “many of Trump’s critics are as sickening as he is”). That would be our first step.

    Reply
  88. in principle, the best way to fight back against lying and a general disregard for the truth is to tell the truth and insist on being told the truth. it’s a lot of work.
    as a practical matter, maybe check this out. (D)’s and lefties of all sorts tell lies, too, no doubt, but it’s easier to cut through the BS when it’s balanced. that, and many of us simply like their policies better, and don’t want the (R)’s running roughshod over the place.
    plus, Trump just kind of takes it to a new level. it’s not about left and right so much as it’s about toxic bullying weirdness vs common decency.
    what brought down McCarthy and Nixon – and, for that matter, Bill Clinton – wasn’t their political stance, it was their inability to bring their personal issues and weaknesses to heel.
    It’s day 2 and Trump is already heading down that path.
    I think if he ends up being overly toxic to the intelligence commununity or the (R)’s in Congress, they’ll find a way to throw him under the bus.

    Reply
  89. in principle, the best way to fight back against lying and a general disregard for the truth is to tell the truth and insist on being told the truth. it’s a lot of work.
    as a practical matter, maybe check this out. (D)’s and lefties of all sorts tell lies, too, no doubt, but it’s easier to cut through the BS when it’s balanced. that, and many of us simply like their policies better, and don’t want the (R)’s running roughshod over the place.
    plus, Trump just kind of takes it to a new level. it’s not about left and right so much as it’s about toxic bullying weirdness vs common decency.
    what brought down McCarthy and Nixon – and, for that matter, Bill Clinton – wasn’t their political stance, it was their inability to bring their personal issues and weaknesses to heel.
    It’s day 2 and Trump is already heading down that path.
    I think if he ends up being overly toxic to the intelligence commununity or the (R)’s in Congress, they’ll find a way to throw him under the bus.

    Reply
  90. in principle, the best way to fight back against lying and a general disregard for the truth is to tell the truth and insist on being told the truth. it’s a lot of work.
    as a practical matter, maybe check this out. (D)’s and lefties of all sorts tell lies, too, no doubt, but it’s easier to cut through the BS when it’s balanced. that, and many of us simply like their policies better, and don’t want the (R)’s running roughshod over the place.
    plus, Trump just kind of takes it to a new level. it’s not about left and right so much as it’s about toxic bullying weirdness vs common decency.
    what brought down McCarthy and Nixon – and, for that matter, Bill Clinton – wasn’t their political stance, it was their inability to bring their personal issues and weaknesses to heel.
    It’s day 2 and Trump is already heading down that path.
    I think if he ends up being overly toxic to the intelligence commununity or the (R)’s in Congress, they’ll find a way to throw him under the bus.

    Reply
  91. I think if he ends up being overly toxic to the intelligence community or the (R)’s in Congress, they’ll find a way to throw him under the bus.
    You never know. I wouldn’t count on it though. The Republicans are as toxic as Trump is, and is buying into his brand of toxicity, and the intelligence community is subject to his authority.
    Putin is a factor here. The unarmed majority of the United States is now under the control of Vladimir Putin. Any “rogue” intelligence community, by itself, is going to have trouble fighting Putin’s.

    Reply
  92. I think if he ends up being overly toxic to the intelligence community or the (R)’s in Congress, they’ll find a way to throw him under the bus.
    You never know. I wouldn’t count on it though. The Republicans are as toxic as Trump is, and is buying into his brand of toxicity, and the intelligence community is subject to his authority.
    Putin is a factor here. The unarmed majority of the United States is now under the control of Vladimir Putin. Any “rogue” intelligence community, by itself, is going to have trouble fighting Putin’s.

    Reply
  93. I think if he ends up being overly toxic to the intelligence community or the (R)’s in Congress, they’ll find a way to throw him under the bus.
    You never know. I wouldn’t count on it though. The Republicans are as toxic as Trump is, and is buying into his brand of toxicity, and the intelligence community is subject to his authority.
    Putin is a factor here. The unarmed majority of the United States is now under the control of Vladimir Putin. Any “rogue” intelligence community, by itself, is going to have trouble fighting Putin’s.

    Reply
  94. Sorry for my failure to edit.
    This article by Jessica T. Mathews, is a very good summary of foreign policy, and Trumpism. Anyone who believes false equivalencies that some people are putting out there is deluded.

    Reply
  95. Sorry for my failure to edit.
    This article by Jessica T. Mathews, is a very good summary of foreign policy, and Trumpism. Anyone who believes false equivalencies that some people are putting out there is deluded.

    Reply
  96. Sorry for my failure to edit.
    This article by Jessica T. Mathews, is a very good summary of foreign policy, and Trumpism. Anyone who believes false equivalencies that some people are putting out there is deluded.

    Reply
  97. The Rs in Congress can’t throw Trump under the bus (impeachment and removal from office) without help from the Ds – and why would the Ds cooperate to install Pence if Trump is destroying the GOP and its brand?
    I think Trump will be President for 4 years unless he chooses to leave, which wouldn’t surprise me.

    Reply
  98. The Rs in Congress can’t throw Trump under the bus (impeachment and removal from office) without help from the Ds – and why would the Ds cooperate to install Pence if Trump is destroying the GOP and its brand?
    I think Trump will be President for 4 years unless he chooses to leave, which wouldn’t surprise me.

    Reply
  99. The Rs in Congress can’t throw Trump under the bus (impeachment and removal from office) without help from the Ds – and why would the Ds cooperate to install Pence if Trump is destroying the GOP and its brand?
    I think Trump will be President for 4 years unless he chooses to leave, which wouldn’t surprise me.

    Reply
  100. Too bad, sapient. You want a coalition to get rid of Trump, you’re going to have to deal with people you dislike more than me. Republicans have to be part of it unless you wish to wait four years. And the replacement will be Pence. And ” false equivalence” as a charge was first used in my experience by conservatives attacking people who criticized our support for mass murderers. It is still used in the same way.

    Reply
  101. Too bad, sapient. You want a coalition to get rid of Trump, you’re going to have to deal with people you dislike more than me. Republicans have to be part of it unless you wish to wait four years. And the replacement will be Pence. And ” false equivalence” as a charge was first used in my experience by conservatives attacking people who criticized our support for mass murderers. It is still used in the same way.

    Reply
  102. Too bad, sapient. You want a coalition to get rid of Trump, you’re going to have to deal with people you dislike more than me. Republicans have to be part of it unless you wish to wait four years. And the replacement will be Pence. And ” false equivalence” as a charge was first used in my experience by conservatives attacking people who criticized our support for mass murderers. It is still used in the same way.

    Reply
  103. I read the Matthews piece– I agreed with much of it, but not other portions. American values pushed by neocons– give me a break. I was reading Commentary back in the 80’s. As for liberal humanitarians, I won’t restart that argument here, but. It was revealing that she had three groups and left out the fourth– people on both left and right who despise our interventions without liking Trump’s self contradictory position that we shouldn’t intervene but we should run a protection racket, torture people and steal their oil.
    The point is simple– you could probably find a very wide range of people who regard each other’s views with varying degrees of loathing who would agree in private ifnot always in public that Trump’s personality makes him unfit for office. The question is whether these people think this problem is serious enough to unite to push him out. For Republicans the problem will be their own voters. If Trump falls on his face on his promise to bring back good jobs and create a ” terrific” health care system, some may turn against him. With Democrats the issue will be whether they really believe Trump is uniquely risky or do they think he is useful in destroying the Republican brand. That lesser evil thing is always handy. With Trump as your opponent the bar is as low as it can get– one just has to get voters out in enough states. So they might want to wait four years.

    Reply
  104. I read the Matthews piece– I agreed with much of it, but not other portions. American values pushed by neocons– give me a break. I was reading Commentary back in the 80’s. As for liberal humanitarians, I won’t restart that argument here, but. It was revealing that she had three groups and left out the fourth– people on both left and right who despise our interventions without liking Trump’s self contradictory position that we shouldn’t intervene but we should run a protection racket, torture people and steal their oil.
    The point is simple– you could probably find a very wide range of people who regard each other’s views with varying degrees of loathing who would agree in private ifnot always in public that Trump’s personality makes him unfit for office. The question is whether these people think this problem is serious enough to unite to push him out. For Republicans the problem will be their own voters. If Trump falls on his face on his promise to bring back good jobs and create a ” terrific” health care system, some may turn against him. With Democrats the issue will be whether they really believe Trump is uniquely risky or do they think he is useful in destroying the Republican brand. That lesser evil thing is always handy. With Trump as your opponent the bar is as low as it can get– one just has to get voters out in enough states. So they might want to wait four years.

    Reply
  105. I read the Matthews piece– I agreed with much of it, but not other portions. American values pushed by neocons– give me a break. I was reading Commentary back in the 80’s. As for liberal humanitarians, I won’t restart that argument here, but. It was revealing that she had three groups and left out the fourth– people on both left and right who despise our interventions without liking Trump’s self contradictory position that we shouldn’t intervene but we should run a protection racket, torture people and steal their oil.
    The point is simple– you could probably find a very wide range of people who regard each other’s views with varying degrees of loathing who would agree in private ifnot always in public that Trump’s personality makes him unfit for office. The question is whether these people think this problem is serious enough to unite to push him out. For Republicans the problem will be their own voters. If Trump falls on his face on his promise to bring back good jobs and create a ” terrific” health care system, some may turn against him. With Democrats the issue will be whether they really believe Trump is uniquely risky or do they think he is useful in destroying the Republican brand. That lesser evil thing is always handy. With Trump as your opponent the bar is as low as it can get– one just has to get voters out in enough states. So they might want to wait four years.

    Reply
  106. With Trump as your opponent
    Is Trump your opponent? If so, what are you going to do about him, and why are you giving me advice? Are you willing to sit on the sidelines and analyze, and to wait four years, and hope that “one” has to get voters out? “One” would have thought that the bar was low enough for that during the election, wouldn’t “one”?

    Reply
  107. With Trump as your opponent
    Is Trump your opponent? If so, what are you going to do about him, and why are you giving me advice? Are you willing to sit on the sidelines and analyze, and to wait four years, and hope that “one” has to get voters out? “One” would have thought that the bar was low enough for that during the election, wouldn’t “one”?

    Reply
  108. With Trump as your opponent
    Is Trump your opponent? If so, what are you going to do about him, and why are you giving me advice? Are you willing to sit on the sidelines and analyze, and to wait four years, and hope that “one” has to get voters out? “One” would have thought that the bar was low enough for that during the election, wouldn’t “one”?

    Reply
  109. To all those who marched yesterday, it may not be so easy in the future
    I’m sure there will attempts to criminalize dissent, as there have been before and always will be.
    Something like 1 out of every 100 people in the US showed up yesterday. Something like 3.5M people, give or take. That’s a lot of people to lock up.
    Plus, there are always people who are not deterred by having their actions criminalized.
    None of this is new or ground-breaking stuff. More people – something like 10M more – voted for somebody other than Trump than voted for him. The constituency for Trump is not large enough for him to be able to suppress dissent.
    Nixon won 49 states, and had a private army of spooks on the job, and he couldn’t do it. And Trump doesn’t have Nixon’s chops – Trump can’t restrain himself, at all, he’s going to go from one bizarre outburst to the next. The number of people who are going to be willing to align themselves with that, long-term, is limited.
    All in my opinion, of course.

    Reply
  110. To all those who marched yesterday, it may not be so easy in the future
    I’m sure there will attempts to criminalize dissent, as there have been before and always will be.
    Something like 1 out of every 100 people in the US showed up yesterday. Something like 3.5M people, give or take. That’s a lot of people to lock up.
    Plus, there are always people who are not deterred by having their actions criminalized.
    None of this is new or ground-breaking stuff. More people – something like 10M more – voted for somebody other than Trump than voted for him. The constituency for Trump is not large enough for him to be able to suppress dissent.
    Nixon won 49 states, and had a private army of spooks on the job, and he couldn’t do it. And Trump doesn’t have Nixon’s chops – Trump can’t restrain himself, at all, he’s going to go from one bizarre outburst to the next. The number of people who are going to be willing to align themselves with that, long-term, is limited.
    All in my opinion, of course.

    Reply
  111. To all those who marched yesterday, it may not be so easy in the future
    I’m sure there will attempts to criminalize dissent, as there have been before and always will be.
    Something like 1 out of every 100 people in the US showed up yesterday. Something like 3.5M people, give or take. That’s a lot of people to lock up.
    Plus, there are always people who are not deterred by having their actions criminalized.
    None of this is new or ground-breaking stuff. More people – something like 10M more – voted for somebody other than Trump than voted for him. The constituency for Trump is not large enough for him to be able to suppress dissent.
    Nixon won 49 states, and had a private army of spooks on the job, and he couldn’t do it. And Trump doesn’t have Nixon’s chops – Trump can’t restrain himself, at all, he’s going to go from one bizarre outburst to the next. The number of people who are going to be willing to align themselves with that, long-term, is limited.
    All in my opinion, of course.

    Reply
  112. For those who think that the R’s will impeach Trump: they can certainly impeach, but a conviction (and removal from office) requires D votes.
    Which they might not get.
    Now ask yourself this: how does Trump react to having his GOP “allies” try to get rid of him, and the only folks voting to keep him are on the other side?
    Yeah, it’ll get seriously ugly. Coyote ugly.
    Best strategery for the GOPers is to encourage Pence to make lots and lots of KFC runs for Trump.

    Reply
  113. For those who think that the R’s will impeach Trump: they can certainly impeach, but a conviction (and removal from office) requires D votes.
    Which they might not get.
    Now ask yourself this: how does Trump react to having his GOP “allies” try to get rid of him, and the only folks voting to keep him are on the other side?
    Yeah, it’ll get seriously ugly. Coyote ugly.
    Best strategery for the GOPers is to encourage Pence to make lots and lots of KFC runs for Trump.

    Reply
  114. For those who think that the R’s will impeach Trump: they can certainly impeach, but a conviction (and removal from office) requires D votes.
    Which they might not get.
    Now ask yourself this: how does Trump react to having his GOP “allies” try to get rid of him, and the only folks voting to keep him are on the other side?
    Yeah, it’ll get seriously ugly. Coyote ugly.
    Best strategery for the GOPers is to encourage Pence to make lots and lots of KFC runs for Trump.

    Reply
  115. I am not planning on running for President, so no, Trump is not my opponent in the sense being used above. And the advice up there was general, not meant for you personally. Are you the Democratic Party establishment?
    One thing I plan to do is write my Congress people and suggest that if Trump can’t restrain himself, he should be removed from office on the grounds of mental instability and that for this to happen they will have to work with Republicans. It will take awhile, but if Trump keeps this up the Republicans might decide they need him out.
    I am going to start attending JVP meetings more regularly. My wife and I agreed with a friend that we will go to the next march we hear about. A letter urging rejection of Pruitt and Mnuchin ( sp?) and Sessions and maybe Flynn is next. Probably those should be separate letters. But I could not care less about your approval, sapient, so just assume I am lying and in fact secretly support Trump.

    Reply
  116. I am not planning on running for President, so no, Trump is not my opponent in the sense being used above. And the advice up there was general, not meant for you personally. Are you the Democratic Party establishment?
    One thing I plan to do is write my Congress people and suggest that if Trump can’t restrain himself, he should be removed from office on the grounds of mental instability and that for this to happen they will have to work with Republicans. It will take awhile, but if Trump keeps this up the Republicans might decide they need him out.
    I am going to start attending JVP meetings more regularly. My wife and I agreed with a friend that we will go to the next march we hear about. A letter urging rejection of Pruitt and Mnuchin ( sp?) and Sessions and maybe Flynn is next. Probably those should be separate letters. But I could not care less about your approval, sapient, so just assume I am lying and in fact secretly support Trump.

    Reply
  117. I am not planning on running for President, so no, Trump is not my opponent in the sense being used above. And the advice up there was general, not meant for you personally. Are you the Democratic Party establishment?
    One thing I plan to do is write my Congress people and suggest that if Trump can’t restrain himself, he should be removed from office on the grounds of mental instability and that for this to happen they will have to work with Republicans. It will take awhile, but if Trump keeps this up the Republicans might decide they need him out.
    I am going to start attending JVP meetings more regularly. My wife and I agreed with a friend that we will go to the next march we hear about. A letter urging rejection of Pruitt and Mnuchin ( sp?) and Sessions and maybe Flynn is next. Probably those should be separate letters. But I could not care less about your approval, sapient, so just assume I am lying and in fact secretly support Trump.

    Reply
  118. Are you the Democratic Party establishment?
    Is that who you mean when you say “you”, Donald? When I’m responding to one of your comments and say “you” I mean “you”, Donald.
    so just assume I am lying and in fact secretly support Trump
    I am glad to know that you have a list of things to do besides criticizing Trump’s opposition party.

    Reply
  119. Are you the Democratic Party establishment?
    Is that who you mean when you say “you”, Donald? When I’m responding to one of your comments and say “you” I mean “you”, Donald.
    so just assume I am lying and in fact secretly support Trump
    I am glad to know that you have a list of things to do besides criticizing Trump’s opposition party.

    Reply
  120. Are you the Democratic Party establishment?
    Is that who you mean when you say “you”, Donald? When I’m responding to one of your comments and say “you” I mean “you”, Donald.
    so just assume I am lying and in fact secretly support Trump
    I am glad to know that you have a list of things to do besides criticizing Trump’s opposition party.

    Reply
  121. Sounds like JVP is the US equivalent of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, an organisation a friend of mine helped set up. More power to you, Donald.
    russell, on your piece doubting Trump’s ability to meaningfully stifle dissent, as my mother would say: from your lips to God’s ear.

    Reply
  122. Sounds like JVP is the US equivalent of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, an organisation a friend of mine helped set up. More power to you, Donald.
    russell, on your piece doubting Trump’s ability to meaningfully stifle dissent, as my mother would say: from your lips to God’s ear.

    Reply
  123. Sounds like JVP is the US equivalent of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, an organisation a friend of mine helped set up. More power to you, Donald.
    russell, on your piece doubting Trump’s ability to meaningfully stifle dissent, as my mother would say: from your lips to God’s ear.

    Reply
  124. Ugh: The Rs in Congress can’t throw Trump under the bus (impeachment and removal from office) without help from the Ds – and why would the Ds cooperate to install Pence if Trump is destroying the GOP and its brand?
    Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?
    Snarki: Now ask yourself this: how does Trump react to having his GOP “allies” try to get rid of him, and the only folks voting to keep him are on the other side?
    Trump simply switches parties. It’s not like he’s a lifelong Republican. And he has a demonstrated ability to turn on anyone who he thinks has crossed him. The Republicans will want to be sure that they have the necessary Democratic votes locked in, in both houses, before they start.

    Reply
  125. Ugh: The Rs in Congress can’t throw Trump under the bus (impeachment and removal from office) without help from the Ds – and why would the Ds cooperate to install Pence if Trump is destroying the GOP and its brand?
    Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?
    Snarki: Now ask yourself this: how does Trump react to having his GOP “allies” try to get rid of him, and the only folks voting to keep him are on the other side?
    Trump simply switches parties. It’s not like he’s a lifelong Republican. And he has a demonstrated ability to turn on anyone who he thinks has crossed him. The Republicans will want to be sure that they have the necessary Democratic votes locked in, in both houses, before they start.

    Reply
  126. Ugh: The Rs in Congress can’t throw Trump under the bus (impeachment and removal from office) without help from the Ds – and why would the Ds cooperate to install Pence if Trump is destroying the GOP and its brand?
    Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?
    Snarki: Now ask yourself this: how does Trump react to having his GOP “allies” try to get rid of him, and the only folks voting to keep him are on the other side?
    Trump simply switches parties. It’s not like he’s a lifelong Republican. And he has a demonstrated ability to turn on anyone who he thinks has crossed him. The Republicans will want to be sure that they have the necessary Democratic votes locked in, in both houses, before they start.

    Reply
  127. It might be bad English — I am not sure– but I think a fair number of people use ” you” in a generic way. Sometimes it is possible to tell from context which meaning is being used. In my replies to you ( singular) I went back and forth between the two, so it probably wasn’t clear.
    Girl from the North Country– yeah, I like JVP a lot. One doesn’t have to be Jewish to join. They are considered far left, but hit the sweet spot in my opinion where they want a solution to the IP conflict where everyone gets along and is satisfied. That sounds motherhood an apple pie like– very obvious, but to their right some groups see Palestinians mainly as an obstacle, while further to their left it gets ugly, where some people daydream of an Algerian solution.
    They also, of course, are good on fighting Islamophobia. Both the IPnissue and Islamophobia will take on new urgency with Trump.

    Reply
  128. It might be bad English — I am not sure– but I think a fair number of people use ” you” in a generic way. Sometimes it is possible to tell from context which meaning is being used. In my replies to you ( singular) I went back and forth between the two, so it probably wasn’t clear.
    Girl from the North Country– yeah, I like JVP a lot. One doesn’t have to be Jewish to join. They are considered far left, but hit the sweet spot in my opinion where they want a solution to the IP conflict where everyone gets along and is satisfied. That sounds motherhood an apple pie like– very obvious, but to their right some groups see Palestinians mainly as an obstacle, while further to their left it gets ugly, where some people daydream of an Algerian solution.
    They also, of course, are good on fighting Islamophobia. Both the IPnissue and Islamophobia will take on new urgency with Trump.

    Reply
  129. It might be bad English — I am not sure– but I think a fair number of people use ” you” in a generic way. Sometimes it is possible to tell from context which meaning is being used. In my replies to you ( singular) I went back and forth between the two, so it probably wasn’t clear.
    Girl from the North Country– yeah, I like JVP a lot. One doesn’t have to be Jewish to join. They are considered far left, but hit the sweet spot in my opinion where they want a solution to the IP conflict where everyone gets along and is satisfied. That sounds motherhood an apple pie like– very obvious, but to their right some groups see Palestinians mainly as an obstacle, while further to their left it gets ugly, where some people daydream of an Algerian solution.
    They also, of course, are good on fighting Islamophobia. Both the IPnissue and Islamophobia will take on new urgency with Trump.

    Reply
  130. sapient, you’re not being helpful here. Not even a little. You’re just making this personal to avoid confronting substantive policy differences, as well as the inconvenient truth that lesser evilism makes a catastrophically failed Trump presidency more useful to the party you demand we unquestioningly (“why are you giving me advice?”) support than a marginally successful Pence presidency.
    You’re not really offering much of anything here other than criticizing critics of Trump’s opposition party. “One” would have thought that if playing DNC commissar was enough it would have been during the election, wouldn’t “one”? And yet despite that, here we are… but I suppose you don’t change horses in midstream…

    Reply
  131. sapient, you’re not being helpful here. Not even a little. You’re just making this personal to avoid confronting substantive policy differences, as well as the inconvenient truth that lesser evilism makes a catastrophically failed Trump presidency more useful to the party you demand we unquestioningly (“why are you giving me advice?”) support than a marginally successful Pence presidency.
    You’re not really offering much of anything here other than criticizing critics of Trump’s opposition party. “One” would have thought that if playing DNC commissar was enough it would have been during the election, wouldn’t “one”? And yet despite that, here we are… but I suppose you don’t change horses in midstream…

    Reply
  132. sapient, you’re not being helpful here. Not even a little. You’re just making this personal to avoid confronting substantive policy differences, as well as the inconvenient truth that lesser evilism makes a catastrophically failed Trump presidency more useful to the party you demand we unquestioningly (“why are you giving me advice?”) support than a marginally successful Pence presidency.
    You’re not really offering much of anything here other than criticizing critics of Trump’s opposition party. “One” would have thought that if playing DNC commissar was enough it would have been during the election, wouldn’t “one”? And yet despite that, here we are… but I suppose you don’t change horses in midstream…

    Reply
  133. sapient, you’re not being helpful here. Not even a little. You’re just making this personal to avoid confronting substantive policy differences, as well as the inconvenient truth that lesser evilism makes a catastrophically failed Trump presidency more useful to the party you demand we unquestioningly (“why are you giving me advice?”) support than a marginally successful Pence presidency.
    You’re not really offering much of anything here other than criticizing critics of Trump’s opposition party. “One” would have thought that if playing DNC commissar was enough it would have been during the election, wouldn’t “one”? And yet despite that, here we are… but I suppose you don’t change horses in midstream…

    Reply
  134. sapient, you’re not being helpful here. Not even a little. You’re just making this personal to avoid confronting substantive policy differences, as well as the inconvenient truth that lesser evilism makes a catastrophically failed Trump presidency more useful to the party you demand we unquestioningly (“why are you giving me advice?”) support than a marginally successful Pence presidency.
    You’re not really offering much of anything here other than criticizing critics of Trump’s opposition party. “One” would have thought that if playing DNC commissar was enough it would have been during the election, wouldn’t “one”? And yet despite that, here we are… but I suppose you don’t change horses in midstream…

    Reply
  135. sapient, you’re not being helpful here. Not even a little. You’re just making this personal to avoid confronting substantive policy differences, as well as the inconvenient truth that lesser evilism makes a catastrophically failed Trump presidency more useful to the party you demand we unquestioningly (“why are you giving me advice?”) support than a marginally successful Pence presidency.
    You’re not really offering much of anything here other than criticizing critics of Trump’s opposition party. “One” would have thought that if playing DNC commissar was enough it would have been during the election, wouldn’t “one”? And yet despite that, here we are… but I suppose you don’t change horses in midstream…

    Reply
  136. Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?
    That would depend on the circumstances. Making the choice even tougher is the undeniable fact that destroying the GOP (in its current state) would be very beneficial for our country.
    Decisions, decisions.
    But simply mere speculation at this point, and thus moot.
    Better to plan concrete actions, no matter how small, to oppose the giant orange combover.

    Reply
  137. Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?
    That would depend on the circumstances. Making the choice even tougher is the undeniable fact that destroying the GOP (in its current state) would be very beneficial for our country.
    Decisions, decisions.
    But simply mere speculation at this point, and thus moot.
    Better to plan concrete actions, no matter how small, to oppose the giant orange combover.

    Reply
  138. Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?
    That would depend on the circumstances. Making the choice even tougher is the undeniable fact that destroying the GOP (in its current state) would be very beneficial for our country.
    Decisions, decisions.
    But simply mere speculation at this point, and thus moot.
    Better to plan concrete actions, no matter how small, to oppose the giant orange combover.

    Reply
  139. I think it does matter, bobbyp. If people want Trump out sooner than four years, it’s going to require Republican help. Do his personality defects make him dangerous enough to make this worth trying?
    People can think about this and start writing their Congress people about it while also opposing him on other things– right now, people like Pompeo, Pruitt, etc..l

    Reply
  140. I think it does matter, bobbyp. If people want Trump out sooner than four years, it’s going to require Republican help. Do his personality defects make him dangerous enough to make this worth trying?
    People can think about this and start writing their Congress people about it while also opposing him on other things– right now, people like Pompeo, Pruitt, etc..l

    Reply
  141. I think it does matter, bobbyp. If people want Trump out sooner than four years, it’s going to require Republican help. Do his personality defects make him dangerous enough to make this worth trying?
    People can think about this and start writing their Congress people about it while also opposing him on other things– right now, people like Pompeo, Pruitt, etc..l

    Reply
  142. People can think about this and start writing their Congress people about it while also opposing him on other things
    Agree. I doubt the R’s will impeach him, but who knows. I can’t imagine the Democrats objecting (speaking as DNC commissar).

    Reply
  143. People can think about this and start writing their Congress people about it while also opposing him on other things
    Agree. I doubt the R’s will impeach him, but who knows. I can’t imagine the Democrats objecting (speaking as DNC commissar).

    Reply
  144. People can think about this and start writing their Congress people about it while also opposing him on other things
    Agree. I doubt the R’s will impeach him, but who knows. I can’t imagine the Democrats objecting (speaking as DNC commissar).

    Reply
  145. Yes, Nigel. Erik Prince, the Mercers, the rest of the gangsters: they’re scary as hell, and we probably don’t know the half of it. Not that I’ll give in to fake news, mind you. But the Blackwater legacy is worse than creepy.

    Reply
  146. Yes, Nigel. Erik Prince, the Mercers, the rest of the gangsters: they’re scary as hell, and we probably don’t know the half of it. Not that I’ll give in to fake news, mind you. But the Blackwater legacy is worse than creepy.

    Reply
  147. Yes, Nigel. Erik Prince, the Mercers, the rest of the gangsters: they’re scary as hell, and we probably don’t know the half of it. Not that I’ll give in to fake news, mind you. But the Blackwater legacy is worse than creepy.

    Reply
  148. bobbyp: Making the choice even tougher is the undeniable fact that destroying the GOP (in its current state) would be very beneficial for our country.
    The trouble with this superficially appealing (to lefties, or even just Dem-leaners) proposition is the law of unintended consequences. Who is to say that what replaces the GOP (even in its current state), because something surely will, will be any better? The rise of ignorant, nativist, racist, antisemitic, mysogynistic populism has been horrifyingly fast, and as I have said elsewhere, each step on the way has simultaneously presaged something worse and legitimised it: Baby Bush to Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin to Donald Trump. It’s hard to contemplate at the moment, I know, but there could in fact be something worse than Donald Trump. The trouble with getting rid of him before the four years are up (desperately appealing though that is) is this: what would happen to his angry, prejudiced, fact-free followers? They would feel cheated and disenfranchised.
    This is by way of saying that I think before getting rid of him is a good idea, his followers need to be thoroughly disillusioned with him and if possible with his whole project, and not easy prey for the next Strong Man leader. A difficult thing to carry off, I do realise. This is, I think, the mature and sensible view, but I admit that if I were ruler of the world I might not have the self-discipline to delay getting rid of the orange one.

    Reply
  149. bobbyp: Making the choice even tougher is the undeniable fact that destroying the GOP (in its current state) would be very beneficial for our country.
    The trouble with this superficially appealing (to lefties, or even just Dem-leaners) proposition is the law of unintended consequences. Who is to say that what replaces the GOP (even in its current state), because something surely will, will be any better? The rise of ignorant, nativist, racist, antisemitic, mysogynistic populism has been horrifyingly fast, and as I have said elsewhere, each step on the way has simultaneously presaged something worse and legitimised it: Baby Bush to Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin to Donald Trump. It’s hard to contemplate at the moment, I know, but there could in fact be something worse than Donald Trump. The trouble with getting rid of him before the four years are up (desperately appealing though that is) is this: what would happen to his angry, prejudiced, fact-free followers? They would feel cheated and disenfranchised.
    This is by way of saying that I think before getting rid of him is a good idea, his followers need to be thoroughly disillusioned with him and if possible with his whole project, and not easy prey for the next Strong Man leader. A difficult thing to carry off, I do realise. This is, I think, the mature and sensible view, but I admit that if I were ruler of the world I might not have the self-discipline to delay getting rid of the orange one.

    Reply
  150. bobbyp: Making the choice even tougher is the undeniable fact that destroying the GOP (in its current state) would be very beneficial for our country.
    The trouble with this superficially appealing (to lefties, or even just Dem-leaners) proposition is the law of unintended consequences. Who is to say that what replaces the GOP (even in its current state), because something surely will, will be any better? The rise of ignorant, nativist, racist, antisemitic, mysogynistic populism has been horrifyingly fast, and as I have said elsewhere, each step on the way has simultaneously presaged something worse and legitimised it: Baby Bush to Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin to Donald Trump. It’s hard to contemplate at the moment, I know, but there could in fact be something worse than Donald Trump. The trouble with getting rid of him before the four years are up (desperately appealing though that is) is this: what would happen to his angry, prejudiced, fact-free followers? They would feel cheated and disenfranchised.
    This is by way of saying that I think before getting rid of him is a good idea, his followers need to be thoroughly disillusioned with him and if possible with his whole project, and not easy prey for the next Strong Man leader. A difficult thing to carry off, I do realise. This is, I think, the mature and sensible view, but I admit that if I were ruler of the world I might not have the self-discipline to delay getting rid of the orange one.

    Reply
  151. This is, I think, the mature and sensible view, but I admit that if I were ruler of the world I might not have the self-discipline to delay getting rid of the orange one.
    Ummm, no. I’m not sure what you think “hitting bottom” looks like, but I think it’s here. We can’t afford to go further down, but thanks.

    Reply
  152. This is, I think, the mature and sensible view, but I admit that if I were ruler of the world I might not have the self-discipline to delay getting rid of the orange one.
    Ummm, no. I’m not sure what you think “hitting bottom” looks like, but I think it’s here. We can’t afford to go further down, but thanks.

    Reply
  153. This is, I think, the mature and sensible view, but I admit that if I were ruler of the world I might not have the self-discipline to delay getting rid of the orange one.
    Ummm, no. I’m not sure what you think “hitting bottom” looks like, but I think it’s here. We can’t afford to go further down, but thanks.

    Reply
  154. Kellyanne Conway this morning: “You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and they’re giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that.”
    “alternative facts”???
    Gee, it would be so convenient is we could make rocket motors out of sand and water — after all, those are readily available. So we create alternate facts that say that those will combust.
    Any engineer who came out with something like that would be gone in an instant.
    The interviewer, Chuck Todd, was reduced to sputtering: “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they’re falsehoods.”
    I used to think that comedians were going to have a great time doing parodies of this administration. But what do they do when faced with people who are beyond parody?

    Reply
  155. Kellyanne Conway this morning: “You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and they’re giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that.”
    “alternative facts”???
    Gee, it would be so convenient is we could make rocket motors out of sand and water — after all, those are readily available. So we create alternate facts that say that those will combust.
    Any engineer who came out with something like that would be gone in an instant.
    The interviewer, Chuck Todd, was reduced to sputtering: “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they’re falsehoods.”
    I used to think that comedians were going to have a great time doing parodies of this administration. But what do they do when faced with people who are beyond parody?

    Reply
  156. Kellyanne Conway this morning: “You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and they’re giving — our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that.”
    “alternative facts”???
    Gee, it would be so convenient is we could make rocket motors out of sand and water — after all, those are readily available. So we create alternate facts that say that those will combust.
    Any engineer who came out with something like that would be gone in an instant.
    The interviewer, Chuck Todd, was reduced to sputtering: “Wait a minute. Alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered . . . were just not true. Alternative facts are not facts; they’re falsehoods.”
    I used to think that comedians were going to have a great time doing parodies of this administration. But what do they do when faced with people who are beyond parody?

    Reply
  157. I’m not sure what you think “hitting bottom” looks like, but I think it’s here. We can’t afford to go further down, but thanks.
    You know sapient, I remember having this discussion with pro-Iraq war people, who said “But it’s worth it to get rid of Saddam, because anything would be an improvement.” But in fact, what has followed Saddam has been worse, by almost any metric. Appalling though Trump is, what followed could be worse if he is got rid of in a way that increases his following. And appalling as most of the modern GOP is (particularly the post-Tea Party version), the replacement could possibly be worse. The opposition needs to be smart, as well as energetic and committed.

    Reply
  158. I’m not sure what you think “hitting bottom” looks like, but I think it’s here. We can’t afford to go further down, but thanks.
    You know sapient, I remember having this discussion with pro-Iraq war people, who said “But it’s worth it to get rid of Saddam, because anything would be an improvement.” But in fact, what has followed Saddam has been worse, by almost any metric. Appalling though Trump is, what followed could be worse if he is got rid of in a way that increases his following. And appalling as most of the modern GOP is (particularly the post-Tea Party version), the replacement could possibly be worse. The opposition needs to be smart, as well as energetic and committed.

    Reply
  159. I’m not sure what you think “hitting bottom” looks like, but I think it’s here. We can’t afford to go further down, but thanks.
    You know sapient, I remember having this discussion with pro-Iraq war people, who said “But it’s worth it to get rid of Saddam, because anything would be an improvement.” But in fact, what has followed Saddam has been worse, by almost any metric. Appalling though Trump is, what followed could be worse if he is got rid of in a way that increases his following. And appalling as most of the modern GOP is (particularly the post-Tea Party version), the replacement could possibly be worse. The opposition needs to be smart, as well as energetic and committed.

    Reply
  160. Maximum, maximum smart, creative publicity for every instance of Trump betraying the “forgotten America” he made all his promises to, like the case of the more expensive mortgages, would be an excellent start.

    Reply
  161. Maximum, maximum smart, creative publicity for every instance of Trump betraying the “forgotten America” he made all his promises to, like the case of the more expensive mortgages, would be an excellent start.

    Reply
  162. Maximum, maximum smart, creative publicity for every instance of Trump betraying the “forgotten America” he made all his promises to, like the case of the more expensive mortgages, would be an excellent start.

    Reply
  163. And appalling as most of the modern GOP is (particularly the post-Tea Party version), the replacement could possibly be worse.
    No, GftNC. You are incorrect. The same people could (and probably will) do worse things, but they need to be stopped now. They are a minority. They are in power because of an anti-democratic fluke in our system that favored slavery. We’ve been fighting since our nascence, and it won’t ever completely end. We’ve had the upper hand, and we need to get it together again.
    We aren’t Europe. We aren’t the Middle East. We’re humans, and are similar, but our history is different. Our struggle is constant, and we have to keep it down.
    I saw some good signs, yesterday, but one of my favorites was “First they came for the Muslims, and I did said ‘Not this time, motherfnckers’!” I saw that Hilzoy tweeted it.
    We can’t wait any longer.

    Reply
  164. And appalling as most of the modern GOP is (particularly the post-Tea Party version), the replacement could possibly be worse.
    No, GftNC. You are incorrect. The same people could (and probably will) do worse things, but they need to be stopped now. They are a minority. They are in power because of an anti-democratic fluke in our system that favored slavery. We’ve been fighting since our nascence, and it won’t ever completely end. We’ve had the upper hand, and we need to get it together again.
    We aren’t Europe. We aren’t the Middle East. We’re humans, and are similar, but our history is different. Our struggle is constant, and we have to keep it down.
    I saw some good signs, yesterday, but one of my favorites was “First they came for the Muslims, and I did said ‘Not this time, motherfnckers’!” I saw that Hilzoy tweeted it.
    We can’t wait any longer.

    Reply
  165. And appalling as most of the modern GOP is (particularly the post-Tea Party version), the replacement could possibly be worse.
    No, GftNC. You are incorrect. The same people could (and probably will) do worse things, but they need to be stopped now. They are a minority. They are in power because of an anti-democratic fluke in our system that favored slavery. We’ve been fighting since our nascence, and it won’t ever completely end. We’ve had the upper hand, and we need to get it together again.
    We aren’t Europe. We aren’t the Middle East. We’re humans, and are similar, but our history is different. Our struggle is constant, and we have to keep it down.
    I saw some good signs, yesterday, but one of my favorites was “First they came for the Muslims, and I did said ‘Not this time, motherfnckers’!” I saw that Hilzoy tweeted it.
    We can’t wait any longer.

    Reply
  166. Yes, I saw that Gloria Steinem said “If they start a Muslim registry, we’ll all register as Muslims.” I love that, my heart thrills to it, and again to “Not this time motherfuckers!”
    I fully and completely support opposing each and every repressive measure. All I’m saying is that the half of the country that voted for Trump isn’t going anywhere, and their existence needs to be factored into any long-term plan. And if any way can be found to lessen their attraction to fascist strongmen, that would be an excellent idea as well.

    Reply
  167. Yes, I saw that Gloria Steinem said “If they start a Muslim registry, we’ll all register as Muslims.” I love that, my heart thrills to it, and again to “Not this time motherfuckers!”
    I fully and completely support opposing each and every repressive measure. All I’m saying is that the half of the country that voted for Trump isn’t going anywhere, and their existence needs to be factored into any long-term plan. And if any way can be found to lessen their attraction to fascist strongmen, that would be an excellent idea as well.

    Reply
  168. Yes, I saw that Gloria Steinem said “If they start a Muslim registry, we’ll all register as Muslims.” I love that, my heart thrills to it, and again to “Not this time motherfuckers!”
    I fully and completely support opposing each and every repressive measure. All I’m saying is that the half of the country that voted for Trump isn’t going anywhere, and their existence needs to be factored into any long-term plan. And if any way can be found to lessen their attraction to fascist strongmen, that would be an excellent idea as well.

    Reply
  169. Might be a good time to reiterate this
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/01/commuted-open-thread.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb096efcf7970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb096efcf7970d
    In other words, I’m not going to tolerate the notion that people have to provide schedules and to-do lists in order to prove bona-fides. And I will be giving time outs first and sorting it out with the front pagers later. A lot of things going in my personal life, so if I wake up to a 5 alarm blaze in the comment section, I’ll put out the fire and then sort things out later. So, no matter how confident you are that _you_ aren’t the problem, if you really like commenting here, you’ll make sure that you try to avoid being part of the problem. Nuff said?

    Reply
  170. Might be a good time to reiterate this
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/01/commuted-open-thread.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb096efcf7970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb096efcf7970d
    In other words, I’m not going to tolerate the notion that people have to provide schedules and to-do lists in order to prove bona-fides. And I will be giving time outs first and sorting it out with the front pagers later. A lot of things going in my personal life, so if I wake up to a 5 alarm blaze in the comment section, I’ll put out the fire and then sort things out later. So, no matter how confident you are that _you_ aren’t the problem, if you really like commenting here, you’ll make sure that you try to avoid being part of the problem. Nuff said?

    Reply
  171. Might be a good time to reiterate this
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2017/01/commuted-open-thread.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb096efcf7970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb096efcf7970d
    In other words, I’m not going to tolerate the notion that people have to provide schedules and to-do lists in order to prove bona-fides. And I will be giving time outs first and sorting it out with the front pagers later. A lot of things going in my personal life, so if I wake up to a 5 alarm blaze in the comment section, I’ll put out the fire and then sort things out later. So, no matter how confident you are that _you_ aren’t the problem, if you really like commenting here, you’ll make sure that you try to avoid being part of the problem. Nuff said?

    Reply
  172. All I’m saying is that the half of the country that voted for Trump isn’t going anywhere
    Trump did not receive the votes of half of the country.
    lj, please revise the posting rules to include “no schedules or to-do list asking”. It’s really getting hard to keep up.

    Reply
  173. All I’m saying is that the half of the country that voted for Trump isn’t going anywhere
    Trump did not receive the votes of half of the country.
    lj, please revise the posting rules to include “no schedules or to-do list asking”. It’s really getting hard to keep up.

    Reply
  174. All I’m saying is that the half of the country that voted for Trump isn’t going anywhere
    Trump did not receive the votes of half of the country.
    lj, please revise the posting rules to include “no schedules or to-do list asking”. It’s really getting hard to keep up.

    Reply
  175. And our first winner is
    sapient!!!
    I’ll talk to the rest of the hive mind and decide how long you’ll get a break. Thanks for playing!!

    Reply
  176. And our first winner is
    sapient!!!
    I’ll talk to the rest of the hive mind and decide how long you’ll get a break. Thanks for playing!!

    Reply
  177. And our first winner is
    sapient!!!
    I’ll talk to the rest of the hive mind and decide how long you’ll get a break. Thanks for playing!!

    Reply
  178. I know, but there could in fact be something worse than Donald Trump.
    Well certainly. But without the institutional support of what goes by the name “Republican Party” this something worse will most likely never attain power.
    There are a host of fun-to-consider scenarios about a possible GOP revolt to get rid of the Small Fingered One (SFO).
    But again. Moot point. The need now is to resist…resist in any way you can (short of suicidal armed violence-for the time being).
    Best Regards, GFNC.
    BP

    Reply
  179. I know, but there could in fact be something worse than Donald Trump.
    Well certainly. But without the institutional support of what goes by the name “Republican Party” this something worse will most likely never attain power.
    There are a host of fun-to-consider scenarios about a possible GOP revolt to get rid of the Small Fingered One (SFO).
    But again. Moot point. The need now is to resist…resist in any way you can (short of suicidal armed violence-for the time being).
    Best Regards, GFNC.
    BP

    Reply
  180. I know, but there could in fact be something worse than Donald Trump.
    Well certainly. But without the institutional support of what goes by the name “Republican Party” this something worse will most likely never attain power.
    There are a host of fun-to-consider scenarios about a possible GOP revolt to get rid of the Small Fingered One (SFO).
    But again. Moot point. The need now is to resist…resist in any way you can (short of suicidal armed violence-for the time being).
    Best Regards, GFNC.
    BP

    Reply
  181. Best regards to you too bobbyp. I certainly agree about resisting, as I hope I have made clear.
    I’m extremely sorry that sapient has been retired for the moment, but I must just say that there’s a reason that schisms are made such riotous fun of in the “People’s Front for Judea” sketch. People of broadly similar aims who descend into internecine warfare seem never to get much done.

    Reply
  182. Best regards to you too bobbyp. I certainly agree about resisting, as I hope I have made clear.
    I’m extremely sorry that sapient has been retired for the moment, but I must just say that there’s a reason that schisms are made such riotous fun of in the “People’s Front for Judea” sketch. People of broadly similar aims who descend into internecine warfare seem never to get much done.

    Reply
  183. Best regards to you too bobbyp. I certainly agree about resisting, as I hope I have made clear.
    I’m extremely sorry that sapient has been retired for the moment, but I must just say that there’s a reason that schisms are made such riotous fun of in the “People’s Front for Judea” sketch. People of broadly similar aims who descend into internecine warfare seem never to get much done.

    Reply
  184. Hey, sapient, maybe it’s just the right time for you to binge-watch season 2 of “The Man in the High Castle”.
    Or you could just turn on the TV news, suit yourself.
    Lemons, lemonade, you know the drill.

    Reply
  185. Hey, sapient, maybe it’s just the right time for you to binge-watch season 2 of “The Man in the High Castle”.
    Or you could just turn on the TV news, suit yourself.
    Lemons, lemonade, you know the drill.

    Reply
  186. Hey, sapient, maybe it’s just the right time for you to binge-watch season 2 of “The Man in the High Castle”.
    Or you could just turn on the TV news, suit yourself.
    Lemons, lemonade, you know the drill.

    Reply
  187. GftNC: I saw that Gloria Steinem said “If they start a Muslim registry, we’ll all register as Muslims.” I love that, my heart thrills to it, and again to “Not this time motherfuckers!”
    It worked for the Danes in WW II. Most of the country started wearing yellow Star of David badges. Made it hard for the Nazis to identify the Danish Jewish population at a glance.

    Reply
  188. GftNC: I saw that Gloria Steinem said “If they start a Muslim registry, we’ll all register as Muslims.” I love that, my heart thrills to it, and again to “Not this time motherfuckers!”
    It worked for the Danes in WW II. Most of the country started wearing yellow Star of David badges. Made it hard for the Nazis to identify the Danish Jewish population at a glance.

    Reply
  189. GftNC: I saw that Gloria Steinem said “If they start a Muslim registry, we’ll all register as Muslims.” I love that, my heart thrills to it, and again to “Not this time motherfuckers!”
    It worked for the Danes in WW II. Most of the country started wearing yellow Star of David badges. Made it hard for the Nazis to identify the Danish Jewish population at a glance.

    Reply
  190. See also “I’m Spartacus!”
    Yes, wj, and I had always heard it was because the King started it by wearing the yellow star. But according to Wikipedia, the Danish jews never had to wear the yellow star, probably because the King had made his feelings clear. There is apparently this, in his diary of the time:

    When you look at the inhumane treatment of Jews, not only in Germany but occupied countries as well, you start worrying that such a demand might also be put on us, but we must clearly refuse such this due to their protection under the Danish constitution. I stated that I could not meet such a demand towards Danish citizens. If such a demand is made, we would best meet it by all wearing the Star of David

    And this from an authoritarian, anti-democratic monarch. Truly, there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio….

    Reply
  191. See also “I’m Spartacus!”
    Yes, wj, and I had always heard it was because the King started it by wearing the yellow star. But according to Wikipedia, the Danish jews never had to wear the yellow star, probably because the King had made his feelings clear. There is apparently this, in his diary of the time:

    When you look at the inhumane treatment of Jews, not only in Germany but occupied countries as well, you start worrying that such a demand might also be put on us, but we must clearly refuse such this due to their protection under the Danish constitution. I stated that I could not meet such a demand towards Danish citizens. If such a demand is made, we would best meet it by all wearing the Star of David

    And this from an authoritarian, anti-democratic monarch. Truly, there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio….

    Reply
  192. See also “I’m Spartacus!”
    Yes, wj, and I had always heard it was because the King started it by wearing the yellow star. But according to Wikipedia, the Danish jews never had to wear the yellow star, probably because the King had made his feelings clear. There is apparently this, in his diary of the time:

    When you look at the inhumane treatment of Jews, not only in Germany but occupied countries as well, you start worrying that such a demand might also be put on us, but we must clearly refuse such this due to their protection under the Danish constitution. I stated that I could not meet such a demand towards Danish citizens. If such a demand is made, we would best meet it by all wearing the Star of David

    And this from an authoritarian, anti-democratic monarch. Truly, there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio….

    Reply
  193. but I must just say that there’s a reason that schisms are made such riotous fun of in the “People’s Front for Judea” sketch.
    The uncompromising schism paradigm seems to be bipolar with respect to actual power, and is most commonly observed amongst those who actually wield it and those overtly desirous of it, but far, far, away. In the former it is commonly deadly (cf coups). The latter? Fodder for comedy (cf the infinite Trotskyite spectrum).
    The rest of us? Just trying to muddle through.

    Reply
  194. but I must just say that there’s a reason that schisms are made such riotous fun of in the “People’s Front for Judea” sketch.
    The uncompromising schism paradigm seems to be bipolar with respect to actual power, and is most commonly observed amongst those who actually wield it and those overtly desirous of it, but far, far, away. In the former it is commonly deadly (cf coups). The latter? Fodder for comedy (cf the infinite Trotskyite spectrum).
    The rest of us? Just trying to muddle through.

    Reply
  195. but I must just say that there’s a reason that schisms are made such riotous fun of in the “People’s Front for Judea” sketch.
    The uncompromising schism paradigm seems to be bipolar with respect to actual power, and is most commonly observed amongst those who actually wield it and those overtly desirous of it, but far, far, away. In the former it is commonly deadly (cf coups). The latter? Fodder for comedy (cf the infinite Trotskyite spectrum).
    The rest of us? Just trying to muddle through.

    Reply
  196. “Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?”
    Sure, although I guess it depends on what’s prompted the GOP to try to impeach him.

    Reply
  197. “Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?”
    Sure, although I guess it depends on what’s prompted the GOP to try to impeach him.

    Reply
  198. “Maybe because they place a higher priority on not trashing the country than on destroying (temporarily) the GOP?”
    Sure, although I guess it depends on what’s prompted the GOP to try to impeach him.

    Reply
  199. Well the sort I was trying, somewhat delicately, to talk about, was right here on this blog where a bunch of mostly powerless people are debating what to do about an external threat, and starting to turn on each other for minute infractions of acceptable Goodthink.

    Reply
  200. Well the sort I was trying, somewhat delicately, to talk about, was right here on this blog where a bunch of mostly powerless people are debating what to do about an external threat, and starting to turn on each other for minute infractions of acceptable Goodthink.

    Reply
  201. Well the sort I was trying, somewhat delicately, to talk about, was right here on this blog where a bunch of mostly powerless people are debating what to do about an external threat, and starting to turn on each other for minute infractions of acceptable Goodthink.

    Reply
  202. The dynamic here (really a dynamic here) seems to be between ideological/moral purity versus partisan/support-your-side purity, which may also be seen as a *change the framework* approach versus a *work within the framework* approach. I don’t see why there can’t be some sort of reasonable balance between these things.

    Reply
  203. The dynamic here (really a dynamic here) seems to be between ideological/moral purity versus partisan/support-your-side purity, which may also be seen as a *change the framework* approach versus a *work within the framework* approach. I don’t see why there can’t be some sort of reasonable balance between these things.

    Reply
  204. The dynamic here (really a dynamic here) seems to be between ideological/moral purity versus partisan/support-your-side purity, which may also be seen as a *change the framework* approach versus a *work within the framework* approach. I don’t see why there can’t be some sort of reasonable balance between these things.

    Reply
  205. The differences within both the left and the right are actually pretty large and the spread is big enough that a ” conservative” like Larison on foreign policy appeals to anti- interventionist lefties much more than most mainstream liberal columnists or politicians. Or go back and think about Vietnam– the differences there weren’t small and the same issue– military intervention– pops up over and over again. Talking about purity is fine, if you want to argue that people should have voted for Humphrey over Nixon, but that doesn’t mean the differences within the liberal left side were the sort of silly thing that gets satirized on Monty Python. I agree that debates in a blog comment thread are about as significant as Monty Python skit.

    Reply
  206. The differences within both the left and the right are actually pretty large and the spread is big enough that a ” conservative” like Larison on foreign policy appeals to anti- interventionist lefties much more than most mainstream liberal columnists or politicians. Or go back and think about Vietnam– the differences there weren’t small and the same issue– military intervention– pops up over and over again. Talking about purity is fine, if you want to argue that people should have voted for Humphrey over Nixon, but that doesn’t mean the differences within the liberal left side were the sort of silly thing that gets satirized on Monty Python. I agree that debates in a blog comment thread are about as significant as Monty Python skit.

    Reply
  207. The differences within both the left and the right are actually pretty large and the spread is big enough that a ” conservative” like Larison on foreign policy appeals to anti- interventionist lefties much more than most mainstream liberal columnists or politicians. Or go back and think about Vietnam– the differences there weren’t small and the same issue– military intervention– pops up over and over again. Talking about purity is fine, if you want to argue that people should have voted for Humphrey over Nixon, but that doesn’t mean the differences within the liberal left side were the sort of silly thing that gets satirized on Monty Python. I agree that debates in a blog comment thread are about as significant as Monty Python skit.

    Reply
  208. GFNC,
    We need a POPULAR FRONT. This is not the time to snipe at Sapient, or Donald, or (what’s his name) forbid, Russell, or berniebros, or AR15 up your whassis countme-in (don’t leave!) or poor way out of it anarcho-syndicalist me.
    Every once in a blue moon the left gets it right. This is one of those times that the internecine war and squabbling amongst the left must take a back seat to a common danger, a danger that is international in scope.
    Thanks for being you.
    Best regards,

    Reply
  209. GFNC,
    We need a POPULAR FRONT. This is not the time to snipe at Sapient, or Donald, or (what’s his name) forbid, Russell, or berniebros, or AR15 up your whassis countme-in (don’t leave!) or poor way out of it anarcho-syndicalist me.
    Every once in a blue moon the left gets it right. This is one of those times that the internecine war and squabbling amongst the left must take a back seat to a common danger, a danger that is international in scope.
    Thanks for being you.
    Best regards,

    Reply
  210. GFNC,
    We need a POPULAR FRONT. This is not the time to snipe at Sapient, or Donald, or (what’s his name) forbid, Russell, or berniebros, or AR15 up your whassis countme-in (don’t leave!) or poor way out of it anarcho-syndicalist me.
    Every once in a blue moon the left gets it right. This is one of those times that the internecine war and squabbling amongst the left must take a back seat to a common danger, a danger that is international in scope.
    Thanks for being you.
    Best regards,

    Reply
  211. The schism is literally ‘alternative facts.’ The two parties no longer share the same facts, whether about climate, evolution, or crowd size.
    I have perfectly smart educated friends who are all in with Trump, because they are operating from an alternate universe. And without shared facts, you can’t engage with logic. Its like arguing the Bible vs the Quran and who is right.

    Reply
  212. The schism is literally ‘alternative facts.’ The two parties no longer share the same facts, whether about climate, evolution, or crowd size.
    I have perfectly smart educated friends who are all in with Trump, because they are operating from an alternate universe. And without shared facts, you can’t engage with logic. Its like arguing the Bible vs the Quran and who is right.

    Reply
  213. The schism is literally ‘alternative facts.’ The two parties no longer share the same facts, whether about climate, evolution, or crowd size.
    I have perfectly smart educated friends who are all in with Trump, because they are operating from an alternate universe. And without shared facts, you can’t engage with logic. Its like arguing the Bible vs the Quran and who is right.

    Reply
  214. I think we’re talking about two different things. I, and I think others, were referring to in-fighting on the left. Others are talking about right versus left, which is an entirely different dynamic.
    When someone tells me, for example, that I should support Trump because the Republicans were opposed to slavery 150 years ago, yes, we’re operating in different universes. When people say, “Give him a chance” after having seen the guy in the public eye for over 30 years, throughout which he’s never been anything but a boorish jackass, we’re operating in different universes. When people can’t see that this is a different situation than simply having a traditional Republican in the White House, we’re operating in different universes.
    But that’s all very different from Democrats or people on the left disagreeing among themselves about how to approach opposing Trump and the Republicans.

    Reply
  215. I think we’re talking about two different things. I, and I think others, were referring to in-fighting on the left. Others are talking about right versus left, which is an entirely different dynamic.
    When someone tells me, for example, that I should support Trump because the Republicans were opposed to slavery 150 years ago, yes, we’re operating in different universes. When people say, “Give him a chance” after having seen the guy in the public eye for over 30 years, throughout which he’s never been anything but a boorish jackass, we’re operating in different universes. When people can’t see that this is a different situation than simply having a traditional Republican in the White House, we’re operating in different universes.
    But that’s all very different from Democrats or people on the left disagreeing among themselves about how to approach opposing Trump and the Republicans.

    Reply
  216. I think we’re talking about two different things. I, and I think others, were referring to in-fighting on the left. Others are talking about right versus left, which is an entirely different dynamic.
    When someone tells me, for example, that I should support Trump because the Republicans were opposed to slavery 150 years ago, yes, we’re operating in different universes. When people say, “Give him a chance” after having seen the guy in the public eye for over 30 years, throughout which he’s never been anything but a boorish jackass, we’re operating in different universes. When people can’t see that this is a different situation than simply having a traditional Republican in the White House, we’re operating in different universes.
    But that’s all very different from Democrats or people on the left disagreeing among themselves about how to approach opposing Trump and the Republicans.

    Reply
  217. HSH,
    Yes, I agree with that. People left of the American center all seem to have a similar fact base. Still, when applying those facts, some apparently thought that Trump and Hillary are equivalent enough that it didn’t matter who won.
    I think this is an area where applying logic to facts can help, and potentially gain support for a ‘centrist’ vs ‘lunacy’ coalition. It should have helped before the election, but here we are.
    The larger picture of ‘reconciliation’ with the Republicans is not that simple. It is almost like we need a ‘truth counsel’ to determine agreed upon facts that we can then both apply our philosophies to, and then have a debate.
    Right now half our country believes that the earth stopped warming in 1998, and therefore all climate change science is make believe. And any evidence to the contrary is fake.
    I work with a very competent guy who took his family to the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark on vacation (from Seattle), who literally believes that stuff. He has a serenity you can’t believe (also a minister), is a career African American Soldier, and probably but not certainly supported Trump.
    He is a great, experienced guy who you would all love if you met him. But I had nowhere to engage with him that would not be dismissive of his beliefs. And since I really like him, I did not want to be a jerk.
    To me, he symbolizes the problem: good, earnest people I like who simply are not operating from my facts.

    Reply
  218. HSH,
    Yes, I agree with that. People left of the American center all seem to have a similar fact base. Still, when applying those facts, some apparently thought that Trump and Hillary are equivalent enough that it didn’t matter who won.
    I think this is an area where applying logic to facts can help, and potentially gain support for a ‘centrist’ vs ‘lunacy’ coalition. It should have helped before the election, but here we are.
    The larger picture of ‘reconciliation’ with the Republicans is not that simple. It is almost like we need a ‘truth counsel’ to determine agreed upon facts that we can then both apply our philosophies to, and then have a debate.
    Right now half our country believes that the earth stopped warming in 1998, and therefore all climate change science is make believe. And any evidence to the contrary is fake.
    I work with a very competent guy who took his family to the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark on vacation (from Seattle), who literally believes that stuff. He has a serenity you can’t believe (also a minister), is a career African American Soldier, and probably but not certainly supported Trump.
    He is a great, experienced guy who you would all love if you met him. But I had nowhere to engage with him that would not be dismissive of his beliefs. And since I really like him, I did not want to be a jerk.
    To me, he symbolizes the problem: good, earnest people I like who simply are not operating from my facts.

    Reply
  219. HSH,
    Yes, I agree with that. People left of the American center all seem to have a similar fact base. Still, when applying those facts, some apparently thought that Trump and Hillary are equivalent enough that it didn’t matter who won.
    I think this is an area where applying logic to facts can help, and potentially gain support for a ‘centrist’ vs ‘lunacy’ coalition. It should have helped before the election, but here we are.
    The larger picture of ‘reconciliation’ with the Republicans is not that simple. It is almost like we need a ‘truth counsel’ to determine agreed upon facts that we can then both apply our philosophies to, and then have a debate.
    Right now half our country believes that the earth stopped warming in 1998, and therefore all climate change science is make believe. And any evidence to the contrary is fake.
    I work with a very competent guy who took his family to the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark on vacation (from Seattle), who literally believes that stuff. He has a serenity you can’t believe (also a minister), is a career African American Soldier, and probably but not certainly supported Trump.
    He is a great, experienced guy who you would all love if you met him. But I had nowhere to engage with him that would not be dismissive of his beliefs. And since I really like him, I did not want to be a jerk.
    To me, he symbolizes the problem: good, earnest people I like who simply are not operating from my facts.

    Reply
  220. I was thinking earlier of something a Trump-supporting high school friend had said about Trump. She is convinced that he is a good man with a good heart who deeply cares about our country and “regular people.”
    On the one hand, I think that’s bonkers. On the other hand, at least she supports him because she honestly believes he’s such a good and caring man, rather than supporting him because of the amoral, self-aggrandizing, deluded a$$hole he actually is.
    But it’s frustrating to see people you like and care for believing utter nonsense.

    Reply
  221. I was thinking earlier of something a Trump-supporting high school friend had said about Trump. She is convinced that he is a good man with a good heart who deeply cares about our country and “regular people.”
    On the one hand, I think that’s bonkers. On the other hand, at least she supports him because she honestly believes he’s such a good and caring man, rather than supporting him because of the amoral, self-aggrandizing, deluded a$$hole he actually is.
    But it’s frustrating to see people you like and care for believing utter nonsense.

    Reply
  222. I was thinking earlier of something a Trump-supporting high school friend had said about Trump. She is convinced that he is a good man with a good heart who deeply cares about our country and “regular people.”
    On the one hand, I think that’s bonkers. On the other hand, at least she supports him because she honestly believes he’s such a good and caring man, rather than supporting him because of the amoral, self-aggrandizing, deluded a$$hole he actually is.
    But it’s frustrating to see people you like and care for believing utter nonsense.

    Reply
  223. This is where elitist me is completely okay with some of my friends who support Trump, because I know they don’t have the experience and education to discern truth from the media, and for them it is almost like supporting an NFL team: For some unknown reason, people support the Cowboys, and against all reason and decency, there are a lot of them. The problem is they take that mindless team support to politics. I bet there is a great Venn Diagram showing Cowboy-Trump support.
    It is the ones that ought to know better I have trouble understanding. My minister friend has multiple wartime deployments and lived all over the country and several continents in over 30 years in the Army. Creationist.???!! And therefore Team Conservative.

    Reply
  224. This is where elitist me is completely okay with some of my friends who support Trump, because I know they don’t have the experience and education to discern truth from the media, and for them it is almost like supporting an NFL team: For some unknown reason, people support the Cowboys, and against all reason and decency, there are a lot of them. The problem is they take that mindless team support to politics. I bet there is a great Venn Diagram showing Cowboy-Trump support.
    It is the ones that ought to know better I have trouble understanding. My minister friend has multiple wartime deployments and lived all over the country and several continents in over 30 years in the Army. Creationist.???!! And therefore Team Conservative.

    Reply
  225. This is where elitist me is completely okay with some of my friends who support Trump, because I know they don’t have the experience and education to discern truth from the media, and for them it is almost like supporting an NFL team: For some unknown reason, people support the Cowboys, and against all reason and decency, there are a lot of them. The problem is they take that mindless team support to politics. I bet there is a great Venn Diagram showing Cowboy-Trump support.
    It is the ones that ought to know better I have trouble understanding. My minister friend has multiple wartime deployments and lived all over the country and several continents in over 30 years in the Army. Creationist.???!! And therefore Team Conservative.

    Reply
  226. The historical trend of vote distribution between urban and rural areas is quite remarkable.
    Yes, it is. Good article. However, as population grows, and rural area population declines, the balance will shift to the Dems as more Congressional Districts are carved out of urban areas, or district boundaries are redrawn to be more “purple”, combining urban and rural areas.
    The fact that smaller population rural areas will be increasingly “red” is not good for the GOP. They will then have the same problem that the article claims the Dems have.
    The Senate is the big roadblock.

    Reply
  227. The historical trend of vote distribution between urban and rural areas is quite remarkable.
    Yes, it is. Good article. However, as population grows, and rural area population declines, the balance will shift to the Dems as more Congressional Districts are carved out of urban areas, or district boundaries are redrawn to be more “purple”, combining urban and rural areas.
    The fact that smaller population rural areas will be increasingly “red” is not good for the GOP. They will then have the same problem that the article claims the Dems have.
    The Senate is the big roadblock.

    Reply
  228. The historical trend of vote distribution between urban and rural areas is quite remarkable.
    Yes, it is. Good article. However, as population grows, and rural area population declines, the balance will shift to the Dems as more Congressional Districts are carved out of urban areas, or district boundaries are redrawn to be more “purple”, combining urban and rural areas.
    The fact that smaller population rural areas will be increasingly “red” is not good for the GOP. They will then have the same problem that the article claims the Dems have.
    The Senate is the big roadblock.

    Reply
  229. …as population grows, and rural area population declines, the balance will shift to the Dems as more Congressional Districts are carved out of urban areas
    While true, as the article point out, this process isn’t happening fast enough. Unless Dems want a decade plus of Republican domination, they have to find a way to win back some rural votes.

    Reply
  230. …as population grows, and rural area population declines, the balance will shift to the Dems as more Congressional Districts are carved out of urban areas
    While true, as the article point out, this process isn’t happening fast enough. Unless Dems want a decade plus of Republican domination, they have to find a way to win back some rural votes.

    Reply
  231. …as population grows, and rural area population declines, the balance will shift to the Dems as more Congressional Districts are carved out of urban areas
    While true, as the article point out, this process isn’t happening fast enough. Unless Dems want a decade plus of Republican domination, they have to find a way to win back some rural votes.

    Reply
  232. I’m having a hard time extrapolating how Trump’s presidency plays out over the longer term given the level of absurdity that’s already evident after such a short time. Is he going to veer from one thing to another like a puppy chasing leaves in the wind over the course of years? Will events overtake him, forcing him to at least attempt to focus on something of relevance? He has highly generalized goals, but it seems no real game plan or sense of priority.
    It’s perversely fascinating. I only wish I could witness it as a simulation in some sort of virtual reality, where there were nothing actually at stake. And I still have this feeling that it isn’t real, like I’m going to wake up from a vivid dream and tell my wife about it in bed in the morning. Then she’ll tell me to stop eating spicy food so late in the evening.
    I can’t really come up with a word to describe the state of mind this whole thing has me in. I’m like a calculator trying to divide by zero.

    Reply
  233. I’m having a hard time extrapolating how Trump’s presidency plays out over the longer term given the level of absurdity that’s already evident after such a short time. Is he going to veer from one thing to another like a puppy chasing leaves in the wind over the course of years? Will events overtake him, forcing him to at least attempt to focus on something of relevance? He has highly generalized goals, but it seems no real game plan or sense of priority.
    It’s perversely fascinating. I only wish I could witness it as a simulation in some sort of virtual reality, where there were nothing actually at stake. And I still have this feeling that it isn’t real, like I’m going to wake up from a vivid dream and tell my wife about it in bed in the morning. Then she’ll tell me to stop eating spicy food so late in the evening.
    I can’t really come up with a word to describe the state of mind this whole thing has me in. I’m like a calculator trying to divide by zero.

    Reply
  234. I’m having a hard time extrapolating how Trump’s presidency plays out over the longer term given the level of absurdity that’s already evident after such a short time. Is he going to veer from one thing to another like a puppy chasing leaves in the wind over the course of years? Will events overtake him, forcing him to at least attempt to focus on something of relevance? He has highly generalized goals, but it seems no real game plan or sense of priority.
    It’s perversely fascinating. I only wish I could witness it as a simulation in some sort of virtual reality, where there were nothing actually at stake. And I still have this feeling that it isn’t real, like I’m going to wake up from a vivid dream and tell my wife about it in bed in the morning. Then she’ll tell me to stop eating spicy food so late in the evening.
    I can’t really come up with a word to describe the state of mind this whole thing has me in. I’m like a calculator trying to divide by zero.

    Reply
  235. hsh, I agree with every single word of that.
    On a different tack, I seem to recall that, along with cleek, you were one of the people who taught me how to do the kind of HTML tags we have to do here. Do you happen to know how to show a struck through word? sapient’s quotation of “when they came for the muslims, we did (struck through) said Not this time, motherfuckers” is so much better than when you leave out the struck through “did”, that I would very much like to know how to do it.

    Reply
  236. hsh, I agree with every single word of that.
    On a different tack, I seem to recall that, along with cleek, you were one of the people who taught me how to do the kind of HTML tags we have to do here. Do you happen to know how to show a struck through word? sapient’s quotation of “when they came for the muslims, we did (struck through) said Not this time, motherfuckers” is so much better than when you leave out the struck through “did”, that I would very much like to know how to do it.

    Reply
  237. hsh, I agree with every single word of that.
    On a different tack, I seem to recall that, along with cleek, you were one of the people who taught me how to do the kind of HTML tags we have to do here. Do you happen to know how to show a struck through word? sapient’s quotation of “when they came for the muslims, we did (struck through) said Not this time, motherfuckers” is so much better than when you leave out the struck through “did”, that I would very much like to know how to do it.

    Reply
  238. GftNC,
    You can get strike-through text using either S or STRIKE the same way you use I for italics and B for bold. (Actually, the current standard is EM, aka emphasis, for italics and STRONG for bold. The old versions still work here, but not on some other sites.)
    Example with s
    Example with strike
    H/T HTML For Dummies — which I find enormously useful at work, as well as here.

    Reply
  239. GftNC,
    You can get strike-through text using either S or STRIKE the same way you use I for italics and B for bold. (Actually, the current standard is EM, aka emphasis, for italics and STRONG for bold. The old versions still work here, but not on some other sites.)
    Example with s
    Example with strike
    H/T HTML For Dummies — which I find enormously useful at work, as well as here.

    Reply
  240. GftNC,
    You can get strike-through text using either S or STRIKE the same way you use I for italics and B for bold. (Actually, the current standard is EM, aka emphasis, for italics and STRONG for bold. The old versions still work here, but not on some other sites.)
    Example with s
    Example with strike
    H/T HTML For Dummies — which I find enormously useful at work, as well as here.

    Reply
  241. They came for the <BLINK> tag, but we said nothing cheered as it was hauled away to oblivion.
    We’ll know for sure that we’re in some sort of a “disaster fiction” simulation on 21 Aug 2017, when the path of a total solar eclipse reaches maximum totality disturbingly close to the epicenter of the New Madrid quake.
    Really, what hack writer would pass up an opportunity like that?1??

    Reply
  242. They came for the <BLINK> tag, but we said nothing cheered as it was hauled away to oblivion.
    We’ll know for sure that we’re in some sort of a “disaster fiction” simulation on 21 Aug 2017, when the path of a total solar eclipse reaches maximum totality disturbingly close to the epicenter of the New Madrid quake.
    Really, what hack writer would pass up an opportunity like that?1??

    Reply
  243. They came for the <BLINK> tag, but we said nothing cheered as it was hauled away to oblivion.
    We’ll know for sure that we’re in some sort of a “disaster fiction” simulation on 21 Aug 2017, when the path of a total solar eclipse reaches maximum totality disturbingly close to the epicenter of the New Madrid quake.
    Really, what hack writer would pass up an opportunity like that?1??

    Reply
  244. the path of a total solar eclipse reaches maximum totality disturbingly close to the epicenter of the New Madrid quake.
    Tecumseh’s revenge.

    Reply
  245. the path of a total solar eclipse reaches maximum totality disturbingly close to the epicenter of the New Madrid quake.
    Tecumseh’s revenge.

    Reply
  246. the path of a total solar eclipse reaches maximum totality disturbingly close to the epicenter of the New Madrid quake.
    Tecumseh’s revenge.

    Reply
  247. Like many of the rest of us, the folks at the CIA have to include in their thinking a little “How do we get thru the next few years? Preferably with our integrity in tact. At minimum, without damaging our ability to do our jobs too badly.”
    It’s not a problem which has an obvious solution. Especially as the details of the problem are only starting to become clear. (C.f. “alternative facts” — what does that mean when the man in charge isn’t happy with the reality you are reporting? Let alone when there is real uncertainty, as there routinely is in intelligence work.)

    Reply
  248. Like many of the rest of us, the folks at the CIA have to include in their thinking a little “How do we get thru the next few years? Preferably with our integrity in tact. At minimum, without damaging our ability to do our jobs too badly.”
    It’s not a problem which has an obvious solution. Especially as the details of the problem are only starting to become clear. (C.f. “alternative facts” — what does that mean when the man in charge isn’t happy with the reality you are reporting? Let alone when there is real uncertainty, as there routinely is in intelligence work.)

    Reply
  249. Like many of the rest of us, the folks at the CIA have to include in their thinking a little “How do we get thru the next few years? Preferably with our integrity in tact. At minimum, without damaging our ability to do our jobs too badly.”
    It’s not a problem which has an obvious solution. Especially as the details of the problem are only starting to become clear. (C.f. “alternative facts” — what does that mean when the man in charge isn’t happy with the reality you are reporting? Let alone when there is real uncertainty, as there routinely is in intelligence work.)

    Reply
  250. “It’s not a problem which has an obvious solution.”
    Sure it is. The CIA has spent years and years devising ways to kill out of control leaders who are a danger to the United States.

    Reply
  251. “It’s not a problem which has an obvious solution.”
    Sure it is. The CIA has spent years and years devising ways to kill out of control leaders who are a danger to the United States.

    Reply
  252. “It’s not a problem which has an obvious solution.”
    Sure it is. The CIA has spent years and years devising ways to kill out of control leaders who are a danger to the United States.

    Reply
  253. Cheney was able to stage an occupation of the CIA for the purpose of stovepiping raw (unreliable) intel up to the WH and the MSM, and building a ‘case’ for invading Iraq.
    I just don’t see Pence managing to pull off something like that, so perhaps the CIA will retain some semblance of independence.

    Reply
  254. Cheney was able to stage an occupation of the CIA for the purpose of stovepiping raw (unreliable) intel up to the WH and the MSM, and building a ‘case’ for invading Iraq.
    I just don’t see Pence managing to pull off something like that, so perhaps the CIA will retain some semblance of independence.

    Reply
  255. Cheney was able to stage an occupation of the CIA for the purpose of stovepiping raw (unreliable) intel up to the WH and the MSM, and building a ‘case’ for invading Iraq.
    I just don’t see Pence managing to pull off something like that, so perhaps the CIA will retain some semblance of independence.

    Reply
  256. They came for the <BLINK> tag, but we said nothing cheered as it was hauled away to oblivion.
    I hear blink is going to come back, actually. By executive degree. It’s a fabulous tag. The best tag.

    Reply
  257. They came for the <BLINK> tag, but we said nothing cheered as it was hauled away to oblivion.
    I hear blink is going to come back, actually. By executive degree. It’s a fabulous tag. The best tag.

    Reply
  258. They came for the <BLINK> tag, but we said nothing cheered as it was hauled away to oblivion.
    I hear blink is going to come back, actually. By executive degree. It’s a fabulous tag. The best tag.

    Reply

Leave a Comment