by Ugh
So I won't have fraud and noted stupid spineless squish Paul Ryan to kick around any longer. So sad, so sad. I'm sure he will go on to that great K Street suite in the sky. But I will miss his ability to gracefully and with strangely weird-eyed aplomb sh1t on the poor, weak, and elderly while maintaining a sterling reputation for "wonkery" with the Beltway Press when all it really was warmed over College Republican douchebag jackasshattery, with a twist of lemon.
In other news, missiles to Syria, I'm glad I never set up a Facebook account, the attorney-client privilege is DEAD, and soon to be NBA playoff time. Bryce Harper off to another super hot start (I can haz 60 homerz plz?) and jeebus effing christ we're all gonna die aren't we. Can we wait until Tiger wins another major?
Non-disclosure agreements about anything other than intellectual property should be prohibited by law (hear the April 6 podcast episode of Planet Money).
And soon, Asian Dawn will be taking over the world (see Time magazine).
So, open thread. Tell me the best new song you've heard in 2018, please, also, too.
Actually, it is sad. I was rather hoping for him to run and lose.
Actually, it is sad. I was rather hoping for him to run and lose.
I’d nominate songs from ‘Castlevania’ by Starling Electric. I downloaded it for free on Bandcamp.com.
Wear Your Love Like Heather is the last song.
I’d nominate songs from ‘Castlevania’ by Starling Electric. I downloaded it for free on Bandcamp.com.
Wear Your Love Like Heather is the last song.
From the AP News piece on Ryan’s retirement:
Made my day.
From the AP News piece on Ryan’s retirement:
Made my day.
Hi DaveC – I hope all is well
Hi DaveC – I hope all is well
In other news about retired (R) speakers….
Who’s rolling?
In other news about retired (R) speakers….
Who’s rolling?
So I won’t have fraud and noted stupid spineless squish Paul Ryan to kick around any longer.
Libertarians are glad to see him go too. Not that there’s any expectation that he’ll be replaced by anyone better.
So I won’t have fraud and noted stupid spineless squish Paul Ryan to kick around any longer.
Libertarians are glad to see him go too. Not that there’s any expectation that he’ll be replaced by anyone better.
Not that there’s any expectation that he’ll be replaced by anyone better.
And here I thought there was an expectation that he would be replaced by a Democrat. Which even those of us who are (responsible) Republicans, not to mention something like fiscal conservatives, would have to see as a step up.
Not that there’s any expectation that he’ll be replaced by anyone better.
And here I thought there was an expectation that he would be replaced by a Democrat. Which even those of us who are (responsible) Republicans, not to mention something like fiscal conservatives, would have to see as a step up.
I should perhaps note that I really, really dislike Pelosi. But still think even she would be an improvement over Ryan. SAD!
I should perhaps note that I really, really dislike Pelosi. But still think even she would be an improvement over Ryan. SAD!
Hot damn! A Bipartisan group of Senators (Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)) had put up a bill to protect Mueller (or any other Special Counsel) from being fired. But there was serious question whether the Republican leadership would let it move forward. Now, it has: the Chair of the relevant committee has moved to put it on the agenda for their next meeting.**
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/bipartisan-senators-expected-to-release-compromise-special-counsel-bill/2018/04/11/bfb24852-3d3f-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html
* OK, technically what he has done is ask the ranking minority member for her approval to put it on the agenda. But does anyone imagine that Senator Feinstein will decline? Ha!
Hot damn! A Bipartisan group of Senators (Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)) had put up a bill to protect Mueller (or any other Special Counsel) from being fired. But there was serious question whether the Republican leadership would let it move forward. Now, it has: the Chair of the relevant committee has moved to put it on the agenda for their next meeting.**
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/bipartisan-senators-expected-to-release-compromise-special-counsel-bill/2018/04/11/bfb24852-3d3f-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html
* OK, technically what he has done is ask the ranking minority member for her approval to put it on the agenda. But does anyone imagine that Senator Feinstein will decline? Ha!
I like to imagine an alternate universe in which Trump says (or tweets, I guess) things like, “I welcome Mr. Mueller’s investigation and encourage him to be as thorough as is humanly possible. I hope he leaves no stone unturned, because I am confident that the result of his work will be my total exoneration. I am confident that none of my actions, nor those of my associates, were in any way unlawful, unethical, or not done fully in the best interests of the United States of America. I urge anyone contacted by Mr. Mueller’s team to be as cooperative, open, and honest as they can and as I, myself, will be. Let his work go forth unimpeded to whatever final conclusion it may.”
I like to imagine an alternate universe in which Trump says (or tweets, I guess) things like, “I welcome Mr. Mueller’s investigation and encourage him to be as thorough as is humanly possible. I hope he leaves no stone unturned, because I am confident that the result of his work will be my total exoneration. I am confident that none of my actions, nor those of my associates, were in any way unlawful, unethical, or not done fully in the best interests of the United States of America. I urge anyone contacted by Mr. Mueller’s team to be as cooperative, open, and honest as they can and as I, myself, will be. Let his work go forth unimpeded to whatever final conclusion it may.”
hairshirthedonist:
That’s as about as likely to happen as …. I don’t know … John Boehner going to work for a marijuana company.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-boehner-is-joining-a-marijuana-company-2018-04-11?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Well, OK, maybe as likely as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8nZBlPfR7Y
Capone seemed kind of innocent to me right there.
Don’t it strike you like ‘at?
Eliot Ness was very unfair to him and his family AND his colleagues.
hairshirthedonist:
That’s as about as likely to happen as …. I don’t know … John Boehner going to work for a marijuana company.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/john-boehner-is-joining-a-marijuana-company-2018-04-11?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Well, OK, maybe as likely as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8nZBlPfR7Y
Capone seemed kind of innocent to me right there.
Don’t it strike you like ‘at?
Eliot Ness was very unfair to him and his family AND his colleagues.
The nonexistent deep state looks forward, not back
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/04/09/letter.in.support.of.gina.haspel.nomination.to.be.cia.director.pdf
The nonexistent deep state looks forward, not back
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/04/09/letter.in.support.of.gina.haspel.nomination.to.be.cia.director.pdf
Trump’s actual dictator pal is Muhammad bin Salman and he is also pals with the very Trump-lIke Netanyahu and there has been a continual push towards war with Iran, another Russian ally and enemy of Trump’s pals, and all this before Trump began contemplating a war with Syria and Russia and Iran all at the same time.
So I was wondering how this fits with the Putin puppet theory?
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/the-trump-administration-continues-to-be-more-confrontational-toward-russia-than-obama-was/
Trump’s actual dictator pal is Muhammad bin Salman and he is also pals with the very Trump-lIke Netanyahu and there has been a continual push towards war with Iran, another Russian ally and enemy of Trump’s pals, and all this before Trump began contemplating a war with Syria and Russia and Iran all at the same time.
So I was wondering how this fits with the Putin puppet theory?
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/the-trump-administration-continues-to-be-more-confrontational-toward-russia-than-obama-was/
I don’t think Trump is Putin’s puppet, only because whoever is pulling the strings isn’t nearly as smart as Putin. The puppet master may be utterly mindless.
I don’t think Trump is Putin’s puppet, only because whoever is pulling the strings isn’t nearly as smart as Putin. The puppet master may be utterly mindless.
Trump’s actual dictator pal is Muhammad bin Salman and he is also pals with the very Trump-lIke Netanyahu and there has been a continual push towards war with Iran, another Russian ally and enemy of Trump’s pals, and all this before Trump began contemplating a war with Syria and Russia and Iran all at the same time.
So I was wondering how this fits with the Putin puppet theory?
It’s confusing when you’re being paid off by multiple parties!
Trump’s actual dictator pal is Muhammad bin Salman and he is also pals with the very Trump-lIke Netanyahu and there has been a continual push towards war with Iran, another Russian ally and enemy of Trump’s pals, and all this before Trump began contemplating a war with Syria and Russia and Iran all at the same time.
So I was wondering how this fits with the Putin puppet theory?
It’s confusing when you’re being paid off by multiple parties!
“So I was wondering how this fits with the Putin puppet theory?”
So far the substance of “more confrontational” consists of a bunch of blustery mean tweets and closing a consulate in Seattle, the latter of which was probably sold to Trump as punishing those darn Seattle latte-drinking liberals with the side benefit of looking like he’s not Putin’s puppet.
“So I was wondering how this fits with the Putin puppet theory?”
So far the substance of “more confrontational” consists of a bunch of blustery mean tweets and closing a consulate in Seattle, the latter of which was probably sold to Trump as punishing those darn Seattle latte-drinking liberals with the side benefit of looking like he’s not Putin’s puppet.
I’d bet the sale was made saying “This is necessary to keep you from looking like Putin’s poodle. And it’s not like you have to actually do much of anything. Vlad will understand.”
I’d bet the sale was made saying “This is necessary to keep you from looking like Putin’s poodle. And it’s not like you have to actually do much of anything. Vlad will understand.”
the latter of which was probably sold to Trump as punishing those darn Seattle latte-drinking liberals with the side benefit of looking like he’s not Putin’s puppet.
Probably sold to him by Putin.
the latter of which was probably sold to Trump as punishing those darn Seattle latte-drinking liberals with the side benefit of looking like he’s not Putin’s puppet.
Probably sold to him by Putin.
The nonexistent deep state looks forward, not back
That letter is great evidence that the CIA should be razed to the ground and rebuilt as an intelligence gathering outfit w/o operations.
The nonexistent deep state looks forward, not back
That letter is great evidence that the CIA should be razed to the ground and rebuilt as an intelligence gathering outfit w/o operations.
I notice that we’re on the same page here again, wj. I didn’t see your note before I replied. doretta is also right on.
I notice that we’re on the same page here again, wj. I didn’t see your note before I replied. doretta is also right on.
ugh, how did you become a front-pager? Just curious, and not at all trying to be rude. liberal japonicus recently said that there was some kind of crooked timber connection with his key. Kind of interesting who and how people took on the work. And it is work!
ugh, how did you become a front-pager? Just curious, and not at all trying to be rude. liberal japonicus recently said that there was some kind of crooked timber connection with his key. Kind of interesting who and how people took on the work. And it is work!
Just spent a lot of time commenting here back in the day. Used to have more substantive things to say but have been distracted by twitter in the time of Trump for the past year.
Just spent a lot of time commenting here back in the day. Used to have more substantive things to say but have been distracted by twitter in the time of Trump for the past year.
A Bipartisan group of Senators (Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)) had put up a bill
think back to your Schoolhouse Rock lessons and see if you can spot the fatal flaw in this.
A Bipartisan group of Senators (Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)) had put up a bill
think back to your Schoolhouse Rock lessons and see if you can spot the fatal flaw in this.
ugh ftw @ 8:21
ugh ftw @ 8:21
the President is being investigated for allegedly conspiring with Russians in order to win the election. and in the process of that investigation, his personal lawyer is being investigated for campaign violations allegedly involving paying a porn star to keep quiet about an affair she had with the future-President. it was paid on the eve of the election by this lawyer, who wrote the contract possibly without the knowledge or consent of his client, The President. the investigation has so far yielded twenty-two indictments, including several members of the President’s former and recent staff in various matters including involving lying to the FBI about foreign contacts during the campaign. the President is known to be the proprietor of a fraudulent “university”, which bilked millions of dollars out of people. he’s known to be involved in real estate fraud involving foreign organized crime gangs.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO SHIT THEMSELVES ABOUT OBAMA FACILITATING A GOOD DEAL TO A SOLAR PANEL COMPANY ARE DEFENDING TRUMP.
fuck the GOP. it’s a cult.
the President is being investigated for allegedly conspiring with Russians in order to win the election. and in the process of that investigation, his personal lawyer is being investigated for campaign violations allegedly involving paying a porn star to keep quiet about an affair she had with the future-President. it was paid on the eve of the election by this lawyer, who wrote the contract possibly without the knowledge or consent of his client, The President. the investigation has so far yielded twenty-two indictments, including several members of the President’s former and recent staff in various matters including involving lying to the FBI about foreign contacts during the campaign. the President is known to be the proprietor of a fraudulent “university”, which bilked millions of dollars out of people. he’s known to be involved in real estate fraud involving foreign organized crime gangs.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO SHIT THEMSELVES ABOUT OBAMA FACILITATING A GOOD DEAL TO A SOLAR PANEL COMPANY ARE DEFENDING TRUMP.
fuck the GOP. it’s a cult.
cleek ftw @ 9:41
cleek ftw @ 9:41
But cleek, you have missed the critical difference. Obama’s got that permanent suntan. (And, unlike Trump’s tan, such as it is, it’s not sprayed on.)
But cleek, you have missed the critical difference. Obama’s got that permanent suntan. (And, unlike Trump’s tan, such as it is, it’s not sprayed on.)
Just spent a lot of time commenting here back in the day.
My story too.
I love to hear from you, btw.
Just spent a lot of time commenting here back in the day.
My story too.
I love to hear from you, btw.
uh oh. Is it fixed?
uh oh. Is it fixed?
Not?
Not?
It’s fixed. Sorry, y’all!
It’s fixed. Sorry, y’all!
I still have a FB account and I think the flapdoodle is is mostly just flapdoodle. Bottom line with FB is that nothing posted is private. Anyone who didnt realize that from the get go was just not thinking.
Besides who cares if someone knows what you cooked for dinner the name of your dog and our political outlook? Its not like any of that isnt already known. Neighbors know that stuff, anyone who googles your political donations knows your politics,,,,
And why is it creepy that ads match the page holders interests? Info about interests si already shared I bought smoe bulbs from a catalog and next thing I knw I was getting catalogs form plant selling companies I’d neverf heard of a introductory editions to plant magazines…
I am creeped out that scammers who prey on old people started in on me the week I turned sixty. But they dint find our from FB.
To me the interesting thing about Cambridge Analytica dqta theft from FB is that they were trying to identify racists to organize as a base for a political movement within the Republican party. Maybe that/s why all the sanctimonious huffing and puffing from Repubicans in Congress; they want to discuss FB because they dont want to discuss the nature of the data that was stolen..
I think the real issue to wrry about with social media is fake sites set up as money scams (apparently the largest BLack Lives Matter site which gathered hundreds of thousands in donations was run by a white guy in Australia) and for manipulative purposes by foreign agents. That I can get riled up about.
But privacy? I never expected any on FB. OR twitter, Or commenting on blogs, for that matter.
I still have a FB account and I think the flapdoodle is is mostly just flapdoodle. Bottom line with FB is that nothing posted is private. Anyone who didnt realize that from the get go was just not thinking.
Besides who cares if someone knows what you cooked for dinner the name of your dog and our political outlook? Its not like any of that isnt already known. Neighbors know that stuff, anyone who googles your political donations knows your politics,,,,
And why is it creepy that ads match the page holders interests? Info about interests si already shared I bought smoe bulbs from a catalog and next thing I knw I was getting catalogs form plant selling companies I’d neverf heard of a introductory editions to plant magazines…
I am creeped out that scammers who prey on old people started in on me the week I turned sixty. But they dint find our from FB.
To me the interesting thing about Cambridge Analytica dqta theft from FB is that they were trying to identify racists to organize as a base for a political movement within the Republican party. Maybe that/s why all the sanctimonious huffing and puffing from Repubicans in Congress; they want to discuss FB because they dont want to discuss the nature of the data that was stolen..
I think the real issue to wrry about with social media is fake sites set up as money scams (apparently the largest BLack Lives Matter site which gathered hundreds of thousands in donations was run by a white guy in Australia) and for manipulative purposes by foreign agents. That I can get riled up about.
But privacy? I never expected any on FB. OR twitter, Or commenting on blogs, for that matter.
I really wonder what all those analysis programs make of my Facebook account. I do have one.
But I’ve never posted anything. All I use it for are the occasions (maybe once a year) when I want to follow a link to someone else’s Facebok post, and I am required to log in with an account in order to do so.
I really wonder what all those analysis programs make of my Facebook account. I do have one.
But I’ve never posted anything. All I use it for are the occasions (maybe once a year) when I want to follow a link to someone else’s Facebok post, and I am required to log in with an account in order to do so.
“It’s confusing when you’re being paid off by multiple parties”
I could actually buy that.
As for substance, Trump did supply weapons to the Ukrainians. And in that loveable way that Americans have we somehow now have ground troops in Syria like it is just the most natural thing in the world and all the experts say it would be terrible to pull them out. It is curious to see people egging Trump on to bomb Syria. I think a very large number of Beltway types have already kicked the Iraq Syndrome and we haven’t even finished bombing Iraq. Or at least we were bombing Mosul very heavily last year, killing thousands of civilians. It is hard to keep up. In the old days we left Vietnam, felt suitably chastened and didn’t get into another major war for 15 years. We haven’t even finished all the wars we are in now, proxy or otherwise, and people want Trump the incompetent narcissist to escalate in a big way.
“It’s confusing when you’re being paid off by multiple parties”
I could actually buy that.
As for substance, Trump did supply weapons to the Ukrainians. And in that loveable way that Americans have we somehow now have ground troops in Syria like it is just the most natural thing in the world and all the experts say it would be terrible to pull them out. It is curious to see people egging Trump on to bomb Syria. I think a very large number of Beltway types have already kicked the Iraq Syndrome and we haven’t even finished bombing Iraq. Or at least we were bombing Mosul very heavily last year, killing thousands of civilians. It is hard to keep up. In the old days we left Vietnam, felt suitably chastened and didn’t get into another major war for 15 years. We haven’t even finished all the wars we are in now, proxy or otherwise, and people want Trump the incompetent narcissist to escalate in a big way.
ugh, how did you become a front-pager? Just curious, and not at all trying to be rude. liberal japonicus recently said that there was some kind of crooked timber connection with his key.
Don’t know if the ‘how’ is ‘is there some secret method’ or ‘about when did it happen, I didn’t notice’. About the latter, I don’t have an exact date but it was at least 2013, about the former, every so often, the tree of ObWi needs to be refreshed by the blood of front pagers, so I write to a few people who seem to have interesting things to say. It usually happens after something goes wrong with the blog and I need to dig around in it. One can note that the sidebar hasn’t been updated because rather than make accounts for the people to post, we have been (sometimes) posting on the superuser account and the link doesn’t take you to an archive of each front pager’s posts.
About the Crooked Timber connection, there isn’t one, it’s just that a single person who has commented here and figured out who I was in real life often comments at Crooked Timber and I see him there from time to time. I think Crooked Timber is a great blog, but it has, how can I say, the sharpness of academic discourse baked in, so I don’t feel so comfortable participating there. No disrespect to the bloggers there, but just not my cup of tea.
ugh, how did you become a front-pager? Just curious, and not at all trying to be rude. liberal japonicus recently said that there was some kind of crooked timber connection with his key.
Don’t know if the ‘how’ is ‘is there some secret method’ or ‘about when did it happen, I didn’t notice’. About the latter, I don’t have an exact date but it was at least 2013, about the former, every so often, the tree of ObWi needs to be refreshed by the blood of front pagers, so I write to a few people who seem to have interesting things to say. It usually happens after something goes wrong with the blog and I need to dig around in it. One can note that the sidebar hasn’t been updated because rather than make accounts for the people to post, we have been (sometimes) posting on the superuser account and the link doesn’t take you to an archive of each front pager’s posts.
About the Crooked Timber connection, there isn’t one, it’s just that a single person who has commented here and figured out who I was in real life often comments at Crooked Timber and I see him there from time to time. I think Crooked Timber is a great blog, but it has, how can I say, the sharpness of academic discourse baked in, so I don’t feel so comfortable participating there. No disrespect to the bloggers there, but just not my cup of tea.
My sister googgled my name and found a comment I made on an obscure blog ears ago. There’s probably a way to troll through blog coments to find people needed to support whatever someone wants to support.
Meahwile FB can be used for good. It was the primary tool of the peopel who rescued the dogs from the Olympic Animal Sanctuary hoarding situation. It is used for fundraising for animal rescue and for netwrking animals to be them places. I dont konw how animal rescues got a long before FB and we would take a real loss without it.
My sister googgled my name and found a comment I made on an obscure blog ears ago. There’s probably a way to troll through blog coments to find people needed to support whatever someone wants to support.
Meahwile FB can be used for good. It was the primary tool of the peopel who rescued the dogs from the Olympic Animal Sanctuary hoarding situation. It is used for fundraising for animal rescue and for netwrking animals to be them places. I dont konw how animal rescues got a long before FB and we would take a real loss without it.
I still have a FB account and I think the flapdoodle is is mostly just flapdoodle.
I’d say there is room for improvement in how we (the US) handles data privacy.
Everyone has an opinion, that’s mine.
I still have a FB account and I think the flapdoodle is is mostly just flapdoodle.
I’d say there is room for improvement in how we (the US) handles data privacy.
Everyone has an opinion, that’s mine.
I think the policy should cross the whole range of places where data can be mined, an not be focused on one place. If we are gong to spend our time on privacy as an issue.
I think the policy should cross the whole range of places where data can be mined, an not be focused on one place. If we are gong to spend our time on privacy as an issue.
I’d say there is room for improvement in how we (the US) handles data privacy.
I’d definitely agree. But I suspect what we will see is something that, while arguably better, suffers from being written by people who have no clue about what the unintended consequences might be.
That’s what we are seeing with GDPR (the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.) I’m seeing a lot of scrambling in organizations which aren’t big enough to put a big project together on the subject. And which would be bankrupted by the fines mandated for failure to comply. Because it doesn’t (as far as I can tell) matter whether you are Facebook or a little 5 person company; the fines are still the same: “€10 million, or 2% of the worldwide annual revenue of the prior financial year, whichever is higher.” [emphasis added]
As so often before, the world we live in has changed. And, as before, we will probably have several false starts before we work out how to deal with the new reality very well.
I’d say there is room for improvement in how we (the US) handles data privacy.
I’d definitely agree. But I suspect what we will see is something that, while arguably better, suffers from being written by people who have no clue about what the unintended consequences might be.
That’s what we are seeing with GDPR (the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.) I’m seeing a lot of scrambling in organizations which aren’t big enough to put a big project together on the subject. And which would be bankrupted by the fines mandated for failure to comply. Because it doesn’t (as far as I can tell) matter whether you are Facebook or a little 5 person company; the fines are still the same: “€10 million, or 2% of the worldwide annual revenue of the prior financial year, whichever is higher.” [emphasis added]
As so often before, the world we live in has changed. And, as before, we will probably have several false starts before we work out how to deal with the new reality very well.
I really wonder what all those analysis programs make of my Facebook account. I do have one.
Facebook labels me as very conservative. 8/
I really wonder what all those analysis programs make of my Facebook account. I do have one.
Facebook labels me as very conservative. 8/
…, suffers from being written by people who have no clue about what the unintended consequences might be.
FOSTA is a case in point. Very few things are so bad that government can’t make them worse.
Trump signs ‘FOSTA’ bill targeting online sex trafficking, enables states and victims to pursue websites
…, suffers from being written by people who have no clue about what the unintended consequences might be.
FOSTA is a case in point. Very few things are so bad that government can’t make them worse.
Trump signs ‘FOSTA’ bill targeting online sex trafficking, enables states and victims to pursue websites
Remember, while you’re being thankful for all those fish, that they may not be long for this world. At least in the numbers we are accustomed to.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/slow-motion-ocean-atlantics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
And, for the popularized version,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/the-oceans-circulation-hasnt-been-this-sluggish-in-1000-years-thats-bad-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.40f1d054513f
Ah, climate change. Bringing an end to the Gulf Stream and colder weather to the Northeast. (Not to mention Europe.)
Remember, while you’re being thankful for all those fish, that they may not be long for this world. At least in the numbers we are accustomed to.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/slow-motion-ocean-atlantics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
And, for the popularized version,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/the-oceans-circulation-hasnt-been-this-sluggish-in-1000-years-thats-bad-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.40f1d054513f
Ah, climate change. Bringing an end to the Gulf Stream and colder weather to the Northeast. (Not to mention Europe.)
Ah, climate change. Bringing an end to the Gulf Stream and colder weather to the Northeast.
And all this time I’ve been waiting for NJ to get the weather of coastal NC. Now it’s going to be the other way around. Damn!
Ah, climate change. Bringing an end to the Gulf Stream and colder weather to the Northeast.
And all this time I’ve been waiting for NJ to get the weather of coastal NC. Now it’s going to be the other way around. Damn!
I think the policy should cross the whole range of places where data can be mined
works for me.
I suspect what we will see is something that, while arguably better, suffers from being written by people who have no clue about what the unintended consequences might be.
given the choice of that, or it being written by lobbyists for folks who want to game the law to make their personal billion, I’ll go with the clueless outsiders.
but I think it might be a false choice. I suspect there are people out there somewhere who are both knowledgeable and financially disinterested.
Bringing an end to the Gulf Stream and colder weather to the Northeast.
A likely cause for the Younger Dryas was the interruption of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation due to glacial melt.
Good times.
I think the policy should cross the whole range of places where data can be mined
works for me.
I suspect what we will see is something that, while arguably better, suffers from being written by people who have no clue about what the unintended consequences might be.
given the choice of that, or it being written by lobbyists for folks who want to game the law to make their personal billion, I’ll go with the clueless outsiders.
but I think it might be a false choice. I suspect there are people out there somewhere who are both knowledgeable and financially disinterested.
Bringing an end to the Gulf Stream and colder weather to the Northeast.
A likely cause for the Younger Dryas was the interruption of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation due to glacial melt.
Good times.
I got interested in how far back I could find any of my blog comments. I stumbled upon this:
http://coyotequiddity.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberals-philosophy-xvi-blog-122.html
Here’s the intro, referring to a thread on this very blog (meaning ObWi, not the one linked):
Mind you, that’s the characterization made by the commenter with whom people were arguing. (It’s a very unbiased assessment.)
As Johnny Carson used to say, “Funny stuff.”
I got interested in how far back I could find any of my blog comments. I stumbled upon this:
http://coyotequiddity.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberals-philosophy-xvi-blog-122.html
Here’s the intro, referring to a thread on this very blog (meaning ObWi, not the one linked):
Mind you, that’s the characterization made by the commenter with whom people were arguing. (It’s a very unbiased assessment.)
As Johnny Carson used to say, “Funny stuff.”
hsh, I am never clicking on one of your links again. 😉
Sheesh. Did urbancoyote get banned? … No, don’t even answer that.
I first came here when Andrew Sullivan linked to Andrew Olmsted’s last post. So I owe Andrew that much.
I have no idea when I first wrote a blog comment, but it was probably at Ed Brayton’s “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” in maybe 2004ish. Not long afterwards, Brayton was a jerk to a commenter in a way that made me decide I wasn’t all that interested in his thoughts. It took me longer with Andrew Sullivan, in part because the Dish was so eclectic in its subject matter and I enjoyed that.
Aside from other scattered pokings around, the only other blog I once read pretty faithfully (to the point of having at least a phone acquaintance with one of the front-pagers) was 3 Quarks Daily. With that one I just lost the energy.
hsh, I am never clicking on one of your links again. 😉
Sheesh. Did urbancoyote get banned? … No, don’t even answer that.
I first came here when Andrew Sullivan linked to Andrew Olmsted’s last post. So I owe Andrew that much.
I have no idea when I first wrote a blog comment, but it was probably at Ed Brayton’s “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” in maybe 2004ish. Not long afterwards, Brayton was a jerk to a commenter in a way that made me decide I wasn’t all that interested in his thoughts. It took me longer with Andrew Sullivan, in part because the Dish was so eclectic in its subject matter and I enjoyed that.
Aside from other scattered pokings around, the only other blog I once read pretty faithfully (to the point of having at least a phone acquaintance with one of the front-pagers) was 3 Quarks Daily. With that one I just lost the energy.
Much as I’d like to celebrate the Fall of Paul, my WI connections give me little hope for an quick turnaround. The subtlety of WI white supremacy makes it all the more pernicious and hard to eradicate.
But hey, there is new (heavy, progressive pipe organ) music, like Anna von Hausswolff, so…
Should tide me over until the new Amorphis album comes out.
Much as I’d like to celebrate the Fall of Paul, my WI connections give me little hope for an quick turnaround. The subtlety of WI white supremacy makes it all the more pernicious and hard to eradicate.
But hey, there is new (heavy, progressive pipe organ) music, like Anna von Hausswolff, so…
Should tide me over until the new Amorphis album comes out.
Google can still find internet communications of mine from 1992.
can’t say when my first ‘blog’ posting was, because i was certainly using (and hosting) things that looked like blogs well before ‘blog’ became a word.
Google can still find internet communications of mine from 1992.
can’t say when my first ‘blog’ posting was, because i was certainly using (and hosting) things that looked like blogs well before ‘blog’ became a word.
So I owe Andrew that much.
Andrew Sullivan, that is.
cleek — 1992 … talk about early adopters…….
I never landed in the early internet world pf list-serves, etc. I was busy having my kids and settling in Maine so it took me a while.
So I owe Andrew that much.
Andrew Sullivan, that is.
cleek — 1992 … talk about early adopters…….
I never landed in the early internet world pf list-serves, etc. I was busy having my kids and settling in Maine so it took me a while.
if Google could still search usenet, it would show me (embarrassing) records of me as far back as 1988 – that’s when i first met the net.
if Google could still search usenet, it would show me (embarrassing) records of me as far back as 1988 – that’s when i first met the net.
From that thread:
John Thullen
Posted May 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Alternative lives:
Pol Pot, cutting short his stint at the Engineering School of Information Technology and Management in Paris because he found the subject matter tedious, decides to enroll at the French Culinary Institute to pursue his authentic passion.
After graduation, he is accepted for an apprenticeship with a renowned three-star chef in Lyon and advances rapidly to sous chef. His mentor bankrolls Chef Pot in a new venture, a little establishment where he begins experimenting with a menu of classic French food infused with Asian ingredients –the first known example of French-Asian fusion cuisine.
He is awarded three stars and after becoming an institution in France, he accepts an offer to head up the staff of a new establishment in New York. He builds the restaurant’s reputation to three-star status in the high-pressure New York scene of the 1960s and early 1970s , but then has one star removed by the New York Times food critic at the time, and descends into a deep and embittered depression and eventually a breakdown.
He rarely ventures out of his small New York apartment, becoming a recluse, though his name remains legend in culinary circles. He spends his days plotting vengeance on those who have wronged him, concocting a complicated scheme to murder, one by one and by gruesome means, all of the major food critics in New York, starting with those who wear eyeglasses.
Catching himself before this plan could become reality, he disappears into foody oblivion, working at a succession of New Jersey truck stops as a short-order cook, finally ending up at a low-end ski resort in New England, where he once again prepares a menu combining Asian and French influences fused with the fresh produce of the New England region.
He is rediscovered in the mid-1990s, now a man over 70, by Emeril Lagasse, who invites him on to his show on the Food Channel. They part amicably after disagreeing on the amount of cayenne papper one should use in a Cambodian pot au feu, and he now has two shows on the Food Channel and writes a column for Bon Appetite Magazine as he relaxes into his chef emeritus days.
Tune in next week when we trace the life of Joseph Stalin, whose existence turned on a single incident as a 30-something revolutionary when he spots by accident the beautiful 12-year-old Grand Duchess Anastasia, who drops one white glove in his path as she enters the St Petersburg Opera House after catching his eye.
Weary from frequent exiles to Siberia, and like Dante seeking Beatrice, he succumbs to hopeless longing and turns inward, writing some bad poetry and spending his days outside the palace trying to catch a glimpse of his beloved.
We’ll also pay a visit to the young Adolf Hitler in Austria, who early on takes a shine to dogs, and studies biology and tries to eliminate the genetic aggressiveness out of the Doberman and German Shepherd breeds, eventually succeeding and opening a successful guide-dog training school for blind Hasidim.
From that thread:
John Thullen
Posted May 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Alternative lives:
Pol Pot, cutting short his stint at the Engineering School of Information Technology and Management in Paris because he found the subject matter tedious, decides to enroll at the French Culinary Institute to pursue his authentic passion.
After graduation, he is accepted for an apprenticeship with a renowned three-star chef in Lyon and advances rapidly to sous chef. His mentor bankrolls Chef Pot in a new venture, a little establishment where he begins experimenting with a menu of classic French food infused with Asian ingredients –the first known example of French-Asian fusion cuisine.
He is awarded three stars and after becoming an institution in France, he accepts an offer to head up the staff of a new establishment in New York. He builds the restaurant’s reputation to three-star status in the high-pressure New York scene of the 1960s and early 1970s , but then has one star removed by the New York Times food critic at the time, and descends into a deep and embittered depression and eventually a breakdown.
He rarely ventures out of his small New York apartment, becoming a recluse, though his name remains legend in culinary circles. He spends his days plotting vengeance on those who have wronged him, concocting a complicated scheme to murder, one by one and by gruesome means, all of the major food critics in New York, starting with those who wear eyeglasses.
Catching himself before this plan could become reality, he disappears into foody oblivion, working at a succession of New Jersey truck stops as a short-order cook, finally ending up at a low-end ski resort in New England, where he once again prepares a menu combining Asian and French influences fused with the fresh produce of the New England region.
He is rediscovered in the mid-1990s, now a man over 70, by Emeril Lagasse, who invites him on to his show on the Food Channel. They part amicably after disagreeing on the amount of cayenne papper one should use in a Cambodian pot au feu, and he now has two shows on the Food Channel and writes a column for Bon Appetite Magazine as he relaxes into his chef emeritus days.
Tune in next week when we trace the life of Joseph Stalin, whose existence turned on a single incident as a 30-something revolutionary when he spots by accident the beautiful 12-year-old Grand Duchess Anastasia, who drops one white glove in his path as she enters the St Petersburg Opera House after catching his eye.
Weary from frequent exiles to Siberia, and like Dante seeking Beatrice, he succumbs to hopeless longing and turns inward, writing some bad poetry and spending his days outside the palace trying to catch a glimpse of his beloved.
We’ll also pay a visit to the young Adolf Hitler in Austria, who early on takes a shine to dogs, and studies biology and tries to eliminate the genetic aggressiveness out of the Doberman and German Shepherd breeds, eventually succeeding and opening a successful guide-dog training school for blind Hasidim.
Ugh – finder of diamonds inside turds.
Ugh – finder of diamonds inside turds.
Now I feel ancient. My usenet use goes back to the UUCP days, when half the US traffic between East and West Coasts ran through Bell Labs’ private network while it was relatively idle at night…
Now I feel ancient. My usenet use goes back to the UUCP days, when half the US traffic between East and West Coasts ran through Bell Labs’ private network while it was relatively idle at night…
Since I probably idled away many hours at work reading that thread when it was shiny and new, I could only make it a little ways in, then scrolled through mostly to see the makeup of the commentariat, many familiar names who no longer, or seldom, make an appearance these days.
Since I probably idled away many hours at work reading that thread when it was shiny and new, I could only make it a little ways in, then scrolled through mostly to see the makeup of the commentariat, many familiar names who no longer, or seldom, make an appearance these days.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Now we seem to have a reprise of the Watergate tapes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-allies-worry-that-federal-investigators-may-have-seized-recordings-made-by-his-attorney/2018/04/12/16d6345a-3e89-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html
It seems that Mr Cohen had a thing for making tapes . . . and Trump’s allies are wondering if the FBI got some (or lots) in their search. And what might be on those tapes.
Anyone else feeling like we’ve seen this movie before?
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Now we seem to have a reprise of the Watergate tapes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-allies-worry-that-federal-investigators-may-have-seized-recordings-made-by-his-attorney/2018/04/12/16d6345a-3e89-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html
It seems that Mr Cohen had a thing for making tapes . . . and Trump’s allies are wondering if the FBI got some (or lots) in their search. And what might be on those tapes.
Anyone else feeling like we’ve seen this movie before?
What movie?
What movie?
Watergate redux. first tragedy, then farce.
Watergate redux. first tragedy, then farce.
Tragedy requires a protagonist with virtues, to which his “tragic flaw” contrasts. When thete are no virtues, farce is all that’s left.
Tragedy requires a protagonist with virtues, to which his “tragic flaw” contrasts. When thete are no virtues, farce is all that’s left.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
“Some details I’ve been able to glean, with the caveat that as ‘South Front’ has noted: ‘most the information tidbits are sourced from anonymous sources’.
Russian MoD has released a photo of a Su 34 overflying Syria with a rack of anti ship missiles (kh 37?). Russia has asked Iran for basing near Iraq & todays news is that Russian strat. bombers are taking off. The Su 34 pic is a message to USN that Russia will attack missile launching destroyers. The big bombers going to Iran will be armed with long range cruise missiles; carrier killers. SmoothieX12 can probably comment this better.
The US has apparently asked Turkey, Iraq & Jordon for overflight privileges
South Front makes USN resources in the Med as 3-4 destroyers within days & 1 or 2 sub armed with cruise missiles. I think their calculation was a wave of 750 missiles, not including French or British assets. The carrier group is a week or more away.
What the Israelis will do is another mystery but I think they are motivated to play with fire. Hezbollah knows this so if push turns to shove I expect them to attack Israel.”
Accuracy not verified. Suggest other sources. But Pat Lang’s crew is scared. I think a short limited shooting war is possible, followed by a longer semi-hot war, including economic disengagement from Russia, China, parts of ME, who knows. Recession or depression, war economy, authoritarianism, fascism.
The key to understanding the Republican Southrons is that they don’t care if their serfs are poor. Alabama and Mississippi love being on the bottom of standards of living.
So look at Dixie, at Alabama, Miss, Utah and understand that they love autarky, even if it means poverty. I thought Trump might arrange the isolation of the US.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
“Some details I’ve been able to glean, with the caveat that as ‘South Front’ has noted: ‘most the information tidbits are sourced from anonymous sources’.
Russian MoD has released a photo of a Su 34 overflying Syria with a rack of anti ship missiles (kh 37?). Russia has asked Iran for basing near Iraq & todays news is that Russian strat. bombers are taking off. The Su 34 pic is a message to USN that Russia will attack missile launching destroyers. The big bombers going to Iran will be armed with long range cruise missiles; carrier killers. SmoothieX12 can probably comment this better.
The US has apparently asked Turkey, Iraq & Jordon for overflight privileges
South Front makes USN resources in the Med as 3-4 destroyers within days & 1 or 2 sub armed with cruise missiles. I think their calculation was a wave of 750 missiles, not including French or British assets. The carrier group is a week or more away.
What the Israelis will do is another mystery but I think they are motivated to play with fire. Hezbollah knows this so if push turns to shove I expect them to attack Israel.”
Accuracy not verified. Suggest other sources. But Pat Lang’s crew is scared. I think a short limited shooting war is possible, followed by a longer semi-hot war, including economic disengagement from Russia, China, parts of ME, who knows. Recession or depression, war economy, authoritarianism, fascism.
The key to understanding the Republican Southrons is that they don’t care if their serfs are poor. Alabama and Mississippi love being on the bottom of standards of living.
So look at Dixie, at Alabama, Miss, Utah and understand that they love autarky, even if it means poverty. I thought Trump might arrange the isolation of the US.
Russia USA Israel Iran Turkey Syria …
What could possibly go wrong?
Why oh why did they support “the rebels” in the first place? They never learn, this is how world wars start:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/syria-elements-world-wars-west-leaders-escalate-history
Russia USA Israel Iran Turkey Syria …
What could possibly go wrong?
Why oh why did they support “the rebels” in the first place? They never learn, this is how world wars start:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/syria-elements-world-wars-west-leaders-escalate-history
novakant,
remember, the prime directive is “always” (haha), “We have to DO something!”
novakant,
remember, the prime directive is “always” (haha), “We have to DO something!”
“That letter is great evidence that the CIA should be razed to the ground and rebuilt as an intelligence gathering outfit w/o operations.”
I think the problem is deeper. We could raze the CIA, but then we would outsource torture to our allies or have another agency do the dirty work.
The deeper problem imo is that we have a bipartisan foreign policy community ( politicians, bureaucrats, think tanks funded by various groups with agendas, and mainstream pundits) who think the US is above the law. Both our laws and international law. Torture is a policy dispute and certainly nothing that should get in the way of anyone’s career. This principle also extends to state sponsored terrorism and wars to topple dictators we don’t like, even as we support other dictators as they commit crimes against humanity similar to the ones we condemn.
In the case of Syria, Trump has taken every conceivable position. He is clearly the biggest narcissistic idiot we have ever had in the WH, utterly unreliable, and yet many supposedly responsible people want him to bomb Syria, which might lead to a wider war with Iran, and possibly with Russia.
We and our Saudi allies have funded a covert war in Syria, pouring arms into there which often ended up in the hands of either ISIS or Al Qaeda in a matter of weeks. The group in Douma , the Army of Islam, used chemical weapons against civilians in Aleppo two years ago according to the VOA. They have put civilians in cages. At one point they called for the extermination of the Shi’a. For awhile we funded a different group which later put up a video of its members chopping the head off a teenage boy.
The Syrian civil war began with peaceful demonstrations which the Assad government suppressed by shooting and arresting people. There is also a history of violent Muslim fundamentalist opposition there and there are claims violence from them came very early on. I don’t know. At any rate, the US in its wisdom thought it would be a great idea to support a violent revolution. Consequently over 100,000 Syrian soldiers and militia have been killed, many of them Alawites who fear genocide if the rebels win.
Imagine some hypothetical country pouring billions of dollars into the hands of “ moderate Palestinian rebels”. Hamas would easily qualify by Syrian standards. The extremist group there is Islamic Jihad, but much of the weapons would end in their hands. Suppose as a result a war went on for years, with 100,000 dead among the IDF. How would Israel fight such a war? The WB and Gaza would be piles of rubble. And the US would put all the blame on the Palestinians and their supporters. We would be Russia in that situation and would be doing some of the bombing.
My point being that we did is the equivalent of trying to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict by fueling a civil war where massive death tolls were guaranteed. But our foreign policy elite in both parties blames Obama and Trump for not intervening and wants Donald Trump to rectify Obama’s unwillingness to intervene even more. Donald Freaking Trump as the savior of the Middle East.
Our foreign policy community is arrogant, irresponsible, and basically criminal. Trump just adds a massive dose of naked corruption and personal instability to the mix, but most of the Beltway needs to be burned to the ground and replaced with people who aren’t morally insane.
“That letter is great evidence that the CIA should be razed to the ground and rebuilt as an intelligence gathering outfit w/o operations.”
I think the problem is deeper. We could raze the CIA, but then we would outsource torture to our allies or have another agency do the dirty work.
The deeper problem imo is that we have a bipartisan foreign policy community ( politicians, bureaucrats, think tanks funded by various groups with agendas, and mainstream pundits) who think the US is above the law. Both our laws and international law. Torture is a policy dispute and certainly nothing that should get in the way of anyone’s career. This principle also extends to state sponsored terrorism and wars to topple dictators we don’t like, even as we support other dictators as they commit crimes against humanity similar to the ones we condemn.
In the case of Syria, Trump has taken every conceivable position. He is clearly the biggest narcissistic idiot we have ever had in the WH, utterly unreliable, and yet many supposedly responsible people want him to bomb Syria, which might lead to a wider war with Iran, and possibly with Russia.
We and our Saudi allies have funded a covert war in Syria, pouring arms into there which often ended up in the hands of either ISIS or Al Qaeda in a matter of weeks. The group in Douma , the Army of Islam, used chemical weapons against civilians in Aleppo two years ago according to the VOA. They have put civilians in cages. At one point they called for the extermination of the Shi’a. For awhile we funded a different group which later put up a video of its members chopping the head off a teenage boy.
The Syrian civil war began with peaceful demonstrations which the Assad government suppressed by shooting and arresting people. There is also a history of violent Muslim fundamentalist opposition there and there are claims violence from them came very early on. I don’t know. At any rate, the US in its wisdom thought it would be a great idea to support a violent revolution. Consequently over 100,000 Syrian soldiers and militia have been killed, many of them Alawites who fear genocide if the rebels win.
Imagine some hypothetical country pouring billions of dollars into the hands of “ moderate Palestinian rebels”. Hamas would easily qualify by Syrian standards. The extremist group there is Islamic Jihad, but much of the weapons would end in their hands. Suppose as a result a war went on for years, with 100,000 dead among the IDF. How would Israel fight such a war? The WB and Gaza would be piles of rubble. And the US would put all the blame on the Palestinians and their supporters. We would be Russia in that situation and would be doing some of the bombing.
My point being that we did is the equivalent of trying to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict by fueling a civil war where massive death tolls were guaranteed. But our foreign policy elite in both parties blames Obama and Trump for not intervening and wants Donald Trump to rectify Obama’s unwillingness to intervene even more. Donald Freaking Trump as the savior of the Middle East.
Our foreign policy community is arrogant, irresponsible, and basically criminal. Trump just adds a massive dose of naked corruption and personal instability to the mix, but most of the Beltway needs to be burned to the ground and replaced with people who aren’t morally insane.
The VOA story
https://www.voanews.com/a/kurdish-officials-rebels-may-have-used-chemicals-aleppo/3276743.html
The VOA story
https://www.voanews.com/a/kurdish-officials-rebels-may-have-used-chemicals-aleppo/3276743.html
Just a little more (coffee, pyramid og (kushy), blue dream)
Oh, read a review of the remake of anime Legend of Galactic Heroes, and would take too long, but this line was nice:
“If you’re in the mood for wry men ponderously deciding the fate of millions of soldiers, Galactic Heroes is the place to be.” …bobduh, Wrong Every Time.
Why do we peasants talk of war and “speak of the death of kings” or something like that from Richard II near my favorite Shakes cause it talks of the tragic origins of war and horror. We’re peasants, kings and generals and oligarchs do what they will we pay for it and watch it on tv? And suffer and die.
Donna Haraway
has a new book out. One of my mentors. This review contrasts her sharply with Naomi Klein.
“We are situated beings, and Haraway fleshes out the possibilities that exist in our fully living with, in sympoiesis (collective collaboration), nonhuman beings – the animals (which Haraway endearingly calls critters), insects, micro-organisms and bacteria, plants and geological formations that enfold us in their presence. Similarly, Morton provocatively urges solidarity with ‘nonhuman people’. We are cadet Gaians, junior partners in what used to be called the great chain of being. Humility has been forced upon us by circumstance. Sympoiesis is now, Haraway urges, our opportunity.”
Haraway’s turn toward animals and ecology has implications, i.e., for our attitudes toward other agents with differing intelligences and capabilities for example computer programs and self-driving cars.
Listening to Kenny Drew, Karima Nayt, lots of Haydn. Don’t much like Vivaldi, but checked out Archie Corelli and and damn that’s smooth shit.
Thinking about fading out and making a statement by studying the Haydn Quartets, especially Opus 50. Got three books. As pointless and useless as possible, I wanna fiddle while it all goes morel and shiitake clouds.
Just a little more (coffee, pyramid og (kushy), blue dream)
Oh, read a review of the remake of anime Legend of Galactic Heroes, and would take too long, but this line was nice:
“If you’re in the mood for wry men ponderously deciding the fate of millions of soldiers, Galactic Heroes is the place to be.” …bobduh, Wrong Every Time.
Why do we peasants talk of war and “speak of the death of kings” or something like that from Richard II near my favorite Shakes cause it talks of the tragic origins of war and horror. We’re peasants, kings and generals and oligarchs do what they will we pay for it and watch it on tv? And suffer and die.
Donna Haraway
has a new book out. One of my mentors. This review contrasts her sharply with Naomi Klein.
“We are situated beings, and Haraway fleshes out the possibilities that exist in our fully living with, in sympoiesis (collective collaboration), nonhuman beings – the animals (which Haraway endearingly calls critters), insects, micro-organisms and bacteria, plants and geological formations that enfold us in their presence. Similarly, Morton provocatively urges solidarity with ‘nonhuman people’. We are cadet Gaians, junior partners in what used to be called the great chain of being. Humility has been forced upon us by circumstance. Sympoiesis is now, Haraway urges, our opportunity.”
Haraway’s turn toward animals and ecology has implications, i.e., for our attitudes toward other agents with differing intelligences and capabilities for example computer programs and self-driving cars.
Listening to Kenny Drew, Karima Nayt, lots of Haydn. Don’t much like Vivaldi, but checked out Archie Corelli and and damn that’s smooth shit.
Thinking about fading out and making a statement by studying the Haydn Quartets, especially Opus 50. Got three books. As pointless and useless as possible, I wanna fiddle while it all goes morel and shiitake clouds.
Oh, before I forget, just finished Amartya Sen’s recent(? 5yr) Uncertain Glory and this is a sublime and brilliant piece of sustained social democratic advocacy for programs to help the poor in a radically unequal neoliberal India. This is how it’s done, at least how liberals do it. There is a lot to learn from this book.
Oh, before I forget, just finished Amartya Sen’s recent(? 5yr) Uncertain Glory and this is a sublime and brilliant piece of sustained social democratic advocacy for programs to help the poor in a radically unequal neoliberal India. This is how it’s done, at least how liberals do it. There is a lot to learn from this book.
Thinking about fading out and making a statement by studying the Haydn Quartets, especially Opus 50.
I’m envious.
Enjoy!!
Thinking about fading out and making a statement by studying the Haydn Quartets, especially Opus 50.
I’m envious.
Enjoy!!
What a drag that McKinney, for example, seems to have disappeared off into his work and life. I do so wonder what his (and Marty’s) view on this stuff would be, given their unshakeable belief in HRC’s criminality and corruption, and certainty that she would have been as undesirable a president as Trump. Are they starting to get the dizzying symptoms of cognitive dissonance yet, or are they still protected from them in the bubble…:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/rosenstein-firing-coming/557894/?utm_source=twb
What a drag that McKinney, for example, seems to have disappeared off into his work and life. I do so wonder what his (and Marty’s) view on this stuff would be, given their unshakeable belief in HRC’s criminality and corruption, and certainty that she would have been as undesirable a president as Trump. Are they starting to get the dizzying symptoms of cognitive dissonance yet, or are they still protected from them in the bubble…:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/rosenstein-firing-coming/557894/?utm_source=twb
By the way, I apologise if I still seem to be fighting past battles. I just can’t help myself from wondering how “conservatives” are dealing with this stuff psychologically.
By the way, I apologise if I still seem to be fighting past battles. I just can’t help myself from wondering how “conservatives” are dealing with this stuff psychologically.
I just can’t help myself from wondering how “conservatives” are dealing with this stuff psychologically.
statistically speaking, they love and worship Trump and will defend him till the very end. 80+% of Republicans approve of him.
it’s a cult. they have to.
I just can’t help myself from wondering how “conservatives” are dealing with this stuff psychologically.
statistically speaking, they love and worship Trump and will defend him till the very end. 80+% of Republicans approve of him.
it’s a cult. they have to.
I just can’t help myself from wondering how “conservatives” are dealing with this stuff psychologically.
Well, the first thing to realize is that they are not, in reality, conservatives. (And, truth be told, never were.) Real conservatives were merely the closest politicians available to what they really wanted. Now, they’ve got a populist reactionary who will tell them what they really always wanted to hear. So psychologically, it’s easier to deal with than it used to be.
I just can’t help myself from wondering how “conservatives” are dealing with this stuff psychologically.
Well, the first thing to realize is that they are not, in reality, conservatives. (And, truth be told, never were.) Real conservatives were merely the closest politicians available to what they really wanted. Now, they’ve got a populist reactionary who will tell them what they really always wanted to hear. So psychologically, it’s easier to deal with than it used to be.
I’m not surprised that “conservatives” have no problem with Trump’s stupidity and ignorance, nor with his criminality. But I am surprised that they seem to have no difficulty overlooking his public boorishness, towards his wife in particular.
I’m not surprised that “conservatives” have no problem with Trump’s stupidity and ignorance, nor with his criminality. But I am surprised that they seem to have no difficulty overlooking his public boorishness, towards his wife in particular.
So wj, using cleek’s stats (which I have just looked up on the Gallup site), do you think that those 80+% of self-identifying Republicans were never in reality conservatives? I hope this question makes (statistical, and other) sense, it’s been a hard week and I am already slightly drunk…..
So wj, using cleek’s stats (which I have just looked up on the Gallup site), do you think that those 80+% of self-identifying Republicans were never in reality conservatives? I hope this question makes (statistical, and other) sense, it’s been a hard week and I am already slightly drunk…..
So wj, using cleek’s stats (which I have just looked up on the Gallup site), do you think that those 80+% of self-identifying Republicans were never in reality conservatives? I hope this question makes (statistical, and other) sense, it’s been a hard week and I am already slightly drunk…..
So wj, using cleek’s stats (which I have just looked up on the Gallup site), do you think that those 80+% of self-identifying Republicans were never in reality conservatives? I hope this question makes (statistical, and other) sense, it’s been a hard week and I am already slightly drunk…..
But not so drunk I posted twice.
But not so drunk I posted twice.
So wj, using cleek’s stats (which I have just looked up on the Gallup site), do you think that those 80+% of self-identifying Republicans were never in reality conservatives?
I’d say that most of that 80% were, at best, reactionaries. (Which is not unrelated to conservative. But definitely not the same either.) Especially the ones that we acquired from the Deep South thanks to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.” With a big helping of “ignorance is bliss . . . so let’s glorify it.”
And of the rest of the GOP, the biggest portion were actually libertarians rather than conservatives. (Not libertarians in the Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan nut case version. But at least in the Koch brothers version.) I admit to the occasional libertarian leanings myself. Especially when I’ve been having to deal with some of the more toxic members of the far left. But not to the extent of denying the self-evident fact that there are some things that we simply need government to do.
So wj, using cleek’s stats (which I have just looked up on the Gallup site), do you think that those 80+% of self-identifying Republicans were never in reality conservatives?
I’d say that most of that 80% were, at best, reactionaries. (Which is not unrelated to conservative. But definitely not the same either.) Especially the ones that we acquired from the Deep South thanks to Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.” With a big helping of “ignorance is bliss . . . so let’s glorify it.”
And of the rest of the GOP, the biggest portion were actually libertarians rather than conservatives. (Not libertarians in the Ayn Rand/Paul Ryan nut case version. But at least in the Koch brothers version.) I admit to the occasional libertarian leanings myself. Especially when I’ve been having to deal with some of the more toxic members of the far left. But not to the extent of denying the self-evident fact that there are some things that we simply need government to do.
wj,
Was Ronald Reagan “conservative”, “reactionary”, “libertarian”, or what?
He was certainly a Republican, as was Nixon. If you care to distinguish between Reagan as president, governor, or anti-Medicare pitchman, feel free.
Also, feel free to classify the likes of Ryan, McConnell, any Bush, or any Cheney.
–TP
wj,
Was Ronald Reagan “conservative”, “reactionary”, “libertarian”, or what?
He was certainly a Republican, as was Nixon. If you care to distinguish between Reagan as president, governor, or anti-Medicare pitchman, feel free.
Also, feel free to classify the likes of Ryan, McConnell, any Bush, or any Cheney.
–TP
Thank you wj. So I see that your view entails a wholesale redefinition of present day GOPers as non-conservatives, which should not surprise me given their extraordinary abandonment of e.g. adherence to the principles of deficit reduction, and your own (clearly highly principled) insistence that you are yourself a Republican, and presumably a conservative, while obviously (and self-admittedly) having nothing whatsoever in common with today’s GOP. It seems an eccentric if noble position, relying on a kind of alternate reality. Understandable, of course, under the current circumstances.
(Rather conveniently, I disclaim all responsibility for this post due to drunkenness).
Thank you wj. So I see that your view entails a wholesale redefinition of present day GOPers as non-conservatives, which should not surprise me given their extraordinary abandonment of e.g. adherence to the principles of deficit reduction, and your own (clearly highly principled) insistence that you are yourself a Republican, and presumably a conservative, while obviously (and self-admittedly) having nothing whatsoever in common with today’s GOP. It seems an eccentric if noble position, relying on a kind of alternate reality. Understandable, of course, under the current circumstances.
(Rather conveniently, I disclaim all responsibility for this post due to drunkenness).
Tony, I’d say Reagan was a mix of conservative and mild libertarian. His rhetoric as governor tended to be a bit more extreme than he actually was, in response to the rather liberal political environment in California at the time.
What particularly distinguished Reagan from current Republican politicians is that he was willing to learn from experience and be seen to have done so — for example, when cutting taxes didn’t increase revenues as advertised, he had no problem raising them again.
Nixon was conservative for the time. But not obsessively so. (He, after all, is the President who created the EPA. Not to mention extending recognition to Red China.) He was happy to pander to conservatives to get elected, but also to do things that no rigid conservative ideologue would embrace.
And it should be noted that both were quite willing to work with Democrats in the various legislatures. Can you picture a current prominent Republican politician who would be willing to spend his evenings hanging out with a liberal Democratic who was Speaker of the House, the way Reagan did? Me neither.
Tony, I’d say Reagan was a mix of conservative and mild libertarian. His rhetoric as governor tended to be a bit more extreme than he actually was, in response to the rather liberal political environment in California at the time.
What particularly distinguished Reagan from current Republican politicians is that he was willing to learn from experience and be seen to have done so — for example, when cutting taxes didn’t increase revenues as advertised, he had no problem raising them again.
Nixon was conservative for the time. But not obsessively so. (He, after all, is the President who created the EPA. Not to mention extending recognition to Red China.) He was happy to pander to conservatives to get elected, but also to do things that no rigid conservative ideologue would embrace.
And it should be noted that both were quite willing to work with Democrats in the various legislatures. Can you picture a current prominent Republican politician who would be willing to spend his evenings hanging out with a liberal Democratic who was Speaker of the House, the way Reagan did? Me neither.
It seems an eccentric if noble position, relying on a kind of alternate reality.
Actually, I suppose it makes me a different kind of reactionary. I want to get back to a past where the lunatics were not running the asylum. 😉
It seems an eccentric if noble position, relying on a kind of alternate reality.
Actually, I suppose it makes me a different kind of reactionary. I want to get back to a past where the lunatics were not running the asylum. 😉
I dont know about McK but i can tell whose cognitive dissonance should be getting worse.
And its not mine.
Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power, to cleeks see no evil dismay, in the atfempt to force Trump out of office at any cost.
There is notjing left to talk about hereas Comey, in his scathing personal and childish rebuke of the idiot king, states plainly in his book he doesnt think Trump is guty of obstruction and Loretta Lynch protected Hilary.
My cd is fine.
I dont know about McK but i can tell whose cognitive dissonance should be getting worse.
And its not mine.
Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power, to cleeks see no evil dismay, in the atfempt to force Trump out of office at any cost.
There is notjing left to talk about hereas Comey, in his scathing personal and childish rebuke of the idiot king, states plainly in his book he doesnt think Trump is guty of obstruction and Loretta Lynch protected Hilary.
My cd is fine.
Trump has pardoned Libby. As far as I know, Libby is an unrepentant criminal.
After rereading a summary of the closing arguments[1], I’d say there is a reasonable chance that Libby lied in an attempt to protect himself. If that’s the case, Libby’s decision to lie was a mistake. As the prosecutor noted, “The sad truth is that sometimes when people lie it looks dumb when they get caught.”
On the other hand, Libby’s decision to lie may not have been dumb. So far as I can see, the only rational reason for Libby to lie to the grand jury was if he had evidence that other people in the White House violated the law. Other reasons don’t make sense:
1) Libby is a lawyer and would have fully understood that the 5th Amendment protected him against answering questions that would have tended to incriminate him.
2) Once a special counsel is appointed, an investigation is likely to be pretty thorough. A few convincing lies to a grand jury would be unlikely to convince the prosecutor that the case was too weak to be worth investigating thoroughly.
3) Grand jury testimony is secret, and generally only becomes public if it is used in a criminal prosecution. If Libby had been able to get through his grand jury testimony without either lying or implicating anyone in a crime, nothing he said to the grand jury, however embarrassing, would ever see the light of day.
So I think there is a real possibility that Libby successfully obstructed justice, and has now been pardoned for it.
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/libby-trial-final-arguments-about-scooter-cheney-truth/
Trump has pardoned Libby. As far as I know, Libby is an unrepentant criminal.
After rereading a summary of the closing arguments[1], I’d say there is a reasonable chance that Libby lied in an attempt to protect himself. If that’s the case, Libby’s decision to lie was a mistake. As the prosecutor noted, “The sad truth is that sometimes when people lie it looks dumb when they get caught.”
On the other hand, Libby’s decision to lie may not have been dumb. So far as I can see, the only rational reason for Libby to lie to the grand jury was if he had evidence that other people in the White House violated the law. Other reasons don’t make sense:
1) Libby is a lawyer and would have fully understood that the 5th Amendment protected him against answering questions that would have tended to incriminate him.
2) Once a special counsel is appointed, an investigation is likely to be pretty thorough. A few convincing lies to a grand jury would be unlikely to convince the prosecutor that the case was too weak to be worth investigating thoroughly.
3) Grand jury testimony is secret, and generally only becomes public if it is used in a criminal prosecution. If Libby had been able to get through his grand jury testimony without either lying or implicating anyone in a crime, nothing he said to the grand jury, however embarrassing, would ever see the light of day.
So I think there is a real possibility that Libby successfully obstructed justice, and has now been pardoned for it.
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/libby-trial-final-arguments-about-scooter-cheney-truth/
Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power
Are you including in your list of “abuses” the execution of a duly obtained search warrant against Mr Cohen? Because if so, you need to expand your complaint to include a far wider range of targets. (Just for openers, Mr Mueller et al. aren’t part of the FBI at all.)
In fact, you’d pretty much have to argue that the entire system for the administration of justice (at least at the Federal level) is badly broken. Is that where you’re at?
Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power
Are you including in your list of “abuses” the execution of a duly obtained search warrant against Mr Cohen? Because if so, you need to expand your complaint to include a far wider range of targets. (Just for openers, Mr Mueller et al. aren’t part of the FBI at all.)
In fact, you’d pretty much have to argue that the entire system for the administration of justice (at least at the Federal level) is badly broken. Is that where you’re at?
Not to mention, as of February 20th, the investigation had resulted in this:
Not to mention, as of February 20th, the investigation had resulted in this:
Marty: Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power … in the attempt to force Trump out of office at any cost.
Tell it to Christopher Wray, the guy He, Trump appointed to head the His FBI.
Your attitude toward the “idiot king” is schizophrenic at best, Marty. You seem to proclaim that if Lying Liar Jim Comey “states plainly in his book he doesn’t think Trump is guilty of obstruction” then that settles the matter in Dear Leader’s favor.
When He, Trump orders the Secret Service to go arrest Christopher Wray, head of the power-abusing FBI, and frogmarch him out of the building, what makes you think the SS will obey? Who will Dear Leader’s last defender be, do you think? I know, I know: not you. But you’ll fight His “enemies” to the death, it seems.
–TP
Marty: Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power … in the attempt to force Trump out of office at any cost.
Tell it to Christopher Wray, the guy He, Trump appointed to head the His FBI.
Your attitude toward the “idiot king” is schizophrenic at best, Marty. You seem to proclaim that if Lying Liar Jim Comey “states plainly in his book he doesn’t think Trump is guilty of obstruction” then that settles the matter in Dear Leader’s favor.
When He, Trump orders the Secret Service to go arrest Christopher Wray, head of the power-abusing FBI, and frogmarch him out of the building, what makes you think the SS will obey? Who will Dear Leader’s last defender be, do you think? I know, I know: not you. But you’ll fight His “enemies” to the death, it seems.
–TP
Doj/fbi/NY Attorney General thanks wj, oh wsit, everyone that had their boss fired.Well show this ass who’s in charge. the overreach at this point has reached ridiculous stage.
Im still looking for that collusion. Not a single charge related to that,
Doj/fbi/NY Attorney General thanks wj, oh wsit, everyone that had their boss fired.Well show this ass who’s in charge. the overreach at this point has reached ridiculous stage.
Im still looking for that collusion. Not a single charge related to that,
Yhey are now the enemies of democracy. A coup in slow motion. Thats not how we do things here. Only the Democrats cult could miss the plain truth that our justice system answers to no one, and brags thats the way its supposed to be. Say what?
They report to the President so we have control of them, they are not meant to be an independent and unaccountable shadow government.
Thats stupid. Migbt as well let the military take over.
Yhey are now the enemies of democracy. A coup in slow motion. Thats not how we do things here. Only the Democrats cult could miss the plain truth that our justice system answers to no one, and brags thats the way its supposed to be. Say what?
They report to the President so we have control of them, they are not meant to be an independent and unaccountable shadow government.
Thats stupid. Migbt as well let the military take over.
Marty: Might as well let the military take over.
What makes you think “the military” would be on He, Trump’s side?
Or yours, for that matter?
–TP
Marty: Might as well let the military take over.
What makes you think “the military” would be on He, Trump’s side?
Or yours, for that matter?
–TP
Did you feel the same way about Kenneth Starr?
Did you feel the same way about Kenneth Starr?
RE: Wisconsin White Supremacy, since I mentioned it earlier in the thread:
Here’s a not-so-subtle one blowing himself up by accident in Beaver Dam.
Wisconsin – summer playground for Illinois Nazis.
RE: Wisconsin White Supremacy, since I mentioned it earlier in the thread:
Here’s a not-so-subtle one blowing himself up by accident in Beaver Dam.
Wisconsin – summer playground for Illinois Nazis.
Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power, to cleeks see no evil dismay,
i’m still waiting for you to list all the FBI’s abuses.
go ahead, tell us all about them.
Every day the FBI demonstrates another abuse of its power, to cleeks see no evil dismay,
i’m still waiting for you to list all the FBI’s abuses.
go ahead, tell us all about them.
Im still looking for that collusion. Not a single charge related to that
Well it may be worth remembering that Mueller’s mandate isn’t to find collusion (or whatever the actual legal charge would be). It is to look at Russian interference in the US election — regardless of whether anybody here worked with them.
Somehow, Trump seems to feel that looking at Russian interference is an attack on him. “The guilty flee where no man pursueth.”
Im still looking for that collusion. Not a single charge related to that
Well it may be worth remembering that Mueller’s mandate isn’t to find collusion (or whatever the actual legal charge would be). It is to look at Russian interference in the US election — regardless of whether anybody here worked with them.
Somehow, Trump seems to feel that looking at Russian interference is an attack on him. “The guilty flee where no man pursueth.”
Excellent point, wj.
Excellent point, wj.
Only the Democrats cult could miss the plain truth that our justice system answers to no one, and brags thats the way its supposed to be. Say what?
Say what indeed! Would you rather than the justice system be a tool of whoever happens to have won the last election??? We used to have something like that. And decided that we would rather have a justice system composed (ideally, if not always successfully in practice) of people who are dedicated to impartiality and the rule of law.
Mostly, and with admitted failures, that’s what we have built. And, again mostly, those who stray from that ideal end up in trouble. They may last an unfortunately long time; some even get away with it for their entire career. They may get a Presidential Pardon. But I would say that most of the time most of the people working in the system at least try to achieve the ideal. And personally this Republican wouldn’t have it any other way.
Only the Democrats cult could miss the plain truth that our justice system answers to no one, and brags thats the way its supposed to be. Say what?
Say what indeed! Would you rather than the justice system be a tool of whoever happens to have won the last election??? We used to have something like that. And decided that we would rather have a justice system composed (ideally, if not always successfully in practice) of people who are dedicated to impartiality and the rule of law.
Mostly, and with admitted failures, that’s what we have built. And, again mostly, those who stray from that ideal end up in trouble. They may last an unfortunately long time; some even get away with it for their entire career. They may get a Presidential Pardon. But I would say that most of the time most of the people working in the system at least try to achieve the ideal. And personally this Republican wouldn’t have it any other way.
Yhey are now the enemies of democracy. A coup in slow motion.
LOL
lay off the Breitbart. it’s rotting your brain.
Yhey are now the enemies of democracy. A coup in slow motion.
LOL
lay off the Breitbart. it’s rotting your brain.
And it should be noted that both (Raygun, TrickyDicky) were quite willing to work with Democrats in the various legislatures.
I should think that having to deal with Congresses comprised mostly of Democrats may have had something to do with this. Plus, the two major parties were less ideologically cohesive back in those days.
And it should be noted that both (Raygun, TrickyDicky) were quite willing to work with Democrats in the various legislatures.
I should think that having to deal with Congresses comprised mostly of Democrats may have had something to do with this. Plus, the two major parties were less ideologically cohesive back in those days.
…they are not meant to be an independent and unaccountable shadow government.
You and some of my lefty friends should sit down at the bar for some drinks and commune about “the Deep State”. You would find you have this hot take in common with them.
I’d even stand the first round.
…they are not meant to be an independent and unaccountable shadow government.
You and some of my lefty friends should sit down at the bar for some drinks and commune about “the Deep State”. You would find you have this hot take in common with them.
I’d even stand the first round.
…and Loretta Lynch protected Hilary.
Protected her from what? I guess I’ll have to wait for the release of the book to look into this nugget of nonsense.
…and Loretta Lynch protected Hilary.
Protected her from what? I guess I’ll have to wait for the release of the book to look into this nugget of nonsense.
Say what indeed! Would you rather than the justice system be a tool of whoever happens to have won the last election???
Or better yet, the personal domain of J. Edgar Hoover, thus preserving its institutional “independence”. Those were the days!
Say what indeed! Would you rather than the justice system be a tool of whoever happens to have won the last election???
Or better yet, the personal domain of J. Edgar Hoover, thus preserving its institutional “independence”. Those were the days!
Just more Clinton Rules.
Just more Clinton Rules.
I dont know about McK but i can tell whose cognitive dissonance should be getting worse.
No CD for people who already thought Trump was not only horrible but also worse than Clinton (by a large margin).
I dont know about McK but i can tell whose cognitive dissonance should be getting worse.
No CD for people who already thought Trump was not only horrible but also worse than Clinton (by a large margin).
By which I mean everything coming out is entirely consistent with that, rather than dissonant.
By which I mean everything coming out is entirely consistent with that, rather than dissonant.
Charlie Pierce has some questions for “honorable” Republicans.
–TP
Charlie Pierce has some questions for “honorable” Republicans.
–TP
The Scooter Libby pardon is despicable. And hilzoy says on her twitter feed she’s taking to the streets if Trump fires Rosenstein. Good luck to any of you who plan to do the same thing.
The Scooter Libby pardon is despicable. And hilzoy says on her twitter feed she’s taking to the streets if Trump fires Rosenstein. Good luck to any of you who plan to do the same thing.
Good luck to any of you who plan to do the same thing.
Thanks. Plan on it. And Hilzoy is still a force.
Good luck to any of you who plan to do the same thing.
Thanks. Plan on it. And Hilzoy is still a force.
Weesa launch somes bombads1
Weesa launch somes bombads1
Putin made him do it. No American President ever bombed anyone unless a former KGB guy was pulling his strings.
Or maybe he is trying to show he isn’t a puppet. In which case he needs to do lots and lots of bombing. Show those Russians and Iranians which thugs he really likes. Not to mention the never Trump Republicans like McCain and his good buddies Netanyahu and MBS.
Putin made him do it. No American President ever bombed anyone unless a former KGB guy was pulling his strings.
Or maybe he is trying to show he isn’t a puppet. In which case he needs to do lots and lots of bombing. Show those Russians and Iranians which thugs he really likes. Not to mention the never Trump Republicans like McCain and his good buddies Netanyahu and MBS.
i can’t imagine the CD generated by looking at Trump and then spending your whole life trying to figure out ways to make sure everything, including the attempt bring him to justice, is still Teh Librulz fault.
c.u.l.t.
i can’t imagine the CD generated by looking at Trump and then spending your whole life trying to figure out ways to make sure everything, including the attempt bring him to justice, is still Teh Librulz fault.
c.u.l.t.
no collusion. you’re the puppet.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html#cardLink=tallRow1_card1
c.u.l.t.
no collusion. you’re the puppet.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html#cardLink=tallRow1_card1
c.u.l.t.
The fact (presuming, for the sake of discussion, that it is a fact; although it looks increasingly likely) that Putin is pulling Trump’s strings in no way suggests that he is the only one doing so.
In fact, it’s pretty clear that multiple folks have figured out approaches that work. Sometimes in different directions, which can be confusing . . . until you realize that someone with few if any views (on anything outside himself) is essentially a pinball.
The fact (presuming, for the sake of discussion, that it is a fact; although it looks increasingly likely) that Putin is pulling Trump’s strings in no way suggests that he is the only one doing so.
In fact, it’s pretty clear that multiple folks have figured out approaches that work. Sometimes in different directions, which can be confusing . . . until you realize that someone with few if any views (on anything outside himself) is essentially a pinball.
Mattis says it’s a one off. My tin foil hat paranoia votes for Putin putting Assad up to this so Drumf would get a chance to look presidential.
….and he still couldn’t pull it off.
Mattis says it’s a one off. My tin foil hat paranoia votes for Putin putting Assad up to this so Drumf would get a chance to look presidential.
….and he still couldn’t pull it off.
I don’t want him looking Presidential. . I wasted 14 minutes watching Haspel supporter Panetta telling the Morning Joe crowd that Trump needed a strategy. He wasn’t opposed to military force. Oh, no, not Panetta. We have to let those Syrian thugs know that if they are going to kill civilians they are going to do it the way they and the Russians and the Saudis and the Americans and the Israelis do it — with high explosives.
One indication that we are in the end times is that I find myself agreeing with a National Review columnist. This piece sounds exactly like what I wrote above.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/president-trump-syria-strike-threats-dont-celebrate/
For reasons that I am not completely clear about, somehow the topic of Syria gets the most Orwellian treatment of any political topic in my lifetime. Somehow people know we have been supporting rebels, they kind of know that many of these rebels really aren’t very nice, they are vaguely aware that the war has dragged on for years and hundreds of thousands have been killed and no, not all by Assad and this includes at least 100,000 fighting to keep the rebels out of power ( probably not so much for Assad as for him as the lesser evil). They know that the US and the Saudis kept the rebels going.
But the conversation is mostly about how Syria shows the dangers of our lack of intervention. We ridicule Gary Johnson for not knowing about Aleppo and people barely mention the city we flattened, Raqqa.
Last time tiny hands fired some cruise missiles he was criticized for not doing more. Apparently Mattis held him back this time.
People might want to take away the Congressional keys to the cruise missiles from tiny hands. It seems like a good idea, rather than continuing to let Presidents just bomb whoever they want.
Wonder how the NK summit will go.
I don’t want him looking Presidential. . I wasted 14 minutes watching Haspel supporter Panetta telling the Morning Joe crowd that Trump needed a strategy. He wasn’t opposed to military force. Oh, no, not Panetta. We have to let those Syrian thugs know that if they are going to kill civilians they are going to do it the way they and the Russians and the Saudis and the Americans and the Israelis do it — with high explosives.
One indication that we are in the end times is that I find myself agreeing with a National Review columnist. This piece sounds exactly like what I wrote above.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/president-trump-syria-strike-threats-dont-celebrate/
For reasons that I am not completely clear about, somehow the topic of Syria gets the most Orwellian treatment of any political topic in my lifetime. Somehow people know we have been supporting rebels, they kind of know that many of these rebels really aren’t very nice, they are vaguely aware that the war has dragged on for years and hundreds of thousands have been killed and no, not all by Assad and this includes at least 100,000 fighting to keep the rebels out of power ( probably not so much for Assad as for him as the lesser evil). They know that the US and the Saudis kept the rebels going.
But the conversation is mostly about how Syria shows the dangers of our lack of intervention. We ridicule Gary Johnson for not knowing about Aleppo and people barely mention the city we flattened, Raqqa.
Last time tiny hands fired some cruise missiles he was criticized for not doing more. Apparently Mattis held him back this time.
People might want to take away the Congressional keys to the cruise missiles from tiny hands. It seems like a good idea, rather than continuing to let Presidents just bomb whoever they want.
Wonder how the NK summit will go.
the focus on collusion is not to the point.
if mueller reports any potentially impeachable offense to congress it’s likely to be obstruction of justice. if that’s so, it will be because trump obstructed an investigation into russian interference in the election. he shouldn’t have done that, if it results in his impeachment that is on him.
mueller’s doing his job. if there is an animus toward trump among federal law enforcement people, it is an animus he has earned. he has the authority to hire and fire, but they are not his freaking lackeys. this isn’t the family business anymore, he’s not “the boss” and this isn’t a reality TV show. people in government have resposibilities and obligations that extend well beyond loyalty to the potus.
as far as the basic institutions of governance go, trump is clueless. more than that, he doesn’t appear to be interested in acquiring a clue. it may be possible to operate a closely held private family business by bullying and threatening people, the rules are quite different for positions of public responsibility.
i’m not even getting into the smorgasbord of corruption, criminality, and self-dealing that characterizes everyone in his circle.
it’ll land where it lands, and any negative outcomes trump suffers will be those he has earned.
the focus on collusion is not to the point.
if mueller reports any potentially impeachable offense to congress it’s likely to be obstruction of justice. if that’s so, it will be because trump obstructed an investigation into russian interference in the election. he shouldn’t have done that, if it results in his impeachment that is on him.
mueller’s doing his job. if there is an animus toward trump among federal law enforcement people, it is an animus he has earned. he has the authority to hire and fire, but they are not his freaking lackeys. this isn’t the family business anymore, he’s not “the boss” and this isn’t a reality TV show. people in government have resposibilities and obligations that extend well beyond loyalty to the potus.
as far as the basic institutions of governance go, trump is clueless. more than that, he doesn’t appear to be interested in acquiring a clue. it may be possible to operate a closely held private family business by bullying and threatening people, the rules are quite different for positions of public responsibility.
i’m not even getting into the smorgasbord of corruption, criminality, and self-dealing that characterizes everyone in his circle.
it’ll land where it lands, and any negative outcomes trump suffers will be those he has earned.
any negative outcomes trump suffers will be those he has earned.
Well, here’s hoping. (Who, friend or foe, could argue with: “He should get what he deserves?” 🤔)
any negative outcomes trump suffers will be those he has earned.
Well, here’s hoping. (Who, friend or foe, could argue with: “He should get what he deserves?” 🤔)
What think the commentariat of this from this morning’s New York Times – headline When Liberals become Progressives, Much is Lost.
I certainly see myself as a liberal, and probably a progressive too, but hadn’t really analysed the difference too much. Do we/you agree with any of his analysis or definitions?
What think the commentariat of this from this morning’s New York Times – headline When Liberals become Progressives, Much is Lost.
I certainly see myself as a liberal, and probably a progressive too, but hadn’t really analysed the difference too much. Do we/you agree with any of his analysis or definitions?
“Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Syria without Congress’s approval is illegal. We need to stop giving presidents a blank check to wage war. Today it’s Syria, but what’s going to stop him from bombing Iran or North Korea next?”
Tim Kaine.
oh well, his running mate wasn’t 100% perfect. so fuck him.
“Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Syria without Congress’s approval is illegal. We need to stop giving presidents a blank check to wage war. Today it’s Syria, but what’s going to stop him from bombing Iran or North Korea next?”
Tim Kaine.
oh well, his running mate wasn’t 100% perfect. so fuck him.
GftNC – I think he makes too much of labels and hit it on the head that liberal was demonized by the GOP so much that progressive is merely a different term for liberal these days.
As for what he claims is a “progressive” political philosophy, seems fairly straw-mannish to me based on a quick read.
GftNC – I think he makes too much of labels and hit it on the head that liberal was demonized by the GOP so much that progressive is merely a different term for liberal these days.
As for what he claims is a “progressive” political philosophy, seems fairly straw-mannish to me based on a quick read.
Thanks, Ugh.
liberal was demonized by the GOP so much that progressive is merely a different term for liberal these days
I certainly agree with this, and had rather assumed that was all there was to it. But since I’m always rather unsure of my grasp of political theory, I was/am curious to know what ObWi people at large think. Of course, it’s possible that this character is defining “progressives” in this way in order to have a subject to write about, and get grants and book deals to explore. You can never discount that kind of motivation when dealing with academics.
Thanks, Ugh.
liberal was demonized by the GOP so much that progressive is merely a different term for liberal these days
I certainly agree with this, and had rather assumed that was all there was to it. But since I’m always rather unsure of my grasp of political theory, I was/am curious to know what ObWi people at large think. Of course, it’s possible that this character is defining “progressives” in this way in order to have a subject to write about, and get grants and book deals to explore. You can never discount that kind of motivation when dealing with academics.
are there many Woodrow Wilson-style progressives around these days?
are there many Woodrow Wilson-style progressives around these days?
GFNC,
I smiled ruefully at the last paragraph where the author wrote, “One cannot, of course, make too much of labels.” This, as he was wrapping up an short exercise of doing exactly that.
We are all familiar with how the political right successfully turned the word “liberal” into a smear. But it is relevant to consider that the term, as commonly understood (in the US), was itself relatively new, arising in response to the disaster of the Great Depression and the fight, not against the “accumulated wisdom of the past” but against vested and powerful economic interests deeply wedded to the rather recent ideology of free market capitalism and its inhumane offspring, social Darwinism. The early 20th century Progressive Era was but one earlier iteration of this struggle.
But deeper down, the essay was yet again a plea for liberals to take up to baton of “compromise”, and the right? Not so much.
In this, it is deeply stupid (in the political sense).
GFNC,
I smiled ruefully at the last paragraph where the author wrote, “One cannot, of course, make too much of labels.” This, as he was wrapping up an short exercise of doing exactly that.
We are all familiar with how the political right successfully turned the word “liberal” into a smear. But it is relevant to consider that the term, as commonly understood (in the US), was itself relatively new, arising in response to the disaster of the Great Depression and the fight, not against the “accumulated wisdom of the past” but against vested and powerful economic interests deeply wedded to the rather recent ideology of free market capitalism and its inhumane offspring, social Darwinism. The early 20th century Progressive Era was but one earlier iteration of this struggle.
But deeper down, the essay was yet again a plea for liberals to take up to baton of “compromise”, and the right? Not so much.
In this, it is deeply stupid (in the political sense).
Woodrow Wilson?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/100571847/donald-trump-most-racist-us-president-since-woodrow-wilson
Much of became a Republican in the 1970’s along with the Southern Democrats and was re-elected as President in 2016.
Woodrow Wilson?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/100571847/donald-trump-most-racist-us-president-since-woodrow-wilson
Much of became a Republican in the 1970’s along with the Southern Democrats and was re-elected as President in 2016.
“conservatives” are no longer conservative. they are reactionary.
a party or political movement that seeks to preserve and maintain political, economic, and social norms that are almost a century old, and which have much older roots, is by definition conservative.
the debate is not between conservatism and something else. it is a debate about different understandings about the role and scope of government and its relationship to people, and it is a debate about culture.
the two debates overlap, but they are distinct.
“conservatives” are no longer conservative. they are reactionary.
a party or political movement that seeks to preserve and maintain political, economic, and social norms that are almost a century old, and which have much older roots, is by definition conservative.
the debate is not between conservatism and something else. it is a debate about different understandings about the role and scope of government and its relationship to people, and it is a debate about culture.
the two debates overlap, but they are distinct.
But deeper down, the essay was yet again a plea for liberals to take up to baton of “compromise”, and the right? Not so much.
It’s like the one about the husband and wife who both want to eat the one pie they have. After the husband offers to split it 50-50, the wife says, “Let’s compromise. I’ll take 3/4 and you get 1/4.” (You might say it’s a sexist joke, and you might be right, but I’m not endorsing the joke so much as the play on what compromise means.)
The difference is that so-called “conservatives” aren’t willing to give up a single bite these days.
But deeper down, the essay was yet again a plea for liberals to take up to baton of “compromise”, and the right? Not so much.
It’s like the one about the husband and wife who both want to eat the one pie they have. After the husband offers to split it 50-50, the wife says, “Let’s compromise. I’ll take 3/4 and you get 1/4.” (You might say it’s a sexist joke, and you might be right, but I’m not endorsing the joke so much as the play on what compromise means.)
The difference is that so-called “conservatives” aren’t willing to give up a single bite these days.
“oh well, his running mate wasn’t 100% perfect. so fuck him.”
Nor would she have been likely to agree with Tim Kaine on this point and would likely have bombed Syria more aggressively. And, not being under Putins thumb, would probably have expanded our involvement in Syria.
So bad example.
“oh well, his running mate wasn’t 100% perfect. so fuck him.”
Nor would she have been likely to agree with Tim Kaine on this point and would likely have bombed Syria more aggressively. And, not being under Putins thumb, would probably have expanded our involvement in Syria.
So bad example.
I am inclined to agree with Marty’s 11:10 AM.
Only the reaction in Congress (and parts of the media) would be slightly different.
Would be interesting to know though, whether the “she is the one actually under Putin’s thumb” talking point would be in play or not.
I am inclined to agree with Marty’s 11:10 AM.
Only the reaction in Congress (and parts of the media) would be slightly different.
Would be interesting to know though, whether the “she is the one actually under Putin’s thumb” talking point would be in play or not.
I would say that it’s entirely possible that a President Clinton would have been more vigorous militarily in Syria. But also that she would have been less likely to behave there in a blundering way that gets WW III going.
Also, to Kaine’s other point, it’s vastly less likely that she would have blustered and blundered us into wars in Iran or Korea. At the moment, I’d put the odds of Trump doing one or the other at about 1 in 4. (With, since it’s Trump, a huge uncertainty factor. Because who knows what, possibly totally unrelated, event or comment might set him off?)
I would say that it’s entirely possible that a President Clinton would have been more vigorous militarily in Syria. But also that she would have been less likely to behave there in a blundering way that gets WW III going.
Also, to Kaine’s other point, it’s vastly less likely that she would have blustered and blundered us into wars in Iran or Korea. At the moment, I’d put the odds of Trump doing one or the other at about 1 in 4. (With, since it’s Trump, a huge uncertainty factor. Because who knows what, possibly totally unrelated, event or comment might set him off?)
bobbyp and others, thanks for responses on NYT piece. Hard to disagree with any of them.
Also, what wj said 11.44 above.
bobbyp and others, thanks for responses on NYT piece. Hard to disagree with any of them.
Also, what wj said 11.44 above.
Yeah “liberals” preferred the label “progressive” after GOPers turned it into a swear word.
Just like GOPers preferred the label “tea party” after Dubya turned “Republican” into a swear word.
Yeah “liberals” preferred the label “progressive” after GOPers turned it into a swear word.
Just like GOPers preferred the label “tea party” after Dubya turned “Republican” into a swear word.
Tragedy requires a protagonist with virtues, to which his “tragic flaw” contrasts. When thete are no virtues, farce is all that’s left.
I’m not sure why, but this comment from wj popped into my head while I was doing yard work. I realized that the tragic hero was the United States, and Trump was just a particularly virulent manifestation of its tragic flaw.
Tragedy requires a protagonist with virtues, to which his “tragic flaw” contrasts. When thete are no virtues, farce is all that’s left.
I’m not sure why, but this comment from wj popped into my head while I was doing yard work. I realized that the tragic hero was the United States, and Trump was just a particularly virulent manifestation of its tragic flaw.
I realized that the tragic hero was the United States
Trying to imagine this guy, looks like uncle sam?, standing at Wounded Knee or Antietam. No, the United States of genocide, expansionism, slavery, rapacious capitalism, and neo-imperialism is not a tragic hero. Never was. Everybody, including the Nazis professes noble ideals and commits acts of benevolence, Not as many have wiping out entire nations as their identity (Algonquin, Apache, Nazis, Japan, Iraq, Libya)
The US, and the imperialism and monopoly capitalism it epitomizes is the villain of all the other stories.
And tragedy is dead. Been nothing but melodrama for two centuries.
I realized that the tragic hero was the United States
Trying to imagine this guy, looks like uncle sam?, standing at Wounded Knee or Antietam. No, the United States of genocide, expansionism, slavery, rapacious capitalism, and neo-imperialism is not a tragic hero. Never was. Everybody, including the Nazis professes noble ideals and commits acts of benevolence, Not as many have wiping out entire nations as their identity (Algonquin, Apache, Nazis, Japan, Iraq, Libya)
The US, and the imperialism and monopoly capitalism it epitomizes is the villain of all the other stories.
And tragedy is dead. Been nothing but melodrama for two centuries.
Yeah, wiping out that Nazi nation was truly reprehensible.
Yeah, wiping out that Nazi nation was truly reprehensible.
And for a nation which has been wiped out, Japan seems remarkably hale and hearty. With a culture which stretches back centuries before the United States (or even the colonies on which it was based) was even dreamed of.
And for a nation which has been wiped out, Japan seems remarkably hale and hearty. With a culture which stretches back centuries before the United States (or even the colonies on which it was based) was even dreamed of.
yes, counterfactual Hillary is the very worst thing anyone can imagine. always has been.
actual existing Donald Trump is actually bombing actual Syria, again.
yes, counterfactual Hillary is the very worst thing anyone can imagine. always has been.
actual existing Donald Trump is actually bombing actual Syria, again.
Clinton is irrelevant. The problem is that most of the people who criticize Trump for his belligerence would be (and have been) defending any Democrat doing the same or worse tooth and nail – and thus the nasty and stupid travesty called US Foreign Policy in the ME+ carries on and on.
Clinton is irrelevant. The problem is that most of the people who criticize Trump for his belligerence would be (and have been) defending any Democrat doing the same or worse tooth and nail – and thus the nasty and stupid travesty called US Foreign Policy in the ME+ carries on and on.
but ok… let’s have Pretend Times.
a world where Counterfactual Hillary (CfH) is President is a world where the US government is not a parade of grifting idiots following the staggering lead of a corrupt, compromised, inept, idiot clown. the US might still be respected. Syria might not feel emboldened to us chemical weapons; Russia might not feel emboldened to support them.
we might not be in a situation where Syria has used these weapons twice in the past year. because Trump has done fuck-all to help stabilize or defuse the Syria situation. but maybe CfH could.
or is CfH only allowed to play in the world that Trump inhabits? she just subs in when things start going bad.
seems pretty limited, as far as analytical tools go.
but ok… let’s have Pretend Times.
a world where Counterfactual Hillary (CfH) is President is a world where the US government is not a parade of grifting idiots following the staggering lead of a corrupt, compromised, inept, idiot clown. the US might still be respected. Syria might not feel emboldened to us chemical weapons; Russia might not feel emboldened to support them.
we might not be in a situation where Syria has used these weapons twice in the past year. because Trump has done fuck-all to help stabilize or defuse the Syria situation. but maybe CfH could.
or is CfH only allowed to play in the world that Trump inhabits? she just subs in when things start going bad.
seems pretty limited, as far as analytical tools go.
the problem is that most of the people who criticize Trump for his belligerence would be (and have been) defending any Democrat doing the same or worse tooth and nail
if that’s “the problem”, i say we don’t worry about it.
the problem is that most of the people who criticize Trump for his belligerence would be (and have been) defending any Democrat doing the same or worse tooth and nail
if that’s “the problem”, i say we don’t worry about it.
The problem is that our political class actually seems to believe it can, for example, support Saudi bombing in Yemen and oppose Russian bombing in Syria, condemn the shooting of peaceful protestors except when Israel does it, wax eloquent and outraged about Aleppo and Ghouta and say nothing about Raqqa and Mosul and expect their moralizing to be taken seriously.
They are, in effect, high functioning sociopaths. Trump is a low functioning sociopath. This is why so many warmongers in both parties hate him. He makes them look bad because at times he doesn’t even bother to pretend he has good motives. No class.
Plus it is actually hard to tell if he has enough sense not to start a nuclear war. The rest of our mass murdering foreign policy elite seem to realize that you only bully and kill people who can’t shoot back.
The problem is that our political class actually seems to believe it can, for example, support Saudi bombing in Yemen and oppose Russian bombing in Syria, condemn the shooting of peaceful protestors except when Israel does it, wax eloquent and outraged about Aleppo and Ghouta and say nothing about Raqqa and Mosul and expect their moralizing to be taken seriously.
They are, in effect, high functioning sociopaths. Trump is a low functioning sociopath. This is why so many warmongers in both parties hate him. He makes them look bad because at times he doesn’t even bother to pretend he has good motives. No class.
Plus it is actually hard to tell if he has enough sense not to start a nuclear war. The rest of our mass murdering foreign policy elite seem to realize that you only bully and kill people who can’t shoot back.
AFAIK, Kaine has a good record on wanting Congress to take back its warmaking powers. But for most politicians it is a partisan issue.
https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/984991095473000448
AFAIK, Kaine has a good record on wanting Congress to take back its warmaking powers. But for most politicians it is a partisan issue.
https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/984991095473000448
Donald, novakant,
Could you please take a moment to suggest what you’re FOR, or are you too outraged to do anything but denounce what you’re AGAINST?
I’d ask bob mcmanus the same question, but I’m not sure I’d have the erudition to understand his answer.
–TP
Donald, novakant,
Could you please take a moment to suggest what you’re FOR, or are you too outraged to do anything but denounce what you’re AGAINST?
I’d ask bob mcmanus the same question, but I’m not sure I’d have the erudition to understand his answer.
–TP
If I remember correctly I noted Kaine as a Democrat as close to someone I might vote for as existed.
But not for VP.
If I remember correctly I noted Kaine as a Democrat as close to someone I might vote for as existed.
But not for VP.
By the way, in case someone decides to make a partisan point, most Democrats voted on the right side in the most recent Yemen debate. It was a different story when it was Obama’s war.
Countries which do not themselves have blood on their hands might wish to get together and discuss ways to out pressure on countries like the US and Russia and their allies to stop behaving the way they do. What our politicians and pundits ( with some exceptions) don’t seem to realize is that we are part of the problem.
By the way, in case someone decides to make a partisan point, most Democrats voted on the right side in the most recent Yemen debate. It was a different story when it was Obama’s war.
Countries which do not themselves have blood on their hands might wish to get together and discuss ways to out pressure on countries like the US and Russia and their allies to stop behaving the way they do. What our politicians and pundits ( with some exceptions) don’t seem to realize is that we are part of the problem.
One of our targets. No idea if the claims of innocence are true, of course.
https://m.hindustantimes.com/world-news/at-destroyed-syria-lab-workers-say-they-produce-antidotes-to-snake-venom-not-toxic-weapons/story-e2OIzVf2RqPMMuRK0XdK0H_amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
One of our targets. No idea if the claims of innocence are true, of course.
https://m.hindustantimes.com/world-news/at-destroyed-syria-lab-workers-say-they-produce-antidotes-to-snake-venom-not-toxic-weapons/story-e2OIzVf2RqPMMuRK0XdK0H_amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
They are, in effect, high functioning sociopaths.
well.. they are a fairly representative slice of the people they act in the name of. most people are not true pacifists. most people are OK with killing people who “deserve” it. and “deserve” is usually pretty low bar, so long as they’re strangers. very very few people seriously care about the lives of people who aren’t like them and who they will never interact with.
They are, in effect, high functioning sociopaths.
well.. they are a fairly representative slice of the people they act in the name of. most people are not true pacifists. most people are OK with killing people who “deserve” it. and “deserve” is usually pretty low bar, so long as they’re strangers. very very few people seriously care about the lives of people who aren’t like them and who they will never interact with.
Countries which do not themselves have blood on their hands might wish to get together and discuss ways to out pressure on countries like the US and Russia and their allies to stop behaving the way they do.
I’m curious what countries those might be. Or, to put it another way, how far back in history do you go . . . because, outside a few tiny places which simply don’t have the capability, prety much everybody has done something you would abhor at some point.
Countries which do not themselves have blood on their hands might wish to get together and discuss ways to out pressure on countries like the US and Russia and their allies to stop behaving the way they do.
I’m curious what countries those might be. Or, to put it another way, how far back in history do you go . . . because, outside a few tiny places which simply don’t have the capability, prety much everybody has done something you would abhor at some point.
wj: I’m curious what countries those might be.
How about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?
–TP
wj: I’m curious what countries those might be.
How about the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?
–TP
Tony, as noted, small (as in microscopic) size seems to the only route to purity. Well, except for the implicit complicity inherent in the reality that, absent some large, and tainted, power willing to prevent it, you would rapidly be absorbed by one that is worse….
Tony, as noted, small (as in microscopic) size seems to the only route to purity. Well, except for the implicit complicity inherent in the reality that, absent some large, and tainted, power willing to prevent it, you would rapidly be absorbed by one that is worse….
Good for you, Marty, and I mean that completely sincerely in the spirit of non-partisanship. The only thing is, once they really got going on him with the equivalent of swift-boating, you’d find yourself gradually changing your mind and by the time you realised what had been done (if you ever did realise) it would be too late.
Good for you, Marty, and I mean that completely sincerely in the spirit of non-partisanship. The only thing is, once they really got going on him with the equivalent of swift-boating, you’d find yourself gradually changing your mind and by the time you realised what had been done (if you ever did realise) it would be too late.
Yes, I know you are against children working in mines, but what are you for?
Gosh. Where to start? Back in my ignorant youth, at the height of the Cold War, I came across a tract that argued for unilateral disarmament. If we pull back a bit from that, we might be able to come up with a sane foreign policy. It would involve less arms sales and hugely more foreign aid. It would involve actual capital assistance to the 3rd world. It would involve actual voluntary devolvement of the world wide power projection we currently insist is our right.
But what it seems to come down to are “vital” interests, and those who espouse all these interventions seem to have a very expansive interpretation of what those interests are.
Maybe we should start there before insisting your interloquer come up with a detailed plan of what should be done.
Yes, I know you are against children working in mines, but what are you for?
Gosh. Where to start? Back in my ignorant youth, at the height of the Cold War, I came across a tract that argued for unilateral disarmament. If we pull back a bit from that, we might be able to come up with a sane foreign policy. It would involve less arms sales and hugely more foreign aid. It would involve actual capital assistance to the 3rd world. It would involve actual voluntary devolvement of the world wide power projection we currently insist is our right.
But what it seems to come down to are “vital” interests, and those who espouse all these interventions seem to have a very expansive interpretation of what those interests are.
Maybe we should start there before insisting your interloquer come up with a detailed plan of what should be done.
GftNC – Hilzoy didn’t much like that piece either:
https://twitter.com/hilzoy/status/985306823707299841
GftNC – Hilzoy didn’t much like that piece either:
https://twitter.com/hilzoy/status/985306823707299841
“by the time you realised what had been done (if you ever did realise) ”
Guess we’ve seen how far that can be taken…..
“by the time you realised what had been done (if you ever did realise) ”
Guess we’ve seen how far that can be taken…..
I, for one, am not for the Muntz Doctrine.
I, for one, am not for the Muntz Doctrine.
Marty: yes, you’re right (if I understand you correctly). I bet there are still loads of people who don’t realise that that swift-boating of Kerry turned out to be completely bogus and politically orchestrated dirty tricks, like McCain’s illegitimate black baby…
Marty: yes, you’re right (if I understand you correctly). I bet there are still loads of people who don’t realise that that swift-boating of Kerry turned out to be completely bogus and politically orchestrated dirty tricks, like McCain’s illegitimate black baby…
My criticims of Trump re bombing is that he has no policy. No strategy. No goals. No idea what he is doing.
The situation is extremely complex and we have only a limited ability to affect outcomes there, so any policy might fail to meet a set of goals.
But action without policy will have consequences and they are unlikely to be good.
My criticims of Trump re bombing is that he has no policy. No strategy. No goals. No idea what he is doing.
The situation is extremely complex and we have only a limited ability to affect outcomes there, so any policy might fail to meet a set of goals.
But action without policy will have consequences and they are unlikely to be good.
“The situation is extremely complex and we have only a limited ability to affect outcomes there, so any policy might fail to meet a set of goals.”
Dont use chemical weapons because that crosses a humanitarian red line is a policy, shared seemingly by our two longest term Western allies.
May fall short in lots of ways but it does have upsides, including not acting rashly or unilaterally.
And not being deterred in that coordination by Russia. Unless you believe Putin told him to act in concert with NATO allies.
“The situation is extremely complex and we have only a limited ability to affect outcomes there, so any policy might fail to meet a set of goals.”
Dont use chemical weapons because that crosses a humanitarian red line is a policy, shared seemingly by our two longest term Western allies.
May fall short in lots of ways but it does have upsides, including not acting rashly or unilaterally.
And not being deterred in that coordination by Russia. Unless you believe Putin told him to act in concert with NATO allies.
bobbyp: …It would involve less arms sales and hugely more foreign aid. It would involve actual capital assistance to the 3rd world. It would involve actual voluntary devolvement of the world wide power projection we currently insist is our right.
That’s a great start, and I am entirely for it.
It’s getting from here to there that needs a strategy. A more prosperous, better educated world would be less violent and more just. And it can be achieved within a generation or two. But what do we do in the meantime?
I mean, what do we do in the present world, which contains people opposed to prosperity for Others — or even their mere existence? We can let them fight it out among themselves and concentrate on helping the survivors, I suppose. It may be the only rational — and possibly the most humane — thing we can do.
And, if the proposition is that the West in general and the US in particular are the reason the Sunni hate the Shia, the Hutu hate the Tutsi, the Burmese hate the Rohingya, and everybody hates the Jews then we definitely need to get out of the way.
–TP
bobbyp: …It would involve less arms sales and hugely more foreign aid. It would involve actual capital assistance to the 3rd world. It would involve actual voluntary devolvement of the world wide power projection we currently insist is our right.
That’s a great start, and I am entirely for it.
It’s getting from here to there that needs a strategy. A more prosperous, better educated world would be less violent and more just. And it can be achieved within a generation or two. But what do we do in the meantime?
I mean, what do we do in the present world, which contains people opposed to prosperity for Others — or even their mere existence? We can let them fight it out among themselves and concentrate on helping the survivors, I suppose. It may be the only rational — and possibly the most humane — thing we can do.
And, if the proposition is that the West in general and the US in particular are the reason the Sunni hate the Shia, the Hutu hate the Tutsi, the Burmese hate the Rohingya, and everybody hates the Jews then we definitely need to get out of the way.
–TP
Intervention: A Success Story!: Let’s look back at our nation’s questionable adventures in the Middle East. (YouTube)
Intervention: A Success Story!: Let’s look back at our nation’s questionable adventures in the Middle East. (YouTube)
The US’s approach to damping down conflagrations in the Middle East is to sell/give them gasoline.
The US’s approach to damping down conflagrations in the Middle East is to sell/give them gasoline.
Mary I am not opposed to the red line policy. But I dont think it is Trump’s policy ( and it is a very very rudimentary policy but thats another issue.
Trump’s policy is to tweet something one day tweet a contradiction the next, they try to get him to focus on something long enough to make a decision and stick to it for a day or two…
He was withdrawing from Syria only what? Ten days ago? And had nothing to say about the gassing until people started criticizing him for having nothing to say, so he said it was awful and tweeted that there would be bombing to the surprise of everyone. Now he has declared a success and will go back to tweeting about the Mueller investigation. I doubt if anyone in State or the Joint Chiefs or even the White House has more than the very vaguest idea what we might do in Syria next.
SO no I dont think he even has the red line as a policy I think he just reacts to stuff by tweeting whatever comes into his head at three in the morning
Mary I am not opposed to the red line policy. But I dont think it is Trump’s policy ( and it is a very very rudimentary policy but thats another issue.
Trump’s policy is to tweet something one day tweet a contradiction the next, they try to get him to focus on something long enough to make a decision and stick to it for a day or two…
He was withdrawing from Syria only what? Ten days ago? And had nothing to say about the gassing until people started criticizing him for having nothing to say, so he said it was awful and tweeted that there would be bombing to the surprise of everyone. Now he has declared a success and will go back to tweeting about the Mueller investigation. I doubt if anyone in State or the Joint Chiefs or even the White House has more than the very vaguest idea what we might do in Syria next.
SO no I dont think he even has the red line as a policy I think he just reacts to stuff by tweeting whatever comes into his head at three in the morning
personally, i don’t have a lot of problem with “you used chemical weapons, we bomb you” in the abstract. i just don’t think it’s going to have much of an effect in this case. but how much infrastructure does it take to make chlorine bombs? pretty much none. we blew up some isolated buildings after giving them a day’s warning? ok.
besides, Trump already did this, last year. Assad and Putin know Trump is incoherent and stupid and likely to keep himself tied up in scandals for the next 2.5 years. they can do whatever the want in Syria, and if it costs them a few shitty buildings every few months? meh.
credibility : Trump has none.
personally, i don’t have a lot of problem with “you used chemical weapons, we bomb you” in the abstract. i just don’t think it’s going to have much of an effect in this case. but how much infrastructure does it take to make chlorine bombs? pretty much none. we blew up some isolated buildings after giving them a day’s warning? ok.
besides, Trump already did this, last year. Assad and Putin know Trump is incoherent and stupid and likely to keep himself tied up in scandals for the next 2.5 years. they can do whatever the want in Syria, and if it costs them a few shitty buildings every few months? meh.
credibility : Trump has none.
“how much infrastructure does it take to make chlorine bombs? pretty much none.”
Which means that it is within the capabilities of ALL sides in Syria, and there’s plenty of reason for Group A to try to put the blame on Group B so that the US strikes them.
There are really, really good reasons not to get involved in someone else’s civil war, as hard as it is to just watch from the sidelines (and help refugees).
“how much infrastructure does it take to make chlorine bombs? pretty much none.”
Which means that it is within the capabilities of ALL sides in Syria, and there’s plenty of reason for Group A to try to put the blame on Group B so that the US strikes them.
There are really, really good reasons not to get involved in someone else’s civil war, as hard as it is to just watch from the sidelines (and help refugees).
i don’t really understand the international legalities but i don’t have much problem with bombing assad’s military infrastructure in response to assad’s use of chemical weapons.
fwiw.
all of that said, trump is subject to US law like everyone else who lives here.
the feds and congress went after nixon, reagan, clinton, and bush. trump neither deserves, nor gets, a pass.
i don’t really understand the international legalities but i don’t have much problem with bombing assad’s military infrastructure in response to assad’s use of chemical weapons.
fwiw.
all of that said, trump is subject to US law like everyone else who lives here.
the feds and congress went after nixon, reagan, clinton, and bush. trump neither deserves, nor gets, a pass.
wonkie: My criticims of Trump re bombing is that he has no policy. No strategy. No goals.
I get what you mean. And agree with that. However.
In the literal sense, I think he does have policy, strategy (well as close as he ever gets), and goals. Just none of them particularly related to Syria per se.
It could be Syria. Or North Korea. Or trade. Or a hurricane. The policy, strategy, and goals will be the same. Not least because he knows nothing about any actual issue or situation. And is disinterested in (possibly incapable of) learning anything about them beyond the occasional Fox News sound bite.
wonkie: My criticims of Trump re bombing is that he has no policy. No strategy. No goals.
I get what you mean. And agree with that. However.
In the literal sense, I think he does have policy, strategy (well as close as he ever gets), and goals. Just none of them particularly related to Syria per se.
It could be Syria. Or North Korea. Or trade. Or a hurricane. The policy, strategy, and goals will be the same. Not least because he knows nothing about any actual issue or situation. And is disinterested in (possibly incapable of) learning anything about them beyond the occasional Fox News sound bite.
cleek screv :
usenet
I thought I remembered you of old.
At one time or another, I lived and breathed
rec.arts.books
rec.backcountry
ba.food
talk.origins
alt.religion.scientology
cleek screv :
usenet
I thought I remembered you of old.
At one time or another, I lived and breathed
rec.arts.books
rec.backcountry
ba.food
talk.origins
alt.religion.scientology
Well, it is easy to prevent them from producing chlorine. Just block their access to table salt, seawater and electricity. Oh, and no bleach of course, although that will admittedly heighten the probability of disease outbreaks. On the other hand, people consume too much table salt anyway, so there is a health benefit of blocking access. And people have lived without electricity since at least the stone age and rarely complained about the lack until quite recently. According to urban legends (birth rates going up 9 months after blackouts) it even gets people closer together, so another benefit. Especially civil wars tend to be detrimental on that front (unlike proper wars where the armies of liberation produce an up-tick. Flowers and deflowering and happiness all-around).
Well, it is easy to prevent them from producing chlorine. Just block their access to table salt, seawater and electricity. Oh, and no bleach of course, although that will admittedly heighten the probability of disease outbreaks. On the other hand, people consume too much table salt anyway, so there is a health benefit of blocking access. And people have lived without electricity since at least the stone age and rarely complained about the lack until quite recently. According to urban legends (birth rates going up 9 months after blackouts) it even gets people closer together, so another benefit. Especially civil wars tend to be detrimental on that front (unlike proper wars where the armies of liberation produce an up-tick. Flowers and deflowering and happiness all-around).
usenet
bit.listserv.allmusic
usenet
bit.listserv.allmusic
rec.arts.poems was my jam
rec.arts.poems was my jam
russel, it’s not really that difficult (Article 2):
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/
Regarding the disaster that is US Foreign Policy in e.g. Afghanistan, I recommend Steve Coll’s
“Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001”
“Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America’s Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001–2016”
russel, it’s not really that difficult (Article 2):
http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/
Regarding the disaster that is US Foreign Policy in e.g. Afghanistan, I recommend Steve Coll’s
“Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001”
“Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America’s Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001–2016”
This is a very good article on how Syria got where it is today, since the events of 2011.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-chemical-weapons/558065/
This is a very good article on how Syria got where it is today, since the events of 2011.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/syria-chemical-weapons/558065/
Ah, usenet.
I posted my first comments on usenet in 1991 or 92. I fondly remember
ne.general,
ne.politics,
rec.crafts.metalworking,
sci.econ,
and I remember my disappointment when many of the regulars in those started drifting off to these new-fangled blog things.
What I miss about those usenet groups is that they were
1) text-based
2) ad-free
3) diverse as all hell
Fondly do I recall my jousts with gun nuts on r.c.m. and goldbugs on sci.econ, not to mention the magnificent invective on sci.physics by one “Uncle Al”. The mix of liberals and conservatives, philosophers and cranks, vulgarians and prissy scolds, in every combination, at least in the groups I frequented, was glorious. True, persons more fastidious than myself might have called them cesspools of mindless insult and unmoderated bullying at times, but I thought then (and think now) that airing your views on the internet requires a certain indifference to badmouthing by the world’s trolls. It never occured to me to worry that my mama might actually wear army boots, or that my fellow libruls might be sacrificing virgins and barbequing babies behind my back.
Usenet was “CB radio, but with more typing” according to Dave Barry — but I enjoyed it while it lasted. Obsidian Wings is the closest substitute I have found in the blog world, and I remain among those who thank Andrew Sullivan for tipping me off to its existence.
I must add: I don’t remember anybody on usenet who I enjoyed reading as much as our very own Count. So that’s another reason I’ve made peace with my usenet withdrawal symptoms.
–TP
Ah, usenet.
I posted my first comments on usenet in 1991 or 92. I fondly remember
ne.general,
ne.politics,
rec.crafts.metalworking,
sci.econ,
and I remember my disappointment when many of the regulars in those started drifting off to these new-fangled blog things.
What I miss about those usenet groups is that they were
1) text-based
2) ad-free
3) diverse as all hell
Fondly do I recall my jousts with gun nuts on r.c.m. and goldbugs on sci.econ, not to mention the magnificent invective on sci.physics by one “Uncle Al”. The mix of liberals and conservatives, philosophers and cranks, vulgarians and prissy scolds, in every combination, at least in the groups I frequented, was glorious. True, persons more fastidious than myself might have called them cesspools of mindless insult and unmoderated bullying at times, but I thought then (and think now) that airing your views on the internet requires a certain indifference to badmouthing by the world’s trolls. It never occured to me to worry that my mama might actually wear army boots, or that my fellow libruls might be sacrificing virgins and barbequing babies behind my back.
Usenet was “CB radio, but with more typing” according to Dave Barry — but I enjoyed it while it lasted. Obsidian Wings is the closest substitute I have found in the blog world, and I remain among those who thank Andrew Sullivan for tipping me off to its existence.
I must add: I don’t remember anybody on usenet who I enjoyed reading as much as our very own Count. So that’s another reason I’ve made peace with my usenet withdrawal symptoms.
–TP
Tony,
Back at you….what option do you favor wrt the Syrian civil war? Might there be an option not presented?
What to to about bad actors? Try not to make things worse.
Regards,
Tony,
Back at you….what option do you favor wrt the Syrian civil war? Might there be an option not presented?
What to to about bad actors? Try not to make things worse.
Regards,
Is our sycophancy* to the Saudis a tactic, or a strategy? Nevertheless, there are indeed alternatives. They are never discussed by the Very Serious People, or any major political leader from either major party.
Why is that?
*the motivating factor cited by the author, while no doubt true, strikes me as overly simplistic.
Is our sycophancy* to the Saudis a tactic, or a strategy? Nevertheless, there are indeed alternatives. They are never discussed by the Very Serious People, or any major political leader from either major party.
Why is that?
*the motivating factor cited by the author, while no doubt true, strikes me as overly simplistic.
WRT Syria, I don’t think there are any great options. But the least bad/counterproductive one goes something like this:
— figure out what the best feasible end is for the Syrian Kurds.
— work out with them how to get to there.
— do those things.
There are lots of other bad actors there. But there are too many to figure choosing among them will be productive.
WRT Syria, I don’t think there are any great options. But the least bad/counterproductive one goes something like this:
— figure out what the best feasible end is for the Syrian Kurds.
— work out with them how to get to there.
— do those things.
There are lots of other bad actors there. But there are too many to figure choosing among them will be productive.
Collusion isn’t proven but it is already an established fact that Papadapolous and Jr TRIED to collude, which ought to be a hell of a lot more shocking than someone cleaning the junk mail off their secure server
The people who say Hillary would have been a lot work are rationalizing. They can never back that up with any kind of remotely fact-based arguments. One obvious benefit to having her in office is she would have appointed competent people to Cabinet positions. And she was not involved in collusion, did not try to obstruct justice even when the target of a politically motivated investigation, is not involved in money laundering, is not an adulterer or sexual harasser, thinks before she speaks and would have respected expertise in the formation of policy.
She was not my pick and I suspect that I would have spent a lot of time frustrated by her if she ahd been elected, but to say she would have been worse than Trump is sheer idiocy.
Sometimes people just have to man up or woman up, get over the partisanship and face facts. Trump sucks.
Collusion isn’t proven but it is already an established fact that Papadapolous and Jr TRIED to collude, which ought to be a hell of a lot more shocking than someone cleaning the junk mail off their secure server
The people who say Hillary would have been a lot work are rationalizing. They can never back that up with any kind of remotely fact-based arguments. One obvious benefit to having her in office is she would have appointed competent people to Cabinet positions. And she was not involved in collusion, did not try to obstruct justice even when the target of a politically motivated investigation, is not involved in money laundering, is not an adulterer or sexual harasser, thinks before she speaks and would have respected expertise in the formation of policy.
She was not my pick and I suspect that I would have spent a lot of time frustrated by her if she ahd been elected, but to say she would have been worse than Trump is sheer idiocy.
Sometimes people just have to man up or woman up, get over the partisanship and face facts. Trump sucks.
A lot WOrSE, not a lot of work.
A lot WOrSE, not a lot of work.
The Atlantic article is a mixture of fact and self serving Western crap, about as plausible as what you would read from Assad supporters. Only an exceptionally stupid child would funnel weapons into a civil war and expect this to make the situation better from a humanitarian viewpoint. The hope was to weaken the Russian Iranian Syrian Hezbollah alliance, by toppling Assad. We allied ourselves with well known democratic forces like the Saudis. Golly, who would think that could go wrong. Though then again, it depends on what the primary motivation was.
There is no government on earth that would fight a clean war faced by opponents armed by the outside that can kill a hundred thousand members of its armed forces. Probably every single government in the Middle East including Israel would fight as brutally as Assad in those circumstances. We ourselves leveled Mosul and Raqqa. Yes, Assad is a dictator. It was utterly predictable that a civil war would become a bloodbath and that Westerners would largely ignore our role in fueling it. But it might work and it wouldn’t involve large scale uses of American troops, (though somehow there we are) and without large American casualties nobody important will question our noble goals.
Here is a rather detailed study of what happened to the weapons we supplied.
http://www.conflictarm.com/download-file/?report_id=2568&file_id=2574#page36
We should have done “ nothing” in Syria after the shooting started and by “ nothing” I mean the sort of action we take in other cases where we aren’t one of the villains. We denounce the atrocities, we try to push for an end to violence, we sanction individual members of the government but not Syria as a whole, and in general treat the situation like we treat the killing of the Rohingya, for instance. I call that “ nothing” because in American parlance if we aren’t bombing, if we only supply billions of dollars of weapons, we are doing nothing. And, by the way, if we care about war crimes maybe we could stop committing them or actively assisting crimes against humanity in Yemen. Make some rude noises when Israel guns down unarmed protestors. Or, say, maybe we could give Hamas a few billion in weapons?
The Atlantic article is a mixture of fact and self serving Western crap, about as plausible as what you would read from Assad supporters. Only an exceptionally stupid child would funnel weapons into a civil war and expect this to make the situation better from a humanitarian viewpoint. The hope was to weaken the Russian Iranian Syrian Hezbollah alliance, by toppling Assad. We allied ourselves with well known democratic forces like the Saudis. Golly, who would think that could go wrong. Though then again, it depends on what the primary motivation was.
There is no government on earth that would fight a clean war faced by opponents armed by the outside that can kill a hundred thousand members of its armed forces. Probably every single government in the Middle East including Israel would fight as brutally as Assad in those circumstances. We ourselves leveled Mosul and Raqqa. Yes, Assad is a dictator. It was utterly predictable that a civil war would become a bloodbath and that Westerners would largely ignore our role in fueling it. But it might work and it wouldn’t involve large scale uses of American troops, (though somehow there we are) and without large American casualties nobody important will question our noble goals.
Here is a rather detailed study of what happened to the weapons we supplied.
http://www.conflictarm.com/download-file/?report_id=2568&file_id=2574#page36
We should have done “ nothing” in Syria after the shooting started and by “ nothing” I mean the sort of action we take in other cases where we aren’t one of the villains. We denounce the atrocities, we try to push for an end to violence, we sanction individual members of the government but not Syria as a whole, and in general treat the situation like we treat the killing of the Rohingya, for instance. I call that “ nothing” because in American parlance if we aren’t bombing, if we only supply billions of dollars of weapons, we are doing nothing. And, by the way, if we care about war crimes maybe we could stop committing them or actively assisting crimes against humanity in Yemen. Make some rude noises when Israel guns down unarmed protestors. Or, say, maybe we could give Hamas a few billion in weapons?
I’m curious as to how you think the article was self serving crap, Donald ?
It’s pretty clear that most of the decisions taken by the US in Syria have turned out to be fairly disastrous.
I’m curious as to how you think the article was self serving crap, Donald ?
It’s pretty clear that most of the decisions taken by the US in Syria have turned out to be fairly disastrous.
If there is one thing that is not in question in all of the Trump BS, it’s that members of his family and entourage made contact with Russian nationals, including people connected to Putin, and sought information from them that would be damaging to Clinton.
If that is not collusion, I’m not sure what the word means.
The focus on collusion is beside the point. There is no actionable legal meaning to the word that I’m aware of. I suppose Mueller could present a report about cooperation between Russian nationals and members of Trump’s team to Congress and recommend that some action be taken, whether impeachment or censure or whatever. Congress might scold Trump and tell him not to do it again. Then again, this Congress might say “Well done Mr. President!” and buy a round of drinks for the house.
Did Trump or members of his entourage *conspire* with Russian nationals to break any laws?
Did Trump act to impede either Comey’s or Mueller’s investigations into Russian interference in the election?
Those are the *legal* questions that rise from the context of the campaign and Trump’s time in office.
And, it is also within Mueller’s brief to investigate other crimes that he discovers in the process of looking into the above. Which opens the door to the business dealings of Trump, his kids, and virtually everyone in his circle. Which, as we have seen and will no doubt continue to see, is a truly target-rich environment for a federal prosecutor.
The man is a crook, and he can’t keep his stupid mouth shut. And, he decided he needed to step into a role that requires you to live under a freaking microscope.
A bad idea, all around. So, various kinds of crap have been hitting, and will continue to hit, the proverbial fan.
Normally about this time Marty will chime in to say “Yeah, that’s just what *you* want”. I will save him the time effort and say no, it’s not what I want, I don’t want any of this bullshit. It’s what has been forced upon me by the profoundly, almost unimaginably bad judgement of the folks who voted for the man.
If you go out on a Saturday night and drink twelve boilermakers in short order, or eat 17 Big Macs for dinner, or hit yourself over the head with a bat until you pass out, you’re going to feel like crap the next day. Probably for the next week. Right?
If somebody like me says “Hey, you are going to suffer if you do that stuff”, somebody like me is not wishing for you to feel like crap. Somebody like me is just making an observation that is more or less like saying what goes up, must come down.
And if somebody like me seems somewhat pissed off as they say “you’re going to suffer”, it’s probably because in the process of drinking your twelve boilermakers, or eating your 17 Big Macs, or bashing your own head with a bat, you’ve done no small amount of damage to the rest of us along the way. You’ve crashed into our car, or puked on our sofa, or managed to club us over our heads once or twice while you were at it.
So, hell yeah, we’re pretty pissed off. Like, very much so.
The folks who voted for Trump voted for a crook. Not just a crook, but a foolish and vain crook. A man of no discernable virtue whatsoever. And, a man who brought his crooked family and personal circle of crooks and incompetent creeps along with him, into positions of the highest possible public responsibility.
Shit like that is bound to fall apart.
Suck it up, take your lumps, and quit voting for assholes like Trump. And don’t blame the rest of us when the wheels come off. We didn’t vote for the guy.
I just want this mess cleaned the hell up.
If there is one thing that is not in question in all of the Trump BS, it’s that members of his family and entourage made contact with Russian nationals, including people connected to Putin, and sought information from them that would be damaging to Clinton.
If that is not collusion, I’m not sure what the word means.
The focus on collusion is beside the point. There is no actionable legal meaning to the word that I’m aware of. I suppose Mueller could present a report about cooperation between Russian nationals and members of Trump’s team to Congress and recommend that some action be taken, whether impeachment or censure or whatever. Congress might scold Trump and tell him not to do it again. Then again, this Congress might say “Well done Mr. President!” and buy a round of drinks for the house.
Did Trump or members of his entourage *conspire* with Russian nationals to break any laws?
Did Trump act to impede either Comey’s or Mueller’s investigations into Russian interference in the election?
Those are the *legal* questions that rise from the context of the campaign and Trump’s time in office.
And, it is also within Mueller’s brief to investigate other crimes that he discovers in the process of looking into the above. Which opens the door to the business dealings of Trump, his kids, and virtually everyone in his circle. Which, as we have seen and will no doubt continue to see, is a truly target-rich environment for a federal prosecutor.
The man is a crook, and he can’t keep his stupid mouth shut. And, he decided he needed to step into a role that requires you to live under a freaking microscope.
A bad idea, all around. So, various kinds of crap have been hitting, and will continue to hit, the proverbial fan.
Normally about this time Marty will chime in to say “Yeah, that’s just what *you* want”. I will save him the time effort and say no, it’s not what I want, I don’t want any of this bullshit. It’s what has been forced upon me by the profoundly, almost unimaginably bad judgement of the folks who voted for the man.
If you go out on a Saturday night and drink twelve boilermakers in short order, or eat 17 Big Macs for dinner, or hit yourself over the head with a bat until you pass out, you’re going to feel like crap the next day. Probably for the next week. Right?
If somebody like me says “Hey, you are going to suffer if you do that stuff”, somebody like me is not wishing for you to feel like crap. Somebody like me is just making an observation that is more or less like saying what goes up, must come down.
And if somebody like me seems somewhat pissed off as they say “you’re going to suffer”, it’s probably because in the process of drinking your twelve boilermakers, or eating your 17 Big Macs, or bashing your own head with a bat, you’ve done no small amount of damage to the rest of us along the way. You’ve crashed into our car, or puked on our sofa, or managed to club us over our heads once or twice while you were at it.
So, hell yeah, we’re pretty pissed off. Like, very much so.
The folks who voted for Trump voted for a crook. Not just a crook, but a foolish and vain crook. A man of no discernable virtue whatsoever. And, a man who brought his crooked family and personal circle of crooks and incompetent creeps along with him, into positions of the highest possible public responsibility.
Shit like that is bound to fall apart.
Suck it up, take your lumps, and quit voting for assholes like Trump. And don’t blame the rest of us when the wheels come off. We didn’t vote for the guy.
I just want this mess cleaned the hell up.
Let’s see how Judge Kimba Wood rules today, russell.
Depending on how much of the Cohen documentation is ruled admissible, he and his number one client could be in very deep trouble.
Let’s see how Judge Kimba Wood rules today, russell.
Depending on how much of the Cohen documentation is ruled admissible, he and his number one client could be in very deep trouble.
Mostly, what Russell said (at 7:29). With one exception. When you say:
he decided he needed to step into a role that requires you to live under a freaking microscope.
I don’t think he did that. I don’t think he thought when he entered the primaries that he would actually win. Maybe, outside chance, the nomination but certainly not the general election. It was a chance to grandstand, which he loves. And to hugely expand his brand recognition, which he could monetize after the campaign was over.
Nobody working for him really thought he would win either. That contributed to why there was nobody doing any planning for the transition or for staffing the government — Trump himself doesn’t seem to do planning, but someone would have gotten them at least a little bit prepared. Then it was the week before the general election, and there actually seemed to be an outside chance . . . but still too slim a one to waste effort preparing for it.
Then he won, and it became a scramble to find people to work for him. Yes, most of what he ended up with, besides his inner circle of crooks, were massive incompetents. But he was unwilling to take people who had opposed him (and said nasty things about him) during the campaign. And pretty much everybody competent who had said anything had done exactly that. So the “talent” pool was damn shallow.
I confess that I can’t fault the Trump campaign for not thinking he was going to win. Because most of the country, definitely including me, thought the same. Granted, in that position I would definitely do some contingency planning, but still . . . .
Mostly, what Russell said (at 7:29). With one exception. When you say:
he decided he needed to step into a role that requires you to live under a freaking microscope.
I don’t think he did that. I don’t think he thought when he entered the primaries that he would actually win. Maybe, outside chance, the nomination but certainly not the general election. It was a chance to grandstand, which he loves. And to hugely expand his brand recognition, which he could monetize after the campaign was over.
Nobody working for him really thought he would win either. That contributed to why there was nobody doing any planning for the transition or for staffing the government — Trump himself doesn’t seem to do planning, but someone would have gotten them at least a little bit prepared. Then it was the week before the general election, and there actually seemed to be an outside chance . . . but still too slim a one to waste effort preparing for it.
Then he won, and it became a scramble to find people to work for him. Yes, most of what he ended up with, besides his inner circle of crooks, were massive incompetents. But he was unwilling to take people who had opposed him (and said nasty things about him) during the campaign. And pretty much everybody competent who had said anything had done exactly that. So the “talent” pool was damn shallow.
I confess that I can’t fault the Trump campaign for not thinking he was going to win. Because most of the country, definitely including me, thought the same. Granted, in that position I would definitely do some contingency planning, but still . . . .
I don’t think he thought when he entered the primaries that he would actually win.
Lately I think that maybe Trump was / is the mark.
In any case, ya gotta be careful what you wish for, even if you’re just pretending.
Heat, kitchens.
I don’t think he thought when he entered the primaries that he would actually win.
Lately I think that maybe Trump was / is the mark.
In any case, ya gotta be careful what you wish for, even if you’re just pretending.
Heat, kitchens.
There is no person inside the beltway whose personal and professional relationships, financial and otherwise, could withstand the scrutiny of a Mueller investigation.
Railing on about what a crook all his friends and colleague’s are is wasted breath unless you just want him, out of all the crooks, to be singled out. Cohen isnt the only fixer in Washington. More than a few strippers have been paid off along the way. More than a few contracts have been fast tracked.
I think legally catching someone doing that is ok if they cross the line, paying someone to not say disparaging things is not a crime. But faux righteousness is a little overdone.
The special prosecutors primary task was Russian interference and , most importantly to Democrats, collusion.
Saying collusion wasnt the point ignores simple facts, like Sessions need to recuse himself, or the need for a special prosecutor at all. Im pretty sure the DOJ could have handled Russuan interference sans collusion.
This is about wanting Trump gone at any cost.
I have had to live with different kinds of embarassing Presidents, Clinton as bad as Trump from the cgeating and lying perspective, Obama as bad from a representing the US in th ME perspective and insulting aa huge portion of the country, and likely as corrupt based on his political roots. Even Bush II managed to turn a simple victory into an embarassing torture fiasco.
Maybe we will talk someone into running that wont be embarassing, but based on the historical candidate pool i doubt it.
There is no person inside the beltway whose personal and professional relationships, financial and otherwise, could withstand the scrutiny of a Mueller investigation.
Railing on about what a crook all his friends and colleague’s are is wasted breath unless you just want him, out of all the crooks, to be singled out. Cohen isnt the only fixer in Washington. More than a few strippers have been paid off along the way. More than a few contracts have been fast tracked.
I think legally catching someone doing that is ok if they cross the line, paying someone to not say disparaging things is not a crime. But faux righteousness is a little overdone.
The special prosecutors primary task was Russian interference and , most importantly to Democrats, collusion.
Saying collusion wasnt the point ignores simple facts, like Sessions need to recuse himself, or the need for a special prosecutor at all. Im pretty sure the DOJ could have handled Russuan interference sans collusion.
This is about wanting Trump gone at any cost.
I have had to live with different kinds of embarassing Presidents, Clinton as bad as Trump from the cgeating and lying perspective, Obama as bad from a representing the US in th ME perspective and insulting aa huge portion of the country, and likely as corrupt based on his political roots. Even Bush II managed to turn a simple victory into an embarassing torture fiasco.
Maybe we will talk someone into running that wont be embarassing, but based on the historical candidate pool i doubt it.
ya gotta be careful what you wish for
Too true. Like the Bernie folks who refused to vote for Hillary because they hated the thought of her winning with their support . . . and never imagined she would actually lose to someone like Trump. Got their wish: she didn’t win with their support; or at all.
ya gotta be careful what you wish for
Too true. Like the Bernie folks who refused to vote for Hillary because they hated the thought of her winning with their support . . . and never imagined she would actually lose to someone like Trump. Got their wish: she didn’t win with their support; or at all.
There is no person inside the beltway whose personal and professional relationships, financial and otherwise, could withstand the scrutiny of a Mueller investigation.
I expect that’s a serious overstatement, but assume it’s true. There is still a point at which a difference of degree becomes a difference in kind.
You wouldn’t class someone who skims a few dollars from the tip jar with Bernie Maddoff . . . even though both were guilty of theft. Same thing here.
Trump’s escapades with hookers are, I agree, not all that exceptional among politicians. It’s all the other stuff. For example, how many other politicians do you know who spend most weekends at government expense at a place that they, personally, own — so the money goes straight into their own pocket? And that’s just the most publicly obvious of Trump’s bad behavior.
There is no person inside the beltway whose personal and professional relationships, financial and otherwise, could withstand the scrutiny of a Mueller investigation.
I expect that’s a serious overstatement, but assume it’s true. There is still a point at which a difference of degree becomes a difference in kind.
You wouldn’t class someone who skims a few dollars from the tip jar with Bernie Maddoff . . . even though both were guilty of theft. Same thing here.
Trump’s escapades with hookers are, I agree, not all that exceptional among politicians. It’s all the other stuff. For example, how many other politicians do you know who spend most weekends at government expense at a place that they, personally, own — so the money goes straight into their own pocket? And that’s just the most publicly obvious of Trump’s bad behavior.
ya gotta be careful what you wish for
Too true.
Yes. Like wishing for an autonomous breakaway-from-Syria Kurdish region next door to Turkey. The chances of this happening are close to nil.
I would wager that the number of hardcore Berniecrats who refused to vote for HRC is just about equal to the number of Republicans who refused to vote for Trump because….which is to say not many.
ya gotta be careful what you wish for
Too true.
Yes. Like wishing for an autonomous breakaway-from-Syria Kurdish region next door to Turkey. The chances of this happening are close to nil.
I would wager that the number of hardcore Berniecrats who refused to vote for HRC is just about equal to the number of Republicans who refused to vote for Trump because….which is to say not many.
I have had to live with different kinds of embarassing Presidents, Clinton as bad as Trump from the cgeating and lying perspective, Obama as bad from a representing the US in th ME perspective and insulting aa huge portion of the country, and likely as corrupt based on his political roots. Even Bush II managed to turn a simple victory into an embarassing torture fiasco.
Without disputing any of the points you’ve made about the past presidents mentioned, it appears you have to take what you think is the worst about each of them to equate them with Trump separately on different measures.
Was your point that Trump is the worst of all worlds? Because that’s the point you appear to have made.
I have had to live with different kinds of embarassing Presidents, Clinton as bad as Trump from the cgeating and lying perspective, Obama as bad from a representing the US in th ME perspective and insulting aa huge portion of the country, and likely as corrupt based on his political roots. Even Bush II managed to turn a simple victory into an embarassing torture fiasco.
Without disputing any of the points you’ve made about the past presidents mentioned, it appears you have to take what you think is the worst about each of them to equate them with Trump separately on different measures.
Was your point that Trump is the worst of all worlds? Because that’s the point you appear to have made.
The order outlining what Mueller was to investigate.
I don’t give a crap about Stormy Daniels. If it violated campaign finance – something Mueller was specifically authorized to look into – then Cohen and possibly Trump are liable. Other than that, I don’t really care.
When I say “collusion is not the point” it’s because “collusion” can mean almost anything. Some of the things it can mean are illegal, some are not. Focusing on “collusion” is like saying Mueller is investigating Trump and his circle for not playing fair.
For purposes of justifying the time, expense, and effort of a special counsel investigation, it’s just not relevant.
I don’t particularly disagree with this:
There is no person inside the beltway whose personal and professional relationships, financial and otherwise, could withstand the scrutiny of a Mueller investigation.
“No person” is probably a few steps too far, but in general I don’t disagree that DC is ground zero for certain categories of corruption and self-dealing.
Trump’s not a crook because he’s in DC. He’s pretty much always been a crook. I don’t mean fast-tracked a contract for a supporter, or paid off a stripper. I mean money-laundering, fraud, stuff like that. Gross criminality. Trump, and Cohen, and Kushner, and Manafort, and the rest of that crew. They’re criminals.
Sessions had to recuse himself because it was an investigation into Russian interference in the election, and as a member of Trump’s campaign staff he (Sessions) had met with the Russian ambassador, and was not particularly candid about it. So, he stood down, as was appropriate.
As far as I can tell, Trump is not being hammered any harder than Reagan was, Clinton was, or Bush was. Obama wasn’t hammered as hard because he was, actually and remarkably, not a sleazebag.
There was, and is, reason to believe that members of Trump’s campaign, and possibly Trump himself, conspired with foreign nationals, including people close to Putin, to illegally interfere in the US presidential election. That’s worth looking into. Comey was looking into it, and Trump fired him. That smells a hell of a lot like obstruction. So now Mueller is looking into all of that.
And it will land where it will land, and if Trump gets booted out, that’s what will happen. And if that upsets the folks who supported him, so be it. Perhaps they’ll make better choices next time around.
This is not some vendetta to “get Trump out at all costs”. Mueller is doing his job. And he damned well better be allowed to finish doing his job, or there will be hell to pay.
The order outlining what Mueller was to investigate.
I don’t give a crap about Stormy Daniels. If it violated campaign finance – something Mueller was specifically authorized to look into – then Cohen and possibly Trump are liable. Other than that, I don’t really care.
When I say “collusion is not the point” it’s because “collusion” can mean almost anything. Some of the things it can mean are illegal, some are not. Focusing on “collusion” is like saying Mueller is investigating Trump and his circle for not playing fair.
For purposes of justifying the time, expense, and effort of a special counsel investigation, it’s just not relevant.
I don’t particularly disagree with this:
There is no person inside the beltway whose personal and professional relationships, financial and otherwise, could withstand the scrutiny of a Mueller investigation.
“No person” is probably a few steps too far, but in general I don’t disagree that DC is ground zero for certain categories of corruption and self-dealing.
Trump’s not a crook because he’s in DC. He’s pretty much always been a crook. I don’t mean fast-tracked a contract for a supporter, or paid off a stripper. I mean money-laundering, fraud, stuff like that. Gross criminality. Trump, and Cohen, and Kushner, and Manafort, and the rest of that crew. They’re criminals.
Sessions had to recuse himself because it was an investigation into Russian interference in the election, and as a member of Trump’s campaign staff he (Sessions) had met with the Russian ambassador, and was not particularly candid about it. So, he stood down, as was appropriate.
As far as I can tell, Trump is not being hammered any harder than Reagan was, Clinton was, or Bush was. Obama wasn’t hammered as hard because he was, actually and remarkably, not a sleazebag.
There was, and is, reason to believe that members of Trump’s campaign, and possibly Trump himself, conspired with foreign nationals, including people close to Putin, to illegally interfere in the US presidential election. That’s worth looking into. Comey was looking into it, and Trump fired him. That smells a hell of a lot like obstruction. So now Mueller is looking into all of that.
And it will land where it will land, and if Trump gets booted out, that’s what will happen. And if that upsets the folks who supported him, so be it. Perhaps they’ll make better choices next time around.
This is not some vendetta to “get Trump out at all costs”. Mueller is doing his job. And he damned well better be allowed to finish doing his job, or there will be hell to pay.
Cohen isnt the only fixer in Washington.
he’s the only one who works for The President Of The United States.
This is about wanting Trump gone at any cost.
no, it isn’t.
it’s about figuring out exactly how vulnerable our elections are, and finding out if the President Of The United States is compromised by Russia.
sure, the answers to those questions could turn out to be awkward for Republicans to hear. but pretending they’re not worth answering is just crazy.
Cohen isnt the only fixer in Washington.
he’s the only one who works for The President Of The United States.
This is about wanting Trump gone at any cost.
no, it isn’t.
it’s about figuring out exactly how vulnerable our elections are, and finding out if the President Of The United States is compromised by Russia.
sure, the answers to those questions could turn out to be awkward for Republicans to hear. but pretending they’re not worth answering is just crazy.
Obama … likely as corrupt based on his political roots.
This is madness, Marty. Is there any basis for this claim other than, “Hey, Chicago?”
Obama … likely as corrupt based on his political roots.
This is madness, Marty. Is there any basis for this claim other than, “Hey, Chicago?”
byomtov, it was only because the GOP-controlled congress was so deferential to Obama that none of his misdeeds were brought to light. Stop being naïve.
byomtov, it was only because the GOP-controlled congress was so deferential to Obama that none of his misdeeds were brought to light. Stop being naïve.
Saying collusion wasnt the point ignores simple facts, like Sessions need to recuse himself, or the need for a special prosecutor at all. Im pretty sure the DOJ could have handled Russuan interference sans collusion.
Marty, when you consider wj’s point about the investigation being about Russian interference, rather than collusion, that still explains Sessions’s recusal given he mis-stated his contacts with Russians. That doesn’t have to amount to collusion, it just, on its face (because of the mis-statement), amounts to a possible conflict of interest. Also, there would be no special prosecutor if Trump hadn’t fired Comey: as I understand it the DOJ was handling it (the question of Russian interference) until then. Or have I misunderstood it (always a distinct possibility)?
Saying collusion wasnt the point ignores simple facts, like Sessions need to recuse himself, or the need for a special prosecutor at all. Im pretty sure the DOJ could have handled Russuan interference sans collusion.
Marty, when you consider wj’s point about the investigation being about Russian interference, rather than collusion, that still explains Sessions’s recusal given he mis-stated his contacts with Russians. That doesn’t have to amount to collusion, it just, on its face (because of the mis-statement), amounts to a possible conflict of interest. Also, there would be no special prosecutor if Trump hadn’t fired Comey: as I understand it the DOJ was handling it (the question of Russian interference) until then. Or have I misunderstood it (always a distinct possibility)?
If Trump was thinking he wouldn’t win, that may have won him the primary and the election.
If Trump was thinking he wouldn’t win, that may have won him the primary and the election.
For laughs, I took a little walk down memory lane. Back to the 80’s and the days of the Gipper.
138 individuals in his administration investigate for criminal activity. 26 indictments, 16 convictions.
It must have been a push to get rid of Reagan at any cost!!
Sometimes the simplest explanation is sufficient. Sometimes folks get investigated because they are bad actors.
For laughs, I took a little walk down memory lane. Back to the 80’s and the days of the Gipper.
138 individuals in his administration investigate for criminal activity. 26 indictments, 16 convictions.
It must have been a push to get rid of Reagan at any cost!!
Sometimes the simplest explanation is sufficient. Sometimes folks get investigated because they are bad actors.
It must have been a push to get rid of Reagan at any cost!!
(sarcasm) It was, and we failed miserably. I blame all those centrist Republicans would would not disavow that utterly corrupt administration and join us in that fight.(/sarcasm)
It must have been a push to get rid of Reagan at any cost!!
(sarcasm) It was, and we failed miserably. I blame all those centrist Republicans would would not disavow that utterly corrupt administration and join us in that fight.(/sarcasm)
LOL
guess who else Cohen ‘represents’ ?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-refuses-to-identify-clients-as-court-faceoff-looms.html
LOL
guess who else Cohen ‘represents’ ?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-refuses-to-identify-clients-as-court-faceoff-looms.html
Hannity.
*insert gif of a box of popcorn eating a box of popcorn*
Hannity.
*insert gif of a box of popcorn eating a box of popcorn*
So, Hannity is in for a “Stormy” time?
Sounds plausible.
So, Hannity is in for a “Stormy” time?
Sounds plausible.
How can you not love this?
Lawyers for Cohen said that if Cohen’s clients, other than Trump, were publicly revealed, it is “likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client.”
Why would you retain an attorney who, if it would revealed that he represented you, that fact alone would be an embarrassment? Why would you ever do that??? Inquiring minds want to know….
How can you not love this?
Lawyers for Cohen said that if Cohen’s clients, other than Trump, were publicly revealed, it is “likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client.”
Why would you retain an attorney who, if it would revealed that he represented you, that fact alone would be an embarrassment? Why would you ever do that??? Inquiring minds want to know….
Judge Kimba Wood was nominated by Bill Clinton to be Attorney General back in 1993. I mention it because Marty will soon be giving us the RWNJ party line on the subject.
I am actually disappointed that Wood is the judge in the case. It would have been much more popcorn-worthy if the judge had been He, Trump’s sister.
As Rumpole of the Bailey once said of British justice, the American legal system is a lifelong subject of harmless fun.
–TP
Judge Kimba Wood was nominated by Bill Clinton to be Attorney General back in 1993. I mention it because Marty will soon be giving us the RWNJ party line on the subject.
I am actually disappointed that Wood is the judge in the case. It would have been much more popcorn-worthy if the judge had been He, Trump’s sister.
As Rumpole of the Bailey once said of British justice, the American legal system is a lifelong subject of harmless fun.
–TP
Judge Kimba Wood ‘trained’ as a Playboy Bunny!
the cirrrrrcle of liiiiiife
Judge Kimba Wood ‘trained’ as a Playboy Bunny!
the cirrrrrcle of liiiiiife
…Obama…likely as corrupt based on his political roots
That’s wishful thinking, and the wish does you no credit. We know for a stone-cold fact that Obama was straight, because the entire Republican party was out to get him, and came up with nothing.
…Obama…likely as corrupt based on his political roots
That’s wishful thinking, and the wish does you no credit. We know for a stone-cold fact that Obama was straight, because the entire Republican party was out to get him, and came up with nothing.
Pro Bono,
Nah he had tbe whole justice system protecting him.
Pro Bono,
Nah he had tbe whole justice system protecting him.
Marty,
Your comment about Obama is despicable. No other way to put it.
You have no reason to think it’s true, yet you spew the garbage like a Fox host.
If you expect other things you say to be taken seriously, you shouldn’t post this kind of slime.
Marty,
Your comment about Obama is despicable. No other way to put it.
You have no reason to think it’s true, yet you spew the garbage like a Fox host.
If you expect other things you say to be taken seriously, you shouldn’t post this kind of slime.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t just bait, for amusement.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t just bait, for amusement.
Marty, seriously, what on earth makes you say so? You conceded in another thread that Comey and Mueller were Republicans. Do you really think they were the only ones in “the justice system”? And do you really believe that, whatever the party affiliation of individuals, the US system is so corrupt that a corrupt and criminal president was protected, but that suddenly another one is being thrown to the wolves? None of that makes any sense, even on its own terms.
Marty, seriously, what on earth makes you say so? You conceded in another thread that Comey and Mueller were Republicans. Do you really think they were the only ones in “the justice system”? And do you really believe that, whatever the party affiliation of individuals, the US system is so corrupt that a corrupt and criminal president was protected, but that suddenly another one is being thrown to the wolves? None of that makes any sense, even on its own terms.
Obama is a product of the Vhicago machine. Supported and groomed, history prewritten. The New Yorker did a great spread on him and his history. There is nothing slimy about recognizing that to accomplish the meteoric rise through Illinois politics to the White House a price is extracted.
Any other view is incredibly naive.
Obama is a product of the Vhicago machine. Supported and groomed, history prewritten. The New Yorker did a great spread on him and his history. There is nothing slimy about recognizing that to accomplish the meteoric rise through Illinois politics to the White House a price is extracted.
Any other view is incredibly naive.
When the Maker Who Made Us All unexpectedly gathered unto Himself the late lamentable Justice Scalia, Marty asserted that it was Obama who done it. If Marty is a troll who says things he “has no reason to think [are] true”, he’s been a pretty accomplished one for some years.
Alternatively, Marty actually believes the crap he spews. But it would be unchristian to think so.
–TP
When the Maker Who Made Us All unexpectedly gathered unto Himself the late lamentable Justice Scalia, Marty asserted that it was Obama who done it. If Marty is a troll who says things he “has no reason to think [are] true”, he’s been a pretty accomplished one for some years.
Alternatively, Marty actually believes the crap he spews. But it would be unchristian to think so.
–TP
The New Yorker did a great spread on him and his history.
I’d like to read that, if you can find a link.
There is nothing slimy about recognizing that to accomplish the meteoric rise through Illinois politics to the White House a price is extracted.
I’m sure that’s true. “A price is extracted” covers a lot of ground. It applies to any challenging path.
A price is extracted to be a saint, to be a murderer, to be a cop, to run the Boston Marathon, to play the piano, to decide to have kids.
A price is extracted to do anything whatsoever at a high level of performance. Or even just something challenging at an average level of performance.
You need to be a little more specific if you want to be credible. On the basic merits, Obama’s time in office was the cleanest in modern history.
Show your work, please.
Any other view is incredibly naive.
I’ll keep my own counsel on that until I see what you’re holding.
The New Yorker did a great spread on him and his history.
I’d like to read that, if you can find a link.
There is nothing slimy about recognizing that to accomplish the meteoric rise through Illinois politics to the White House a price is extracted.
I’m sure that’s true. “A price is extracted” covers a lot of ground. It applies to any challenging path.
A price is extracted to be a saint, to be a murderer, to be a cop, to run the Boston Marathon, to play the piano, to decide to have kids.
A price is extracted to do anything whatsoever at a high level of performance. Or even just something challenging at an average level of performance.
You need to be a little more specific if you want to be credible. On the basic merits, Obama’s time in office was the cleanest in modern history.
Show your work, please.
Any other view is incredibly naive.
I’ll keep my own counsel on that until I see what you’re holding.
russell, this is circular and useless. Start with the things they did the ladt 90 days go undermine Trump, work backwards through Loretta Lynch to the IRS scandal to the gun running ATF, and its laughable to talk about a scandal free Presidency. I admit to being stunned the first time I heard how scandal free his Presidency supposedly was.
I cant find the New Yorker article, circa 2008.
This is of course based on what co sider a reasonable view that his administration was conzrantly protected by a complete failure of the DOJ to pursue any of these investigations with any vigor.
So no, I dont say any of this stuff just to get a rise out of yall, nor do I think its a stretch. Trump is an idiot who pissed off the CIA, FBI,DOJ, the judiciary and most of the media and hes paying the price.
But to pretend his cronies are somehow less honest than Obama’s, in general, is questionable. Remembering that ultimately Obama’s key cronies were Democratic fund raisers that were convicted of illegal bundling and a social media team that buried any GOP candudate with beung Bush.
In fact, Trumps biggest mistake was bringing in people he didnt know at all, Manafort, Flynn, etc. Most of the scandals that have been prosecuted were by people he barely knew.
And now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court. Even if he is the biggest ass on tv, he deserves lawyer/client confidentiality protection.
Coup in slow motion.
russell, this is circular and useless. Start with the things they did the ladt 90 days go undermine Trump, work backwards through Loretta Lynch to the IRS scandal to the gun running ATF, and its laughable to talk about a scandal free Presidency. I admit to being stunned the first time I heard how scandal free his Presidency supposedly was.
I cant find the New Yorker article, circa 2008.
This is of course based on what co sider a reasonable view that his administration was conzrantly protected by a complete failure of the DOJ to pursue any of these investigations with any vigor.
So no, I dont say any of this stuff just to get a rise out of yall, nor do I think its a stretch. Trump is an idiot who pissed off the CIA, FBI,DOJ, the judiciary and most of the media and hes paying the price.
But to pretend his cronies are somehow less honest than Obama’s, in general, is questionable. Remembering that ultimately Obama’s key cronies were Democratic fund raisers that were convicted of illegal bundling and a social media team that buried any GOP candudate with beung Bush.
In fact, Trumps biggest mistake was bringing in people he didnt know at all, Manafort, Flynn, etc. Most of the scandals that have been prosecuted were by people he barely knew.
And now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court. Even if he is the biggest ass on tv, he deserves lawyer/client confidentiality protection.
Coup in slow motion.
Marty is the guy who said that those of us who campaigning for same-sex marriage were saying “I got mine fnck you” to the world. The evidence was that Marty’s son and his son’s girlfriend also didn’t have the rights accorded to married people, and we weren’t campaigning for them as well.
What we were supposed to be asking for on their behalf I never found out, because when I pointed out that Marty’s son and his son’s girlfriend already had the right that gay people were asking for — to go down to the town hall and get a marriage license — Marty either disappeared or ignored the question (I don’t recall which).
That train of “logic” made no sense, this doesn’t either. Whether it’s Tony P’s box of rocks or deliberate trolling I have given up trying to decide, but the resentment, it burns.
Marty is the guy who said that those of us who campaigning for same-sex marriage were saying “I got mine fnck you” to the world. The evidence was that Marty’s son and his son’s girlfriend also didn’t have the rights accorded to married people, and we weren’t campaigning for them as well.
What we were supposed to be asking for on their behalf I never found out, because when I pointed out that Marty’s son and his son’s girlfriend already had the right that gay people were asking for — to go down to the town hall and get a marriage license — Marty either disappeared or ignored the question (I don’t recall which).
That train of “logic” made no sense, this doesn’t either. Whether it’s Tony P’s box of rocks or deliberate trolling I have given up trying to decide, but the resentment, it burns.
Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama.
Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama.
I’m trying to figure out how a Justice Department staffed, primarily, with career folks who are lifelong Republicans and basically on the conservative side of the spectrum would have decided to “go easy” on Obama. Who, last I looked, was a Democrat and relatively liberal — albeit nowhere near as liberal as he is accused of being. Where is the Deep State when it counts???
And that’s before we get to the apparent inability of a Republican-controlled Congress, in 6 years of vigorous effort, to find all these scandals which are now being alleged. Were they just massively incompetent? Or was there nothing (outside conspiracy fantasies) to find? Because it’s impossible to argue plausibly that they weren’t trying.
I’m trying to figure out how a Justice Department staffed, primarily, with career folks who are lifelong Republicans and basically on the conservative side of the spectrum would have decided to “go easy” on Obama. Who, last I looked, was a Democrat and relatively liberal — albeit nowhere near as liberal as he is accused of being. Where is the Deep State when it counts???
And that’s before we get to the apparent inability of a Republican-controlled Congress, in 6 years of vigorous effort, to find all these scandals which are now being alleged. Were they just massively incompetent? Or was there nothing (outside conspiracy fantasies) to find? Because it’s impossible to argue plausibly that they weren’t trying.
OK Marty, if Charles’s link is the New Yorker piece you were referring to, and if you have re-read it, do you still think it shows that Obama is “likely as corrupt” as Trump? As TRUMP? I know it’s hard to step back from a position, but seriously?
OK Marty, if Charles’s link is the New Yorker piece you were referring to, and if you have re-read it, do you still think it shows that Obama is “likely as corrupt” as Trump? As TRUMP? I know it’s hard to step back from a position, but seriously?
I should make clear that in my opinion the New Yorker piece shows that Obama was/is a politician, with all the ducking and diving, compromising, questionable alliances, personal betraying and inevitable besmirching that that involves. No angel, for sure. But hardly corrupt, even when not compared to Trump, the very definition of the word.
I should make clear that in my opinion the New Yorker piece shows that Obama was/is a politician, with all the ducking and diving, compromising, questionable alliances, personal betraying and inevitable besmirching that that involves. No angel, for sure. But hardly corrupt, even when not compared to Trump, the very definition of the word.
GftNC,
It is certainly likely he us as corrupt as Trump. I keep looking for the proof, or even some evidence beyond “the campaign bought things from Trump businesses”, that Trump is actually corrupt. While Trump is a businessman of questionable ethics, that is something Obama certainly wasnt. Obama is a politician of incredibly questionable ethics.
So the CD here may have as much to do with your assessment of how “corrupt” Trump is as mine of how clearly corrupt Obama is. Obama clearly used jis government service for his financial gain at every turn while using the machinery og government to further his personal and political agendas.
If you consider my opinion trolling it is because of the confusing, to me, belief that Obama is somehow above the grift required to be a successful politician.
JankeM, you should get over it. I was making a point about my belief that benefits and legal protections shouldnt be designated based on the concept of marriage. That people, even my son to whom it was available, shouldnt be forced into that arramgement to accrue thise benefits. The downside of marriage is that it is reasonably hard to undo, sometimes unnecessarily so. So many people are forced to choose between an arcane legal concept of a century ago or not getting to be at their loved ones side in the hospital. There is nothing confusing about the logkc or particularly devastating about my reaction to your flat statement that you were worried about gay marriage and someone else could worry about the broader issue. It is not the most difficult disagreement that has ever been had, just the one you took most perdonally, long apologized for.
GftNC,
It is certainly likely he us as corrupt as Trump. I keep looking for the proof, or even some evidence beyond “the campaign bought things from Trump businesses”, that Trump is actually corrupt. While Trump is a businessman of questionable ethics, that is something Obama certainly wasnt. Obama is a politician of incredibly questionable ethics.
So the CD here may have as much to do with your assessment of how “corrupt” Trump is as mine of how clearly corrupt Obama is. Obama clearly used jis government service for his financial gain at every turn while using the machinery og government to further his personal and political agendas.
If you consider my opinion trolling it is because of the confusing, to me, belief that Obama is somehow above the grift required to be a successful politician.
JankeM, you should get over it. I was making a point about my belief that benefits and legal protections shouldnt be designated based on the concept of marriage. That people, even my son to whom it was available, shouldnt be forced into that arramgement to accrue thise benefits. The downside of marriage is that it is reasonably hard to undo, sometimes unnecessarily so. So many people are forced to choose between an arcane legal concept of a century ago or not getting to be at their loved ones side in the hospital. There is nothing confusing about the logkc or particularly devastating about my reaction to your flat statement that you were worried about gay marriage and someone else could worry about the broader issue. It is not the most difficult disagreement that has ever been had, just the one you took most perdonally, long apologized for.
hey Marty,
still waiting for the list of times the FBI has abused its power.
hey Marty,
still waiting for the list of times the FBI has abused its power.
cleek, then youre not paying attention.
cleek, then youre not paying attention.
yes, i’m sure that’s it.
yes, i’m sure that’s it.
It is certainly likely he us as corrupt as Trump.
Sorry, but this is fucking nuts. You are correct, there is no point in pursuing the conversation further.
I found, and read, the “Making It” NY’er piece. Yes, Obama is an ambitious, competitive politician. I have no doubt he is capable of being kind of a dick in some situations.
Welcome to the big show.
That’s the evidence of his deep corruption?
JankeM, you should get over it.
And this is where I lose interest in engaging you in conversation about pretty much anything.
What a profoundly rude and callous thing to say.
It is certainly likely he us as corrupt as Trump.
Sorry, but this is fucking nuts. You are correct, there is no point in pursuing the conversation further.
I found, and read, the “Making It” NY’er piece. Yes, Obama is an ambitious, competitive politician. I have no doubt he is capable of being kind of a dick in some situations.
Welcome to the big show.
That’s the evidence of his deep corruption?
JankeM, you should get over it.
And this is where I lose interest in engaging you in conversation about pretty much anything.
What a profoundly rude and callous thing to say.
Did Obama just have to pay $25M for bilking people out of their money through the establishment of a fake “university”? Has anything remotely like that happened to him in his entire life?
Also, too, you’re using the word “scandal” a bit more loosely than the context calls for. The IRS, ATF, and Lynch episodes are not on the scale of, say, Monica Lewinsky or Iran-Contra (not that I think those two are comparable to each other, at least in nature if not magnitude).
Obama was/is imperfect to be sure. Trump is a total sh1t show.
Did Obama just have to pay $25M for bilking people out of their money through the establishment of a fake “university”? Has anything remotely like that happened to him in his entire life?
Also, too, you’re using the word “scandal” a bit more loosely than the context calls for. The IRS, ATF, and Lynch episodes are not on the scale of, say, Monica Lewinsky or Iran-Contra (not that I think those two are comparable to each other, at least in nature if not magnitude).
Obama was/is imperfect to be sure. Trump is a total sh1t show.
Marty, I don’t think (and have never thought) that you are a troll.
I think you are a good guy who is more informed by the rightwing disinformation bubble than you are aware of, and I completely see how patronising and condescending you may consider this view, and I am sorry for that. I also see how you might turn it back on me about some putative liberal bubble, but as I have often said, that’s the problem with having no commonly accepted source of facts.
I also think that when you’re in a several-sided fight about some of it, here on ObWi, you find it hard to step back and admit when you’re wrong (although you did on the Comey and Mueller being Republicans issue). But that probably applies to more than one commenter here.
The long history of corrupt Trump behaviour is pretty well documented, with a lot more substantive detail than that New Yorker piece for example, but I imagine in the next few months/years more will come out. Whether the rightwing bubble will cover it is another matter.
Marty, I don’t think (and have never thought) that you are a troll.
I think you are a good guy who is more informed by the rightwing disinformation bubble than you are aware of, and I completely see how patronising and condescending you may consider this view, and I am sorry for that. I also see how you might turn it back on me about some putative liberal bubble, but as I have often said, that’s the problem with having no commonly accepted source of facts.
I also think that when you’re in a several-sided fight about some of it, here on ObWi, you find it hard to step back and admit when you’re wrong (although you did on the Comey and Mueller being Republicans issue). But that probably applies to more than one commenter here.
The long history of corrupt Trump behaviour is pretty well documented, with a lot more substantive detail than that New Yorker piece for example, but I imagine in the next few months/years more will come out. Whether the rightwing bubble will cover it is another matter.
rhssell, no its not. She brings up a conversation from years ago on a regular basis as an insult to me. And as some strawman to call me a troll. I have a right to more vigorously denounce that as time goes on.
It was a really long time ago now. Nothing i said was even that insulting, far worse things are bandied about daily here.
rhssell, no its not. She brings up a conversation from years ago on a regular basis as an insult to me. And as some strawman to call me a troll. I have a right to more vigorously denounce that as time goes on.
It was a really long time ago now. Nothing i said was even that insulting, far worse things are bandied about daily here.
All kinds of crap has come out, and will continue to come out, about Trump and his family and circle of associates. It has included, and will continue to include, activities ranging from the merely sleazy, to the profoundly unethical, to outright criminal behavior.
This is not a partisan thing. There have been, are now, and likely will continue to be no shortage of (D) politicians who are also on the spectrum from sleazy to unethical to plainly criminal.
Responding to the investigation of Trump’s corruption by pointing fingers at people like the Clintons or Obama is not persuasive. The Clintons have, in fact, leveraged their public careers into great personal wealth. So has Obama. So has virtually every prominent national political figure in modern memory. So did Ulysses S Grant, for that matter. It’s not necessarily the most attractive practice, but it has become the norm.
None of that is what we’re talking about in the case of Trump.
Trump is, really and truly, a crook. This is not news to anyone who has a more than passing familiarity with his very public career over the last 35 or 40 years. He’s a dishonest sleazebag, no bank in the US will lend him a dime, he makes his money by marketing high-end real estate to anonymous offshore cash buyers, and by licensing his personal notoriety to crappy consumer goods, education scams, and real estate deals in countries with lax criminal enforcement. His business associates are gangsters, thugs, and offshore kleptocrats.
It’s a really, really, really long list, and no, by god the Clintons and Obama are not the (D) equivalents, and people only make themselves look foolish when they try to insist otherwise.
People need to get their partisan blinders off and receive the fact that the POTUS is a freaking criminal, so that we can all deal with the reality and move the hell on. I’m sick of the “yeah, but what about…” discussion, it’s stupid and a waste of time.
Trump’s a crook, his presidency is unraveling BECAUSE HE IS A CROOK, not because the “deep state” has it in for him. Let’s deal with it and move on.
All kinds of crap has come out, and will continue to come out, about Trump and his family and circle of associates. It has included, and will continue to include, activities ranging from the merely sleazy, to the profoundly unethical, to outright criminal behavior.
This is not a partisan thing. There have been, are now, and likely will continue to be no shortage of (D) politicians who are also on the spectrum from sleazy to unethical to plainly criminal.
Responding to the investigation of Trump’s corruption by pointing fingers at people like the Clintons or Obama is not persuasive. The Clintons have, in fact, leveraged their public careers into great personal wealth. So has Obama. So has virtually every prominent national political figure in modern memory. So did Ulysses S Grant, for that matter. It’s not necessarily the most attractive practice, but it has become the norm.
None of that is what we’re talking about in the case of Trump.
Trump is, really and truly, a crook. This is not news to anyone who has a more than passing familiarity with his very public career over the last 35 or 40 years. He’s a dishonest sleazebag, no bank in the US will lend him a dime, he makes his money by marketing high-end real estate to anonymous offshore cash buyers, and by licensing his personal notoriety to crappy consumer goods, education scams, and real estate deals in countries with lax criminal enforcement. His business associates are gangsters, thugs, and offshore kleptocrats.
It’s a really, really, really long list, and no, by god the Clintons and Obama are not the (D) equivalents, and people only make themselves look foolish when they try to insist otherwise.
People need to get their partisan blinders off and receive the fact that the POTUS is a freaking criminal, so that we can all deal with the reality and move the hell on. I’m sick of the “yeah, but what about…” discussion, it’s stupid and a waste of time.
Trump’s a crook, his presidency is unraveling BECAUSE HE IS A CROOK, not because the “deep state” has it in for him. Let’s deal with it and move on.
The long history of corrupt Trump behaviour is pretty well documented, with a lot more substantive detail than that New Yorker piece for example, but I imagine in the next few months/years more will come out….
Agreed – though that should probably read weeks/months rather than months/years…
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/michael-cohen-and-the-end-stage-of-the-trump-presidency
…However, I am unaware of anybody who has taken a serious look at Trump’s business who doesn’t believe that there is a high likelihood of rampant criminality. In Azerbaijan, he did business with a likely money launderer for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. In the Republic of Georgia, he partnered with a group that was being investigated for a possible role in the largest known bank-fraud and money-laundering case in history. In Indonesia, his development partner is “knee-deep in dirty politics”; there are criminal investigations of his deals in Brazil; the F.B.I. is reportedly looking into his daughter Ivanka’s role in the Trump hotel in Vancouver, for which she worked with a Malaysian family that has admitted to financial fraud. Back home, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka were investigated for financial crimes associated with the Trump hotel in SoHo—an investigation that was halted suspiciously. His Taj Mahal casino received what was then the largest fine in history for money-laundering violations.
Listing all the financial misconduct can be overwhelming and tedious. I have limited myself to some of the deals over the past decade, thus ignoring Trump’s long history of links to New York Mafia figures and other financial irregularities….
The long history of corrupt Trump behaviour is pretty well documented, with a lot more substantive detail than that New Yorker piece for example, but I imagine in the next few months/years more will come out….
Agreed – though that should probably read weeks/months rather than months/years…
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/michael-cohen-and-the-end-stage-of-the-trump-presidency
…However, I am unaware of anybody who has taken a serious look at Trump’s business who doesn’t believe that there is a high likelihood of rampant criminality. In Azerbaijan, he did business with a likely money launderer for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. In the Republic of Georgia, he partnered with a group that was being investigated for a possible role in the largest known bank-fraud and money-laundering case in history. In Indonesia, his development partner is “knee-deep in dirty politics”; there are criminal investigations of his deals in Brazil; the F.B.I. is reportedly looking into his daughter Ivanka’s role in the Trump hotel in Vancouver, for which she worked with a Malaysian family that has admitted to financial fraud. Back home, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka were investigated for financial crimes associated with the Trump hotel in SoHo—an investigation that was halted suspiciously. His Taj Mahal casino received what was then the largest fine in history for money-laundering violations.
Listing all the financial misconduct can be overwhelming and tedious. I have limited myself to some of the deals over the past decade, thus ignoring Trump’s long history of links to New York Mafia figures and other financial irregularities….
Whether the rightwing bubble will cover it is another matter.
They will not.
It will be the “deep state” mounting a “slow motion coup” to overthrow a democratically elected guy that all of the liberal coastal elites just could not abide.
That’s the story, and they will be sticking to it. Don’t expect anything else.
Some of his supporters will have a re-think and make better choices going forward. Some never will.
Welcome to America.
Whether the rightwing bubble will cover it is another matter.
They will not.
It will be the “deep state” mounting a “slow motion coup” to overthrow a democratically elected guy that all of the liberal coastal elites just could not abide.
That’s the story, and they will be sticking to it. Don’t expect anything else.
Some of his supporters will have a re-think and make better choices going forward. Some never will.
Welcome to America.
She brings up a conversation from years ago on a regular basis as an insult to me.
I won’t speak for Janie, but I doubt she’s bringing it up as an “insult to you”.
Perhaps consider why she might find that particular comment of yours to be something she might be disinclined to let go of.
She brings up a conversation from years ago on a regular basis as an insult to me.
I won’t speak for Janie, but I doubt she’s bringing it up as an “insult to you”.
Perhaps consider why she might find that particular comment of yours to be something she might be disinclined to let go of.
Obama was/is imperfect to be sure
Not perfect, huh? Way to go out on a limb. One percent less than perfection in human beings? Maybe 2%? Nah that’s too flawed.
Since the Obamabots claim they don’t lie and argue in good faith, I will believe that you, and your fellow trolls, since I hear that formulation a lot, believe Obama is close enough to perfect that we should use the expression.
That makes you liars, craysick, and pretty damn authoritarian. And which from the far left, makes you much closer to Marty than to me. I worship no one, and barely believe any individual is worth a damn, let alone using the word “perfect” in the vicinity of their descriptions.
Anybody else you would describe as almost perfect? You can now try to hide by avoiding the expression, but your idolatry and cultishness will out.
Not helping the damn Republican.
Obama was/is imperfect to be sure
Not perfect, huh? Way to go out on a limb. One percent less than perfection in human beings? Maybe 2%? Nah that’s too flawed.
Since the Obamabots claim they don’t lie and argue in good faith, I will believe that you, and your fellow trolls, since I hear that formulation a lot, believe Obama is close enough to perfect that we should use the expression.
That makes you liars, craysick, and pretty damn authoritarian. And which from the far left, makes you much closer to Marty than to me. I worship no one, and barely believe any individual is worth a damn, let alone using the word “perfect” in the vicinity of their descriptions.
Anybody else you would describe as almost perfect? You can now try to hide by avoiding the expression, but your idolatry and cultishness will out.
Not helping the damn Republican.
cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
“unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials”
synonyms: dishonest, unscrupulous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unethical, amoral, untrustworthy, venal, underhanded, double-dealing, fraudulent, bribable, criminal, illegal, unlawful, nefarious; More
Insofar as words have meaning, Trump is the embodiment of corrupt.
cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
“unscrupulous logging companies assisted by corrupt officials”
synonyms: dishonest, unscrupulous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unethical, amoral, untrustworthy, venal, underhanded, double-dealing, fraudulent, bribable, criminal, illegal, unlawful, nefarious; More
Insofar as words have meaning, Trump is the embodiment of corrupt.
now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court
sorry, this one needs a response.
Sean Hannity has spent no small amount of air time railing against the investigation into, among other people, Michael Cohen.
No mention of the fact that MICHAEL COHEN WAS HIS OWN ATTORNEY.
So, WTF.
These guys are creeps, criminals, and boneheads. If you’re a (R), get up offa your butt and get some reasonable people to run. And tell them that anyone who shows up on Fox loses your vote.
Your party sucks. Fix it, please. Or at least quit whining when the rest of us point it out.
The rest of us will thank you for it.
now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court
sorry, this one needs a response.
Sean Hannity has spent no small amount of air time railing against the investigation into, among other people, Michael Cohen.
No mention of the fact that MICHAEL COHEN WAS HIS OWN ATTORNEY.
So, WTF.
These guys are creeps, criminals, and boneheads. If you’re a (R), get up offa your butt and get some reasonable people to run. And tell them that anyone who shows up on Fox loses your vote.
Your party sucks. Fix it, please. Or at least quit whining when the rest of us point it out.
The rest of us will thank you for it.
wj, “you” should run. you’re a sensible guy, if I lived in your area I’d probably vote for you.
c’mon you guys, there have to be some reasonable (R)’s out there. fix your party, please.
This stuff is getting old.
wj, “you” should run. you’re a sensible guy, if I lived in your area I’d probably vote for you.
c’mon you guys, there have to be some reasonable (R)’s out there. fix your party, please.
This stuff is getting old.
remember when Obama paid all those porn stars to keep quiet? what a sleazy guy.
the “it’s a deep state conspiracy” is the official GOP party line now.
it has to be. it’s the only way they can explain the fact that their cult leader is being investigated and that his associates keep ending up being indicted.
remember when Obama paid all those porn stars to keep quiet? what a sleazy guy.
the “it’s a deep state conspiracy” is the official GOP party line now.
it has to be. it’s the only way they can explain the fact that their cult leader is being investigated and that his associates keep ending up being indicted.
And now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court. Even if he is the biggest ass on tv, he deserves lawyer/client confidentiality protection…
It was Cohen’s own lawyers who announced the information – after a Reagan appointed justice ordered them to do so.
IOW, the information wasn’t confidential client information at all.
As for ‘deserving’ lawyer/client confidentiality, it’s hardly apparent that he even meets the test of being a client.
In his own words:
“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective….”
And now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court. Even if he is the biggest ass on tv, he deserves lawyer/client confidentiality protection…
It was Cohen’s own lawyers who announced the information – after a Reagan appointed justice ordered them to do so.
IOW, the information wasn’t confidential client information at all.
As for ‘deserving’ lawyer/client confidentiality, it’s hardly apparent that he even meets the test of being a client.
In his own words:
“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective….”
It does, however, explain the apparent innumeracy of this report…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cohen-seeks-to-withhold-identity-of-mystery-client/2018/04/16/be7e5fce-4182-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html
In the course of those arguments, Cohen’s lawyers acknowledged that he has had only about three legal clients in the past year and a half …
Though ‘about two and a bit legal clients’ might be closer to the mark.
Amusingly Cohen appears to have significantly more attorneys than he does clients.
It does, however, explain the apparent innumeracy of this report…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cohen-seeks-to-withhold-identity-of-mystery-client/2018/04/16/be7e5fce-4182-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html
In the course of those arguments, Cohen’s lawyers acknowledged that he has had only about three legal clients in the past year and a half …
Though ‘about two and a bit legal clients’ might be closer to the mark.
Amusingly Cohen appears to have significantly more attorneys than he does clients.
Stating that Obama is just as corrupt as Trump, if not more so, is so completely divorced from objective fact as to render any other utterance irrelevant.
The FoxNews universe is a good 3 degrees off plumb, on the quantum meter. It might as well be airing from Star Trek’s Mirror Mirror universe – as the Voice of the Imperium.
Stating that Obama is just as corrupt as Trump, if not more so, is so completely divorced from objective fact as to render any other utterance irrelevant.
The FoxNews universe is a good 3 degrees off plumb, on the quantum meter. It might as well be airing from Star Trek’s Mirror Mirror universe – as the Voice of the Imperium.
Marty shows how it can be difficult for someone firmly in the grips of cleek’s Law; gotta hold tight that resentment, when your political world is falling apart all around you, amirite?
And let me quote to Cohen & clients:
“if they’ve done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide”.
Pretty sure I heard that coming from the rightwing-o-verse, many times. Why, it’s as if they’re a bunch of self-serving DISHONEST LIARS or something. Unpossible!
Marty shows how it can be difficult for someone firmly in the grips of cleek’s Law; gotta hold tight that resentment, when your political world is falling apart all around you, amirite?
And let me quote to Cohen & clients:
“if they’ve done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide”.
Pretty sure I heard that coming from the rightwing-o-verse, many times. Why, it’s as if they’re a bunch of self-serving DISHONEST LIARS or something. Unpossible!
And now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court. Even if he is the biggest ass on tv, he deserves lawyer/client confidentiality protection…
And don’t you think, Marty, that as a journalist* weighing in pretty heavily on this case on a daily basis, that he ought to have declared an interest ?
*Giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
And now we are just bypassing every legal protection and announcing lawyers confidential client information in open court. Even if he is the biggest ass on tv, he deserves lawyer/client confidentiality protection…
And don’t you think, Marty, that as a journalist* weighing in pretty heavily on this case on a daily basis, that he ought to have declared an interest ?
*Giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
long apologized for
Oh, really? Must have been at some random time years later when I wasn’t reading the blog so much. Ditto for the time you called me breathtakingly hypocritical, and also for the time you said you couldn’t tell me apart from Jesurgislac (!!!!! talk about being a figment of someone’s imagination). There may be more; those are just the ones I “took personally” enough to remember.
I won’t hold my breath for a cite for the “long apologized for” apologies.
As for marriage, I don’t think it’s such a harmless disagreement (which you never did a thing to explain *or* apologize for) when your characterization of me is to put the words “I got mine, fnck you” in my mouth, apparently because I was working for the changes I wanted to see in the world and not the changes you wanted to see. You want changes to the rights of couples who aren’t married, go do your own dirty work. But I doubt you’ll find that people who want a bundle of rights much like the rights conferred by marriage will be able to undo their contracts any more easily than marriages are undone.
As for me, I’m going down to cleek’s bakery.
long apologized for
Oh, really? Must have been at some random time years later when I wasn’t reading the blog so much. Ditto for the time you called me breathtakingly hypocritical, and also for the time you said you couldn’t tell me apart from Jesurgislac (!!!!! talk about being a figment of someone’s imagination). There may be more; those are just the ones I “took personally” enough to remember.
I won’t hold my breath for a cite for the “long apologized for” apologies.
As for marriage, I don’t think it’s such a harmless disagreement (which you never did a thing to explain *or* apologize for) when your characterization of me is to put the words “I got mine, fnck you” in my mouth, apparently because I was working for the changes I wanted to see in the world and not the changes you wanted to see. You want changes to the rights of couples who aren’t married, go do your own dirty work. But I doubt you’ll find that people who want a bundle of rights much like the rights conferred by marriage will be able to undo their contracts any more easily than marriages are undone.
As for me, I’m going down to cleek’s bakery.
P.S. I have called Marty the equivalent of “dumb” and haven’t apologized. Without the explanation he gave above, the notion that “I got mine fnck you” aptly characterized the marriage campaign because Marty’s son and his girlfriend didn’t have the rights of married people did seem mind-bogglingly dumb, in addition to its nastiness. The explanation may make it seem less dumb; it doesn’t make it any less nasty.
P.S. I have called Marty the equivalent of “dumb” and haven’t apologized. Without the explanation he gave above, the notion that “I got mine fnck you” aptly characterized the marriage campaign because Marty’s son and his girlfriend didn’t have the rights of married people did seem mind-bogglingly dumb, in addition to its nastiness. The explanation may make it seem less dumb; it doesn’t make it any less nasty.
“Must have been at some random time years later when I wasn’t reading the blog so much. Ditto for the time you called me breathtakingly hypocritical, and also for the time you said you couldn’t tell me apart from Jesurgislac (!!!!! talk about being a figment of someone’s imagination”
I don’t recall the Jes comment, cant imagine the context, the other two were in the same thread. I did say you were hypocritical as you pointed out that maybe people in the Northeast were better able to judge the immigration issue than the people in Arizona because they weren’t so close to the issue. After arguing that people who weren’t gay shouldn’t have an opinion on gay marriage and people who couldn’t get an abortion (men) shouldn’t have a say in it.
The very concept that someone less impacted by the problem was better equipped to evaluate it seemed completely the opposite of almost all discussion here.
If you are truly interested in relitigating it, I guess I am ready. I abandoned the discussion at the time because it was all wrapped in the discussion of gay marriage that I had no objection to, and was very real and important to you. So my point wasn’t important enough to spend emotion continuing to defend at the cost of upsetting you.
I wasn’t, however, going to take back my point either because it was reasonable and not meant to be as personal as you took it. So I literally just quit having the discussion. For years. Only to have it occasionally dredged up in circumstances for reasons I am never sure of.
And russell, I’ve had lots of pretty bad things said about me over the years and your standard response is if you are going to comment on the internet you should be able to take those things. Some discussions get more heated than others. I can assure you I can go back and find some things where I took offense, as can you, and was told I should live with and move on.
“Must have been at some random time years later when I wasn’t reading the blog so much. Ditto for the time you called me breathtakingly hypocritical, and also for the time you said you couldn’t tell me apart from Jesurgislac (!!!!! talk about being a figment of someone’s imagination”
I don’t recall the Jes comment, cant imagine the context, the other two were in the same thread. I did say you were hypocritical as you pointed out that maybe people in the Northeast were better able to judge the immigration issue than the people in Arizona because they weren’t so close to the issue. After arguing that people who weren’t gay shouldn’t have an opinion on gay marriage and people who couldn’t get an abortion (men) shouldn’t have a say in it.
The very concept that someone less impacted by the problem was better equipped to evaluate it seemed completely the opposite of almost all discussion here.
If you are truly interested in relitigating it, I guess I am ready. I abandoned the discussion at the time because it was all wrapped in the discussion of gay marriage that I had no objection to, and was very real and important to you. So my point wasn’t important enough to spend emotion continuing to defend at the cost of upsetting you.
I wasn’t, however, going to take back my point either because it was reasonable and not meant to be as personal as you took it. So I literally just quit having the discussion. For years. Only to have it occasionally dredged up in circumstances for reasons I am never sure of.
And russell, I’ve had lots of pretty bad things said about me over the years and your standard response is if you are going to comment on the internet you should be able to take those things. Some discussions get more heated than others. I can assure you I can go back and find some things where I took offense, as can you, and was told I should live with and move on.
I can assure you I can go back and find some things where I took offense, as can you, and was told I should live with and move on.
Fair enough.
In general, I’d say that folks should suck it up and move on. I’d also say that most folks have a line that, if crossed, they will find hard to let go of.
When people articulate that, if you want to continue having a conversation with them, it’s probably best to respect that.
I used to characterize Tea Party style conservatives here by framing their statements using southern or rural American diction. “Gummint”, etc.
You found that offensive. I stopped doing that, because I accepted you at your word when you said you found it offensive, I had an interest in continuing to speak with you, and therefore was not interested in giving you personal offense.
I’m not offering this as an example of what a great guy I am, because in many ways I’m an irascible ass. This can be confirmed via a brief conversation with my wife, if need be.
I’m offering it as an observation that, yes, people need to have thick skins to engage in online debate, but also yes, if folks make it clear that something crosses a line with them, if you’re interested in maintaining any kind of relationship with them, that needs to be respected at some basic level.
Not just directing that at you, Marty, just putting it out there.
I can assure you I can go back and find some things where I took offense, as can you, and was told I should live with and move on.
Fair enough.
In general, I’d say that folks should suck it up and move on. I’d also say that most folks have a line that, if crossed, they will find hard to let go of.
When people articulate that, if you want to continue having a conversation with them, it’s probably best to respect that.
I used to characterize Tea Party style conservatives here by framing their statements using southern or rural American diction. “Gummint”, etc.
You found that offensive. I stopped doing that, because I accepted you at your word when you said you found it offensive, I had an interest in continuing to speak with you, and therefore was not interested in giving you personal offense.
I’m not offering this as an example of what a great guy I am, because in many ways I’m an irascible ass. This can be confirmed via a brief conversation with my wife, if need be.
I’m offering it as an observation that, yes, people need to have thick skins to engage in online debate, but also yes, if folks make it clear that something crosses a line with them, if you’re interested in maintaining any kind of relationship with them, that needs to be respected at some basic level.
Not just directing that at you, Marty, just putting it out there.
Thanks Russell, nothing in that statement I disagree with, or don’t try very hard to do. Not always successfully.
Thanks Russell, nothing in that statement I disagree with, or don’t try very hard to do. Not always successfully.
“Your party is broken”
Yep, they are broken all right, to the point where: not my circus; not my monkeys.
I am not a Republican donor. I am not a Republican supporter. I hang up as quickly on fundraising calls from various Republican organizations as I do on their counterparts.
But: no, I am not going to vote for people whose POVs are almost completely disjoint from mine. I declined to vote for Trump for President, but I also declined to give Hillary Clinton a vote. Sometimes I just don’t cast a vote if I think both people are assholes.
State and local elections I voted for who looked like the best candidate for the job, irrespective of party. Sometimes the wrong people get in. At least a couple of our local city government people have recently been arrested and convicted of mishandling of funds. One of them actually paid a guy to bid on a piece of equipment, jack up the price, and then turn around and sell it to the city. I think that was somewhere upwards of $20k in profit for the city officer involved.
This is in a city whose population may have broken 2300 after we moved here.
For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things, like lobbying. Take away their opportunities for taking, and you will get fewer people whose motivation is getting what they can take.
But I don’t see a way to fix that, because those same people are the ones that make the laws that govern themselves.
And, hey, wouldn’t it be swell if the DoJ was part of the Judiciary, rather than the Executive? Just spitballing, here.
For me, it’s fundamentally broken, and beyond fixing. So, I just do what it’s possible for one person to do, alone: cast my vote for sanity, and try to hold sane points of view. They may not be YOUR points of view, but they’re not actively evil ones, either.
As for the latest & eternally ongoing Trump scandal(s): I think they’ll all pan out to nothing, just as the various Clinton and Obama scandals did. If there was even a bit of evidence to convict, conviction will happen with or without my having been sure in advance that it would. So there’s really not much of a point in me getting attached to a POV that may turn out to be wrong, or worse: we may just wind up still not knowing for sure.
The above paragraph is much of why I don’t spend so much time, anymore, commenting politically. It’ll pan out how it does, with or without my help in the home or away cheering section.
Of course, I expect disagreement on any or all of the above. It’s a notionally free country, after all.
“Your party is broken”
Yep, they are broken all right, to the point where: not my circus; not my monkeys.
I am not a Republican donor. I am not a Republican supporter. I hang up as quickly on fundraising calls from various Republican organizations as I do on their counterparts.
But: no, I am not going to vote for people whose POVs are almost completely disjoint from mine. I declined to vote for Trump for President, but I also declined to give Hillary Clinton a vote. Sometimes I just don’t cast a vote if I think both people are assholes.
State and local elections I voted for who looked like the best candidate for the job, irrespective of party. Sometimes the wrong people get in. At least a couple of our local city government people have recently been arrested and convicted of mishandling of funds. One of them actually paid a guy to bid on a piece of equipment, jack up the price, and then turn around and sell it to the city. I think that was somewhere upwards of $20k in profit for the city officer involved.
This is in a city whose population may have broken 2300 after we moved here.
For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things, like lobbying. Take away their opportunities for taking, and you will get fewer people whose motivation is getting what they can take.
But I don’t see a way to fix that, because those same people are the ones that make the laws that govern themselves.
And, hey, wouldn’t it be swell if the DoJ was part of the Judiciary, rather than the Executive? Just spitballing, here.
For me, it’s fundamentally broken, and beyond fixing. So, I just do what it’s possible for one person to do, alone: cast my vote for sanity, and try to hold sane points of view. They may not be YOUR points of view, but they’re not actively evil ones, either.
As for the latest & eternally ongoing Trump scandal(s): I think they’ll all pan out to nothing, just as the various Clinton and Obama scandals did. If there was even a bit of evidence to convict, conviction will happen with or without my having been sure in advance that it would. So there’s really not much of a point in me getting attached to a POV that may turn out to be wrong, or worse: we may just wind up still not knowing for sure.
The above paragraph is much of why I don’t spend so much time, anymore, commenting politically. It’ll pan out how it does, with or without my help in the home or away cheering section.
Of course, I expect disagreement on any or all of the above. It’s a notionally free country, after all.
you’re free to disengage, of course. that won’t stop the effects of an incompetent, unqualified, morally-bankrupt administration from reaching you, however.
you’re free to disengage, of course. that won’t stop the effects of an incompetent, unqualified, morally-bankrupt administration from reaching you, however.
wj, “you” should run. you’re a sensible guy, if I lived in your area I’d probably vote for you.
c’mon you guys, there have to be some reasonable (R)’s out there. fix your party, please.
Thanks, Russell. But unfortunately I’m massively introverted. (I’ve gotten better since high school, when I could get up in front of a maximum of 3 people I knew well, or one person I didn’t know, and get words out at all. But it’s still no fun.) Which is a serious handicap in a politician.
But even if personally running for office seems like a non-starter, I do what I can and am willing to do more. If anyone would care to offer concrete suggestions, I’d be happy to add to my repertoire.
wj, “you” should run. you’re a sensible guy, if I lived in your area I’d probably vote for you.
c’mon you guys, there have to be some reasonable (R)’s out there. fix your party, please.
Thanks, Russell. But unfortunately I’m massively introverted. (I’ve gotten better since high school, when I could get up in front of a maximum of 3 people I knew well, or one person I didn’t know, and get words out at all. But it’s still no fun.) Which is a serious handicap in a politician.
But even if personally running for office seems like a non-starter, I do what I can and am willing to do more. If anyone would care to offer concrete suggestions, I’d be happy to add to my repertoire.
Slarti:”For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things”
Interesting point. I think it’s been made significantly worse in CA and other places that have instituted term-limits for things like legislative offices.
One (possible? speculative!) counterpoint is that it seems like people that run HOAs (Home Owner’s Associations) seem to have an outsized probability of turning into petty tyrants. Whereas a small-town mayor, with similar responsibilities, could well do the same, but if they’re keeping one eye on future advancement would be more likely to not be such an a-hole.
It’s those damned meatbags that cause all the problems.
Slarti:”For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things”
Interesting point. I think it’s been made significantly worse in CA and other places that have instituted term-limits for things like legislative offices.
One (possible? speculative!) counterpoint is that it seems like people that run HOAs (Home Owner’s Associations) seem to have an outsized probability of turning into petty tyrants. Whereas a small-town mayor, with similar responsibilities, could well do the same, but if they’re keeping one eye on future advancement would be more likely to not be such an a-hole.
It’s those damned meatbags that cause all the problems.
Today in “But Gorsuch!“:
In Sessions v Dimaya, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 against the administration. With Mr Justice Gorsuch concurring with the 4 “liberal justices” that the piece of immigration law that the deportation was being based on was “unconstitutionally vague.”
One of the recurring truths of Supreme Court appointments is that the new Justices cannot be relied upon to behave exactly as the President making the appointment prefers. Even before the evolution in views which sometimes happens.
Today in “But Gorsuch!“:
In Sessions v Dimaya, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 against the administration. With Mr Justice Gorsuch concurring with the 4 “liberal justices” that the piece of immigration law that the deportation was being based on was “unconstitutionally vague.”
One of the recurring truths of Supreme Court appointments is that the new Justices cannot be relied upon to behave exactly as the President making the appointment prefers. Even before the evolution in views which sometimes happens.
“One of the recurring truths of Supreme Court appointments is that the new Justices cannot be relied upon to behave exactly as the President making the appointment prefers.”
Trump won’t make that mistake again.
Next time he’ll make sure his BFF Vladimir has some Kompromat on the nominee.
“One of the recurring truths of Supreme Court appointments is that the new Justices cannot be relied upon to behave exactly as the President making the appointment prefers.”
Trump won’t make that mistake again.
Next time he’ll make sure his BFF Vladimir has some Kompromat on the nominee.
Next time he’ll make sure his BFF Vladimir has some Kompromat on the nominee.
Ah, but is Vlad his BFF. Or just an ally of (Vlad’s) convenience? I’d bet on the latter — which means that he might not be willing to bother with doing something like that for Trump.
Next time he’ll make sure his BFF Vladimir has some Kompromat on the nominee.
Ah, but is Vlad his BFF. Or just an ally of (Vlad’s) convenience? I’d bet on the latter — which means that he might not be willing to bother with doing something like that for Trump.
Well, Vlad did do an olé when we cruise-missiled Damascus, so there may be something to the BFF thing.
Well, Vlad did do an olé when we cruise-missiled Damascus, so there may be something to the BFF thing.
Marty: Coup in slow motion.
I will be charitable and assume that this is not trolling but sincerely held opinion.
Now: while persons are entitled to respect, opinions are not. So: that’s a stupid opinion.
BTW: like russell, I have used “gummint” (or my personal variant, “guvmint”) many times; unlike russell, I have not sworn off it. But let me be perfectly clear: it’s not “southerners” I mean to mock, it’s Saint Ronald Reagan, who I think (but I may just be trolling) used to pronounce it that way on purpose. One of my standard gags since last millennium has been that Reagan did so “reduce the size of government” — he took a whole syllable out of it.
–TP
Marty: Coup in slow motion.
I will be charitable and assume that this is not trolling but sincerely held opinion.
Now: while persons are entitled to respect, opinions are not. So: that’s a stupid opinion.
BTW: like russell, I have used “gummint” (or my personal variant, “guvmint”) many times; unlike russell, I have not sworn off it. But let me be perfectly clear: it’s not “southerners” I mean to mock, it’s Saint Ronald Reagan, who I think (but I may just be trolling) used to pronounce it that way on purpose. One of my standard gags since last millennium has been that Reagan did so “reduce the size of government” — he took a whole syllable out of it.
–TP
Thanks, Russell. But unfortunately I’m massively introverted.
You can be the guy behind the curtain!
🙂
For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things, like lobbying.
Yes.
Money makes people do funny things. Not “funny ha-ha”, the other kind of funny.
We know the way to stop it, we don’t have the discipline.
Thanks, Russell. But unfortunately I’m massively introverted.
You can be the guy behind the curtain!
🙂
For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things, like lobbying.
Yes.
Money makes people do funny things. Not “funny ha-ha”, the other kind of funny.
We know the way to stop it, we don’t have the discipline.
Tony P, I’m pretty sure it is sincerely held opinion. And by the way, FWIW, I think Marty explained sometime later that his comment about Obama killing Scalia was a joke. Thank God.
Tony P, I’m pretty sure it is sincerely held opinion. And by the way, FWIW, I think Marty explained sometime later that his comment about Obama killing Scalia was a joke. Thank God.
I was reading this and immediately thought of Nigel and Donald.
Have a nice day.
I was reading this and immediately thought of Nigel and Donald.
Have a nice day.
For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things, like lobbying.
It could be worse. It could be the other way around. cf Trump administration.
For me, one huge problem in government is that it’s used as a stepping-stone to bigger things, like lobbying.
It could be worse. It could be the other way around. cf Trump administration.
My name is bobbyp, and I endorse this message.
My name is bobbyp, and I endorse this message.
GftNC,
Sincerely held opinions can be sincerely stupid. Sincerely held beliefs can be sincerely wrong. Sincerity says something about the opiner/believer, not about the universe. And BTW, joking and trolling are not mutually exclusive. It’s sincerity and trollery that are.
I’m not suggesting you disagree with any of that, incidentally. I’m just stating my own beliefs and opinions here.
–TP
GftNC,
Sincerely held opinions can be sincerely stupid. Sincerely held beliefs can be sincerely wrong. Sincerity says something about the opiner/believer, not about the universe. And BTW, joking and trolling are not mutually exclusive. It’s sincerity and trollery that are.
I’m not suggesting you disagree with any of that, incidentally. I’m just stating my own beliefs and opinions here.
–TP
You’re right, Tony P, I don’t disagree with any of that.
You’re right, Tony P, I don’t disagree with any of that.
Open Thread? A shorter baseball season!
Open Thread? A shorter baseball season!
Is having games cancelled due to bad weather in April something new (new in magnitude, I mean)? Or a result of climate change?
Or is it just that people’s patience with interruptions in their finely crafted schedules has diminished?
Baseball managed with a 154 game season until the 1960s, so it’s clear that 162 games isn’t set in stone.
Is having games cancelled due to bad weather in April something new (new in magnitude, I mean)? Or a result of climate change?
Or is it just that people’s patience with interruptions in their finely crafted schedules has diminished?
Baseball managed with a 154 game season until the 1960s, so it’s clear that 162 games isn’t set in stone.
The season is starting a week to 10 days earlier than was once the case, largely because of the expanded playoffs. Teams also stopped scheduling doubleheaders some years ago to have 81 home dates; doubleheaders that are scheduled as make up games are usually scheduled as day/night splits with separate tickets needed for each game. The flow of revenue is paramount.
The season is starting a week to 10 days earlier than was once the case, largely because of the expanded playoffs. Teams also stopped scheduling doubleheaders some years ago to have 81 home dates; doubleheaders that are scheduled as make up games are usually scheduled as day/night splits with separate tickets needed for each game. The flow of revenue is paramount.
i was getting close to certain that Putin had given Trump the assist just to be mischievous and to defeat Clinton, not for any expectation of favors in return.
but this latest sanctions thing?
blew that out the water.
i was getting close to certain that Putin had given Trump the assist just to be mischievous and to defeat Clinton, not for any expectation of favors in return.
but this latest sanctions thing?
blew that out the water.
I’d say that’s probably a good read on what Putin wanted — weakening a President Clinton was the goal, since he had no more expectation of a Trump victory than anyone else.
But once he rolled boxcars, he had leverage already in hand to let him milk the situation for all it’s worth. And no hesitation about using it.
I’d say that’s probably a good read on what Putin wanted — weakening a President Clinton was the goal, since he had no more expectation of a Trump victory than anyone else.
But once he rolled boxcars, he had leverage already in hand to let him milk the situation for all it’s worth. And no hesitation about using it.
But once he rolled boxcars…
Heh. More like rolling 100 times in a row and never a 7 while pressing his bets all the way.
But once he rolled boxcars…
Heh. More like rolling 100 times in a row and never a 7 while pressing his bets all the way.
TonyP,
For you.
Thanks.
TonyP,
For you.
Thanks.
Abougt Trump choosing to go to DC and get under a microscope–it doesn’t take a microsope to see his sleaze. He has been sleazy and frequently criminal all of his life. Absolutely nothing he is being investigated for is a surprise; it’s all in character and predictable based on past behavior.
Abougt Trump choosing to go to DC and get under a microscope–it doesn’t take a microsope to see his sleaze. He has been sleazy and frequently criminal all of his life. Absolutely nothing he is being investigated for is a surprise; it’s all in character and predictable based on past behavior.
Is anyone paying attention to Mitch McConnell?
What a disgrace. He is about as disgusting a traitor as there can possibly be. I wonder what he’s been paid, or what he fears.
Is anyone paying attention to Mitch McConnell?
What a disgrace. He is about as disgusting a traitor as there can possibly be. I wonder what he’s been paid, or what he fears.
And the people of Kentucky, how stupid (yes, sorry, posting rules) they must be. Really, really misguided. And wrong. Or maybe just horrifying.
And the people of Kentucky, how stupid (yes, sorry, posting rules) they must be. Really, really misguided. And wrong. Or maybe just horrifying.
I was reading this and immediately thought of Nigel and Donald.
There’s not much in there I disagree with.
I was reading this and immediately thought of Nigel and Donald.
There’s not much in there I disagree with.
Not perfect, huh? Way to go out on a limb.
I wasn’t trying to go out on a limb, and the context was a comparison of Trump’s and Obama’s levels of corruption. How do you think they compare, using “corruption” in its commonly-understood sense?
Not perfect, huh? Way to go out on a limb.
I wasn’t trying to go out on a limb, and the context was a comparison of Trump’s and Obama’s levels of corruption. How do you think they compare, using “corruption” in its commonly-understood sense?
But I don’t see a way to fix that, because those same people are the ones that make the laws that govern themselves.
I find this profoundly depressing, and I’m also nodding my head.
Has the general climate of grift gotten so pervasive at the national level that there is no longer a way back?
“corruption” used to mean fast-tracking a contract, or greasing a palm here or there. That’s penny-ante stuff now. The big money is in cashing in after your time in office for 7 and 8 figure paydays as a lobbyist or consultant, or getting on some corporate boards, or even just working the book-and-lecture circuit for millions.
“Public service” has become the stepping stone to being filthy stinking rich. And not just for elected positions.
We don’t even consider it to be corruption anymore. It’s a standard career path.
But I don’t see a way to fix that, because those same people are the ones that make the laws that govern themselves.
I find this profoundly depressing, and I’m also nodding my head.
Has the general climate of grift gotten so pervasive at the national level that there is no longer a way back?
“corruption” used to mean fast-tracking a contract, or greasing a palm here or there. That’s penny-ante stuff now. The big money is in cashing in after your time in office for 7 and 8 figure paydays as a lobbyist or consultant, or getting on some corporate boards, or even just working the book-and-lecture circuit for millions.
“Public service” has become the stepping stone to being filthy stinking rich. And not just for elected positions.
We don’t even consider it to be corruption anymore. It’s a standard career path.
If he claims not to know about the payment to Ms Daniels, how can Trump know that her account of intimidation is a lie ?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/18/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-sketch-total-con-job
If he claims not to know about the payment to Ms Daniels, how can Trump know that her account of intimidation is a lie ?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/18/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-sketch-total-con-job
The big money is in cashing in after your time in office for 7 and 8 figure paydays as a lobbyist or consultant, or getting on some corporate boards, or even just working the book-and-lecture circuit for millions.
“Public service” has become the stepping stone to being filthy stinking rich. And not just for elected positions….
I seem to recall complaining about this prior to the last Presidential election, and getting jumped on.
The big money is in cashing in after your time in office for 7 and 8 figure paydays as a lobbyist or consultant, or getting on some corporate boards, or even just working the book-and-lecture circuit for millions.
“Public service” has become the stepping stone to being filthy stinking rich. And not just for elected positions….
I seem to recall complaining about this prior to the last Presidential election, and getting jumped on.
It’s not the “7 and 8 figure paydays as a lobbyist or consultant” part that is reprehensible, so much as what the companies hiring said lobbyist/consultants get that makes it worth paying those “7 and 8 figure paydays”.
Follow the money. Take no prisoners.
It’s not the “7 and 8 figure paydays as a lobbyist or consultant” part that is reprehensible, so much as what the companies hiring said lobbyist/consultants get that makes it worth paying those “7 and 8 figure paydays”.
Follow the money. Take no prisoners.
you can put me in the “don’t much care about what jobs people get” bucket.
the entire reason we have elections is to vote out people who fail to do the jobs of representing and governing correctly. corruption and influence was well-known in the late 1700s when the people who started America created a government where representatives would be periodically held to account.
if the people we elected aren’t doing the job properly, we should vote them out.
yes, this means we have to watch and pay attention and dig around and put in effort. but if you don’t pull up the weeds, the weeds take over the garden.
you can put me in the “don’t much care about what jobs people get” bucket.
the entire reason we have elections is to vote out people who fail to do the jobs of representing and governing correctly. corruption and influence was well-known in the late 1700s when the people who started America created a government where representatives would be periodically held to account.
if the people we elected aren’t doing the job properly, we should vote them out.
yes, this means we have to watch and pay attention and dig around and put in effort. but if you don’t pull up the weeds, the weeds take over the garden.
I quote russell: And not just for elected positions.
What to do about that side of it, I don’t know, but we can’t vote people out who didn’t get voted in. Even if you can theoretically vote out the people who put them there, that’s a knot I don’t see the American electorate untying. You don’t have to be terribly low-information not to be up on things at the level of “what did this person’s appointees/hires do?” (unless they did something really newsworthy, of course).
I quote russell: And not just for elected positions.
What to do about that side of it, I don’t know, but we can’t vote people out who didn’t get voted in. Even if you can theoretically vote out the people who put them there, that’s a knot I don’t see the American electorate untying. You don’t have to be terribly low-information not to be up on things at the level of “what did this person’s appointees/hires do?” (unless they did something really newsworthy, of course).
Well, I can’t see a way to do anything (assuming that we should) about people who leave non-elected positions and write books for big bucks. But if they did things while working for the government which merited them getting huge salaries after leaving office, there ought to be a way to deal with that under the bribery laws. Maybe we need to remove the statute of limitations** in order to do so. But still it should be possible, although it could be challenging establishing the link.
** IANAL, so I don’t know if the statute of limitations deals with the act or with the payment of the bribe. Specifically when the bribe is a big job years afterwards.
Well, I can’t see a way to do anything (assuming that we should) about people who leave non-elected positions and write books for big bucks. But if they did things while working for the government which merited them getting huge salaries after leaving office, there ought to be a way to deal with that under the bribery laws. Maybe we need to remove the statute of limitations** in order to do so. But still it should be possible, although it could be challenging establishing the link.
** IANAL, so I don’t know if the statute of limitations deals with the act or with the payment of the bribe. Specifically when the bribe is a big job years afterwards.
Preface to the rest of my comment: What cleek said.
but we can’t vote people out who didn’t get voted in.
People who work in the bureaucracy are legally subject to high ethical standards. If the country cared at all about ethics and their enforcement, they wouldn’t have elected Donald Trump to lead the executive branch of government. The concern [trolling] about Hillary Clinton’s speeches were part of the Clinton Rules.
It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, illegal to become wealthy. Many of the people who comment here are probably not living a sack cloth and ashes existence, and would be hard pressed to state exactly what “too wealthy” means – maybe more wealthy than they happen to be?
It is, and should be, illegal to accept bribes. If we want higher standards than the ones on the books, we should pass laws. But maybe we should start by being realistic about what our current choices are. Hillary and her “questionable speeches” versus Donald Trump and his extensive and well publicized trail of money laundering, fraud, defamation, sexual assault, housing discrimination, bribery – I’m sure there’s more. The country elected him knowing all of this, so pearl clutching about people being “too rich” from books and speeches seems really off the mark to me.
Preface to the rest of my comment: What cleek said.
but we can’t vote people out who didn’t get voted in.
People who work in the bureaucracy are legally subject to high ethical standards. If the country cared at all about ethics and their enforcement, they wouldn’t have elected Donald Trump to lead the executive branch of government. The concern [trolling] about Hillary Clinton’s speeches were part of the Clinton Rules.
It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, illegal to become wealthy. Many of the people who comment here are probably not living a sack cloth and ashes existence, and would be hard pressed to state exactly what “too wealthy” means – maybe more wealthy than they happen to be?
It is, and should be, illegal to accept bribes. If we want higher standards than the ones on the books, we should pass laws. But maybe we should start by being realistic about what our current choices are. Hillary and her “questionable speeches” versus Donald Trump and his extensive and well publicized trail of money laundering, fraud, defamation, sexual assault, housing discrimination, bribery – I’m sure there’s more. The country elected him knowing all of this, so pearl clutching about people being “too rich” from books and speeches seems really off the mark to me.
funny how speaking fees were never mentioned as a reason to not vote for Trump.
that article was written in March 2008.
funny how speaking fees were never mentioned as a reason to not vote for Trump.
that article was written in March 2008.
funny how speaking fees were never mentioned as a reason to not vote for Trump.
Clinton speeches – criticism leveled by “the Left” as the fees evidenced her ties to Wall Street and the rich and powerful in general, and possible insight into the public policies she might pursue once in office.
Trump Speeches – Demonstrate willingness to take big money to participate in, and thus endorse, standard real estate marketing scams. Simply another of all too many facts demonstrating the overwhelming evidence regarding his ethical standards (heh), and greed.
One criticism was used in political and ideological in-fighting, and to some effect–whether you agree or not. The other was just a fart in the whirlwind of Trump’s overall level of sleaze….lost in the noise.
Sometimes life is just not fair.
funny how speaking fees were never mentioned as a reason to not vote for Trump.
Clinton speeches – criticism leveled by “the Left” as the fees evidenced her ties to Wall Street and the rich and powerful in general, and possible insight into the public policies she might pursue once in office.
Trump Speeches – Demonstrate willingness to take big money to participate in, and thus endorse, standard real estate marketing scams. Simply another of all too many facts demonstrating the overwhelming evidence regarding his ethical standards (heh), and greed.
One criticism was used in political and ideological in-fighting, and to some effect–whether you agree or not. The other was just a fart in the whirlwind of Trump’s overall level of sleaze….lost in the noise.
Sometimes life is just not fair.
It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, illegal to become wealthy.
(bobbyp raises hand….)
It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, illegal to become wealthy.
(bobbyp raises hand….)
Speaking fees, really?
Can you point me to the political office he leveraged to get big speaking fee engagements in 2005?
Or even what public policies he espoused in 2005 that would have been compromised by speaking at real estate investing seminars?
Speaking fees, really?
Can you point me to the political office he leveraged to get big speaking fee engagements in 2005?
Or even what public policies he espoused in 2005 that would have been compromised by speaking at real estate investing seminars?
(bobbyp raises hand….)
Those golfing fees aren’t going to pay for themselves.
(bobbyp raises hand….)
Those golfing fees aren’t going to pay for themselves.
criticism leveled by “the Left” as the fees evidenced her ties to Wall Street and the rich and powerful in general,
of course neglecting the inconvenient fact that many (most?) of her evil speeches were to organizations that had no connection to Wall Street.
criticism leveled by “the Left” as the fees evidenced her ties to Wall Street and the rich and powerful in general,
of course neglecting the inconvenient fact that many (most?) of her evil speeches were to organizations that had no connection to Wall Street.
FFS she was the WRONG candidate, she lost against Trump! – an imbecilic narcissist with no government experience or knowledge of anything.
Get that into your heads, stop blaming “the left” and try harder next time.
FFS she was the WRONG candidate, she lost against Trump! – an imbecilic narcissist with no government experience or knowledge of anything.
Get that into your heads, stop blaming “the left” and try harder next time.
FFS she was the WRONG candidate, she lost against Trump! – an imbecilic narcissist with no government experience or knowledge of anything.
By that logic, Trump was the right candidate, because he won?
The election of 2016 will not happen again, and Hillary Clinton won’t be running, so deciding whether or not she was “the right candidate” or “the WRONG candidate” is fruitless. What “the left” (whatever that means) and anyone else should do going forward is vote for the candidate who is the best of the two on offer, rather than holding out for an imaginary perfect person.
Thanks.
FFS she was the WRONG candidate, she lost against Trump! – an imbecilic narcissist with no government experience or knowledge of anything.
By that logic, Trump was the right candidate, because he won?
The election of 2016 will not happen again, and Hillary Clinton won’t be running, so deciding whether or not she was “the right candidate” or “the WRONG candidate” is fruitless. What “the left” (whatever that means) and anyone else should do going forward is vote for the candidate who is the best of the two on offer, rather than holding out for an imaginary perfect person.
Thanks.
Those golfing fees aren’t going to pay for themselves.
in the communist utopia where the robots have “taken all the jobs”, whatcha’ gonna’ do? Also, at my getting to be advanced age, i wouldn’t yelp about having a caddie every now and then.
Those golfing fees aren’t going to pay for themselves.
in the communist utopia where the robots have “taken all the jobs”, whatcha’ gonna’ do? Also, at my getting to be advanced age, i wouldn’t yelp about having a caddie every now and then.
Hillary Clinton won’t be running, so deciding whether or not she was “the right candidate” or “the WRONG candidate” is fruitless.
Not entirely. Deciding why she was the wrong candidate is the only way to avoid making the same mistake again.
Hillary Clinton won’t be running, so deciding whether or not she was “the right candidate” or “the WRONG candidate” is fruitless.
Not entirely. Deciding why she was the wrong candidate is the only way to avoid making the same mistake again.
she was the wrong candidate to go up against a shiny clown the media couldn’t stop giggling over, and who got a bad draw on an FBI director who couldn’t help but grandstand about investigations into Clinton (but never peeped about the investigation into Trump).
she still got several millions more votes than the piece of shit The Left did it’s motherfucking best to put in office. fuck The Left. it got what it wanted. i hope it chokes on it and spends all eternity gasping for breath in a ditch while decent people spit on it.
she was the wrong candidate to go up against a shiny clown the media couldn’t stop giggling over, and who got a bad draw on an FBI director who couldn’t help but grandstand about investigations into Clinton (but never peeped about the investigation into Trump).
she still got several millions more votes than the piece of shit The Left did it’s motherfucking best to put in office. fuck The Left. it got what it wanted. i hope it chokes on it and spends all eternity gasping for breath in a ditch while decent people spit on it.
Deciding why she was the wrong candidate is the only way to avoid making the same mistake again.
It’s an angels on pin discussion IMHO.
First does “wrong” mean losing? That means Trump was the “right” candidate. Do we want to emulate Trump?
Should she have been better friends with Putin?
Should she have lived in a time when the FBI director didn’t weigh in on the election?
Should she have lived in a time when journalists were more concerned about honest coverage rather than “both sides” are guilty of something?
Should she have not been First Lady in a Democratic administration during the ‘nineties?
Should she have not been a Senator from New York?
Should she have renounced her wealth and taken naked refuge in the arms of the Bishop of Assisi?
Should she have foregone a private (but more secure) email server while Secretary of State?
Should she have taken laughing lessons so that she wouldn’t cackle?
Should she have been more negative about Bernie Sanders?
Should she have dropped out of the race when Bernie entered?
Should she have divorced Bill Clinton?
Should she have baked more cookies?
…
Deciding why she was the wrong candidate is the only way to avoid making the same mistake again.
It’s an angels on pin discussion IMHO.
First does “wrong” mean losing? That means Trump was the “right” candidate. Do we want to emulate Trump?
Should she have been better friends with Putin?
Should she have lived in a time when the FBI director didn’t weigh in on the election?
Should she have lived in a time when journalists were more concerned about honest coverage rather than “both sides” are guilty of something?
Should she have not been First Lady in a Democratic administration during the ‘nineties?
Should she have not been a Senator from New York?
Should she have renounced her wealth and taken naked refuge in the arms of the Bishop of Assisi?
Should she have foregone a private (but more secure) email server while Secretary of State?
Should she have taken laughing lessons so that she wouldn’t cackle?
Should she have been more negative about Bernie Sanders?
Should she have dropped out of the race when Bernie entered?
Should she have divorced Bill Clinton?
Should she have baked more cookies?
…
….while decent people spit on it.
Would those be the same “decent people” who hung McGovern out to dry in ’72 and proudly called themselves ‘Reagan Democrats’? As they say, the world turns. Let’s get on with it.
….while decent people spit on it.
Would those be the same “decent people” who hung McGovern out to dry in ’72 and proudly called themselves ‘Reagan Democrats’? As they say, the world turns. Let’s get on with it.
Would those be the same “decent people” who hung McGovern out to dry in ’72 and proudly called themselves ‘Reagan Democrats’?
beats beat. i was 2.
the people who devoted themselves to convincing other people that Clinton should lose while denying they were helping Trump know who they are.
Would those be the same “decent people” who hung McGovern out to dry in ’72 and proudly called themselves ‘Reagan Democrats’?
beats beat. i was 2.
the people who devoted themselves to convincing other people that Clinton should lose while denying they were helping Trump know who they are.
“beats beat” is a new phrase i just made up. it roughly means “i don’t know”, but it’s cooler.
“beats beat” is a new phrase i just made up. it roughly means “i don’t know”, but it’s cooler.
Deciding why she was the wrong candidate is the only way to avoid making the same mistake again.
Right. Before the general and any consideration thereof, we will have what 18 months of a primary battle with as I count at least six viable candidates one of which has to be supported as the true champion of rainbow working people and at least two who have be be destroyed as from Gotham on the Hudson of forever loosers and enthusiastic tentacles of the Vampire Squid.
I look forward to it.
Deciding why she was the wrong candidate is the only way to avoid making the same mistake again.
Right. Before the general and any consideration thereof, we will have what 18 months of a primary battle with as I count at least six viable candidates one of which has to be supported as the true champion of rainbow working people and at least two who have be be destroyed as from Gotham on the Hudson of forever loosers and enthusiastic tentacles of the Vampire Squid.
I look forward to it.
So, open thread, Randy Scruggs passed away. An incredible musician, producer, songwriter. A legacy with incredible impact.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/randy-scruggs-award-winning-musician-and-songwriter-dead-at-64/ar-AAw1XaW?ocid=spartanntp
So, open thread, Randy Scruggs passed away. An incredible musician, producer, songwriter. A legacy with incredible impact.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/randy-scruggs-award-winning-musician-and-songwriter-dead-at-64/ar-AAw1XaW?ocid=spartanntp
re: ethical standards for politicians
It would help greatly if the USSC didn’t keep watering down prosecutable ethical violations.
If Trump gets hauled into court, I’m sure that John “lawless” Roberts will discover some emanations and penumbra from the Confederate Constitution that says that his conviction can’t stand.
re: ethical standards for politicians
It would help greatly if the USSC didn’t keep watering down prosecutable ethical violations.
If Trump gets hauled into court, I’m sure that John “lawless” Roberts will discover some emanations and penumbra from the Confederate Constitution that says that his conviction can’t stand.
“at least two who have be be destroyed as from Gotham on the Hudson of forever loosers and enthusiastic tentacles of the Vampire Squid.”
I forgot. This is why Hillary Clinton must be constantly paraded as an object lesson, so we don’t end up with another abject and irresponsible grifter using the campaign apparatus in order to fail America very very profitably.
“at least two who have be be destroyed as from Gotham on the Hudson of forever loosers and enthusiastic tentacles of the Vampire Squid.”
I forgot. This is why Hillary Clinton must be constantly paraded as an object lesson, so we don’t end up with another abject and irresponsible grifter using the campaign apparatus in order to fail America very very profitably.
In other words, to be perfectly clear, I am not going after Clinton I am using Clinton as a weapon to destroy destroy destroy Gillibrand Booker Biden and Deval Patrick.
In other words, to be perfectly clear, I am not going after Clinton I am using Clinton as a weapon to destroy destroy destroy Gillibrand Booker Biden and Deval Patrick.
Who does that leave, bob? Angela Davis? Well, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t mind voting for her. 🙂
Marty – yes, very sad news.
Who does that leave, bob? Angela Davis? Well, now that I think about it, I wouldn’t mind voting for her. 🙂
Marty – yes, very sad news.
i was 2
So that’s your excuse? Funny how the innocent always get off the hook 🙂
i was 2
So that’s your excuse? Funny how the innocent always get off the hook 🙂
I was not 2.
I was not 2.
Who does that leave, bob?
Sanders and Harris, so far. I personally think Franken is viable and the necessary groveling would serve him well. Still looking.
In any case even without specific candidates, reminding the world of that avaricious failure Clinton also serves to foreground two of my important issues for 2018 and 2020: moving the center of the party away from Wall Street and the East Coast. And the DLC Obama/Clinton hegemony.
Who does that leave, bob?
Sanders and Harris, so far. I personally think Franken is viable and the necessary groveling would serve him well. Still looking.
In any case even without specific candidates, reminding the world of that avaricious failure Clinton also serves to foreground two of my important issues for 2018 and 2020: moving the center of the party away from Wall Street and the East Coast. And the DLC Obama/Clinton hegemony.
What to do about that side of it, I don’t know
You can’t go to work for an employer for which you were in a position of responsibility or oversight, for 5 years after leaving your job.
If 5 years is just too freaking long, make it 3. If 5 years doesn’t clean things up all that much, make it 7.
Elected, not elected, whatever. You are on the public dime, you don’t leave public service and go directly to work for somebody who, two days ago, you had some regulatory responsibility over.
Will that suck for some folks? Yes. Life’s a bitch. People in the private sector live with these kinds of restrictions all the time.
Seriously, this is not really all that much of a puzzler.
In any case, don’t lose any sleep over it, because it ain’t gonna happen. See Slarti’s comment upthread.
Randy Scruggs passed away
That straight up sucks. One of the true greats.
Thanks for passing this along Marty.
What to do about that side of it, I don’t know
You can’t go to work for an employer for which you were in a position of responsibility or oversight, for 5 years after leaving your job.
If 5 years is just too freaking long, make it 3. If 5 years doesn’t clean things up all that much, make it 7.
Elected, not elected, whatever. You are on the public dime, you don’t leave public service and go directly to work for somebody who, two days ago, you had some regulatory responsibility over.
Will that suck for some folks? Yes. Life’s a bitch. People in the private sector live with these kinds of restrictions all the time.
Seriously, this is not really all that much of a puzzler.
In any case, don’t lose any sleep over it, because it ain’t gonna happen. See Slarti’s comment upthread.
Randy Scruggs passed away
That straight up sucks. One of the true greats.
Thanks for passing this along Marty.
sapient: Should she have…
IMHO, none of those are particularly useful. But the general question of What makes a successful candidate (while still being someone we would like to vote for)? remains worth asking. Maybe even getting a serious answer.
sapient: Should she have…
IMHO, none of those are particularly useful. But the general question of What makes a successful candidate (while still being someone we would like to vote for)? remains worth asking. Maybe even getting a serious answer.
bob mcmanus: I look forward to it.
So all you want for Christmas is a 2nd term for He, Trump?
Why don’t you tell us who you want Us The Impure to rally around, bob?. You never know: we might join you, since you’ve made it clear that you’ll never join us. Who are your Sufficiently Pure nominees?
–TP
bob mcmanus: I look forward to it.
So all you want for Christmas is a 2nd term for He, Trump?
Why don’t you tell us who you want Us The Impure to rally around, bob?. You never know: we might join you, since you’ve made it clear that you’ll never join us. Who are your Sufficiently Pure nominees?
–TP
Why don’t you tell us who you want Us The Impure to rally around, bob?.
Right now like I said it is just useful to make Wall Street and NYC-Boston-DC corridor thing poison in preparation.
Vermont is landlocked, so not East Coast.
Sanders is old as stone, but working hard kicking ass every day more than the others I see.
I so kinda want to watch the Clintons and Obamas on the podium watching Sanders take the Oath of Office and reminding the crowd of the four years of hell that the greed and callous smug self-righteousness of the Wall Street Democrats gave the country.
Yes. #itsherfault
Why don’t you tell us who you want Us The Impure to rally around, bob?.
Right now like I said it is just useful to make Wall Street and NYC-Boston-DC corridor thing poison in preparation.
Vermont is landlocked, so not East Coast.
Sanders is old as stone, but working hard kicking ass every day more than the others I see.
I so kinda want to watch the Clintons and Obamas on the podium watching Sanders take the Oath of Office and reminding the crowd of the four years of hell that the greed and callous smug self-righteousness of the Wall Street Democrats gave the country.
Yes. #itsherfault
she was the WRONG candidate
I don’t think so. Or if she was it had nothing to do with her policy positions or abilities. It is possible that she ran a poor campaign, or unwisely decided to try for a landslide rather than doing all she could to just win.
Candidates, it turns out, are actual people, who sometimes misjudge, and are flawed in ways that ideal candidates are not. When they lose it’s easy to overstate those flaws.
she was the WRONG candidate
I don’t think so. Or if she was it had nothing to do with her policy positions or abilities. It is possible that she ran a poor campaign, or unwisely decided to try for a landslide rather than doing all she could to just win.
Candidates, it turns out, are actual people, who sometimes misjudge, and are flawed in ways that ideal candidates are not. When they lose it’s easy to overstate those flaws.
The people I blame for Donald J Trump being POTUS are, in order:
1. the people who voted for him
2. the people who couldn’t be bothered to vote
There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about Clinton’s personality, ethics, professional resume, what have you, that isn’t utterly obliterated on the merits by comparable deficiencies on Trump’s part.
She’s not a billionaire, he does have the edge there.
Everybody has their theory about why it all turned out the way it did. At a certain point, the discussion begins to deprive the folks who voted for Trump, or decided to just stay home, of their agency in their own decisions, and of their responsibility for them.
Whatever happens with the whole Trump fiasco, it’s on the folks who either voted him in, or couldn’t be bothered to vote at all.
Everybody talks about this stuff like there was a conga line of (D)’s who would all have been much better candidates than Clinton, if she would only have stood down.
There wasn’t.
Clinton isn’t the charming glad-hander that her husband is, and isn’t the thoughtful no-drama can’t-we-all-get-along reasonable guy that Obama is. She’s a tough, competent, seasoned political professional.
Lots of folks simply preferred Trump. So, we have Trump.
It’s on the folks who voted for him, and on the folks who couldn’t be bothered to even show up.
The people I blame for Donald J Trump being POTUS are, in order:
1. the people who voted for him
2. the people who couldn’t be bothered to vote
There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about Clinton’s personality, ethics, professional resume, what have you, that isn’t utterly obliterated on the merits by comparable deficiencies on Trump’s part.
She’s not a billionaire, he does have the edge there.
Everybody has their theory about why it all turned out the way it did. At a certain point, the discussion begins to deprive the folks who voted for Trump, or decided to just stay home, of their agency in their own decisions, and of their responsibility for them.
Whatever happens with the whole Trump fiasco, it’s on the folks who either voted him in, or couldn’t be bothered to vote at all.
Everybody talks about this stuff like there was a conga line of (D)’s who would all have been much better candidates than Clinton, if she would only have stood down.
There wasn’t.
Clinton isn’t the charming glad-hander that her husband is, and isn’t the thoughtful no-drama can’t-we-all-get-along reasonable guy that Obama is. She’s a tough, competent, seasoned political professional.
Lots of folks simply preferred Trump. So, we have Trump.
It’s on the folks who voted for him, and on the folks who couldn’t be bothered to even show up.
At a certain point, the discussion begins to deprive the folks who voted for Trump, or decided to just stay home, of their agency in their own decisions, and of their responsibility for them.
I don’t disagree that they are responsible for the results of their own action (or inaction). But that leaves the question of how those who do not belong to either group might have acted in order to change the outcome. Because we all have agency as well.
At a certain point, the discussion begins to deprive the folks who voted for Trump, or decided to just stay home, of their agency in their own decisions, and of their responsibility for them.
I don’t disagree that they are responsible for the results of their own action (or inaction). But that leaves the question of how those who do not belong to either group might have acted in order to change the outcome. Because we all have agency as well.
Personally, I do not feel responsible for the fact that Trump is POTUS. I just deal with it.
Personally, I do not feel responsible for the fact that Trump is POTUS. I just deal with it.
I was not 2.
All the more reason to blame you for everything, boomer. 😉
I was not 2.
All the more reason to blame you for everything, boomer. 😉
Sanders and Harris, so far.
Harris looks promising. Sanders? Well, maybe his time has come and gone, but I thank him for his ’16 run. Gillibrand may or may not be some kind of opportunist, but I like opportunists who both (a.) wind; and (b.) agree with me. She’s making the right noises.
Should be interesting to see what we Democrats (yes, I am one in good standing in my LD) find to come to blows about in 2020, the hindsight year.
Sanders and Harris, so far.
Harris looks promising. Sanders? Well, maybe his time has come and gone, but I thank him for his ’16 run. Gillibrand may or may not be some kind of opportunist, but I like opportunists who both (a.) wind; and (b.) agree with me. She’s making the right noises.
Should be interesting to see what we Democrats (yes, I am one in good standing in my LD) find to come to blows about in 2020, the hindsight year.
win, not “wind” sheesh.
win, not “wind” sheesh.
All the more reason to blame you for everything, boomer. 😉
I blame wj.
All the more reason to blame you for everything, boomer. 😉
I blame wj.
Oh, and for the record I think it is useful to the point of conditional that if he runs Sanders look for a West of Appalachians person of color for the bottom of the ticket. Keith Ellison would be cool, but there are many women possibles, and a Latina woman veteran from the Rockies or Sierras would be maybe acceptable.
Cause remember Sanders is old and I want to watch Clinton applaud the first woman President.
Oh, and for the record I think it is useful to the point of conditional that if he runs Sanders look for a West of Appalachians person of color for the bottom of the ticket. Keith Ellison would be cool, but there are many women possibles, and a Latina woman veteran from the Rockies or Sierras would be maybe acceptable.
Cause remember Sanders is old and I want to watch Clinton applaud the first woman President.
bob mcmanus: I personally think Franken is viable …
Hooray! I agree with bob!!
Until the Republicans ratfucked him and the Democrats stomped on him, I thought that Franken was both perfectly prepared and ideally positioned to take on TV personality and humorless shithead He, Trump. I still think so.
–TP
bob mcmanus: I personally think Franken is viable …
Hooray! I agree with bob!!
Until the Republicans ratfucked him and the Democrats stomped on him, I thought that Franken was both perfectly prepared and ideally positioned to take on TV personality and humorless shithead He, Trump. I still think so.
–TP
I blame wj.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
I blame wj.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Do any of you Harris fans happen to know if she has started spending any time in Iowa and New Hampshire? Because demonstrating that she can win (at least primaries) in those kinds of places is going to be critical if she is going to convince people that she can do what Obama did: overcome the racial issue and will the general election.
As noted, Obama demonstrated that is was possible. But it’s still an uphill climb and it would be nuts do deny that reality.
Do any of you Harris fans happen to know if she has started spending any time in Iowa and New Hampshire? Because demonstrating that she can win (at least primaries) in those kinds of places is going to be critical if she is going to convince people that she can do what Obama did: overcome the racial issue and will the general election.
As noted, Obama demonstrated that is was possible. But it’s still an uphill climb and it would be nuts do deny that reality.
Should she have not been a Senator from New York?
My own lunatic fringe theory is related to this: Democrats from the NE urban corridor will consistently underperform nationally. “From” means roughly “lived there for the 20 years leading up to the election.” Serving in Congress counts. I suspect this is increasingly true for the Pacific and Intermountain West as well, but there’s never been a test case. Maybe Kamala Harris will be one, but my own bet is that she will go for Governor of California instead.
Should she have not been a Senator from New York?
My own lunatic fringe theory is related to this: Democrats from the NE urban corridor will consistently underperform nationally. “From” means roughly “lived there for the 20 years leading up to the election.” Serving in Congress counts. I suspect this is increasingly true for the Pacific and Intermountain West as well, but there’s never been a test case. Maybe Kamala Harris will be one, but my own bet is that she will go for Governor of California instead.
I think Michael may well be correct. She’s young. And traditionally, Governor is a better launching pad than Senator. (If only because you tend to have a better executive staff in place to start.)
I think Michael may well be correct. She’s young. And traditionally, Governor is a better launching pad than Senator. (If only because you tend to have a better executive staff in place to start.)
Democrats from the NE urban corridor will consistently underperform nationally.
I dunno’, I thought FDR did OK, and there was that Kennedy guy.
I suspect this is increasingly true for the Pacific and Intermountain West as well, but there’s never been a test case.
Reagan does not count?
Democrats from the NE urban corridor will consistently underperform nationally.
I dunno’, I thought FDR did OK, and there was that Kennedy guy.
I suspect this is increasingly true for the Pacific and Intermountain West as well, but there’s never been a test case.
Reagan does not count?
Y’all are lazy as hell.
Stop focussing on “the candidate” and get real with “the voter”.
No saint is going to save us. We need to focus on the people. If they’re okay with corruption and fraud? We’re done. We need to change their minds. It’s a heavy lift, but it’s our job.
Y’all are lazy as hell.
Stop focussing on “the candidate” and get real with “the voter”.
No saint is going to save us. We need to focus on the people. If they’re okay with corruption and fraud? We’re done. We need to change their minds. It’s a heavy lift, but it’s our job.
Stop focussing on “the candidate” and get real with “the voter”.
Yes, and thank you.
Stop focussing on “the candidate” and get real with “the voter”.
Yes, and thank you.
I dunno’, I thought FDR did OK, and there was that Kennedy guy.
FDR and Kennedy were candidates when the Solid South was still a thing — racist white Southerners would die before they voted for a Republican. As Johnson said, the CRA and VRA were the right things to do, even though it would cost the Dems the South for at least a generation. (We’re at what — three generations now?) 1968 and beyond is a whole ‘nother thing.
Reagan does not count?
Read what I said. Reagan wasn’t a Democrat running on a Democratic platform. Reagan ran hard against what is still a major part of the NE urban corridor Democratic platform — how to deal with black poverty in inner-city cores.
I dunno’, I thought FDR did OK, and there was that Kennedy guy.
FDR and Kennedy were candidates when the Solid South was still a thing — racist white Southerners would die before they voted for a Republican. As Johnson said, the CRA and VRA were the right things to do, even though it would cost the Dems the South for at least a generation. (We’re at what — three generations now?) 1968 and beyond is a whole ‘nother thing.
Reagan does not count?
Read what I said. Reagan wasn’t a Democrat running on a Democratic platform. Reagan ran hard against what is still a major part of the NE urban corridor Democratic platform — how to deal with black poverty in inner-city cores.
Stop focussing on “the candidate” and get real with “the voter”.
Absolutely. Arizona is ready to flip. Pour money into registering the young Latinx voters, getting them on the permanent no-excuse absentee ballot list, keeping their address up to date, and voting. A state that can pass independent redistricting, a $12 minimum wage, and guaranteed sick time, all by initiative, can elect many more Democrats.
I claim that a DNC dominated by the NE urban corridor, Rust Belt cities, and Southern blacks, is incapable of following that path. Western Dems will have to do it despite the DNC.
Stop focussing on “the candidate” and get real with “the voter”.
Absolutely. Arizona is ready to flip. Pour money into registering the young Latinx voters, getting them on the permanent no-excuse absentee ballot list, keeping their address up to date, and voting. A state that can pass independent redistricting, a $12 minimum wage, and guaranteed sick time, all by initiative, can elect many more Democrats.
I claim that a DNC dominated by the NE urban corridor, Rust Belt cities, and Southern blacks, is incapable of following that path. Western Dems will have to do it despite the DNC.
Johnny Unbeatable will save us all.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/12/ballad-johnny-unbeatable
Johnny Unbeatable will save us all.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/12/ballad-johnny-unbeatable
I claim that a DNC dominated by the NE urban corridor, Rust Belt cities, and Southern blacks, is incapable of following that path.
yeah, well, screw your west-coast hippy-cowboy, thirsty gravel-heeled dustmouths. give me a damp and greasy east-coaster any day.
I claim that a DNC dominated by the NE urban corridor, Rust Belt cities, and Southern blacks, is incapable of following that path.
yeah, well, screw your west-coast hippy-cowboy, thirsty gravel-heeled dustmouths. give me a damp and greasy east-coaster any day.
and furthermore, italics can go right to hell.
and furthermore, italics can go right to hell.
I will not vote for Sanders unless he’s the last one standing after the primary. I would have voted for him in the last election, but everything he has done since losing the nomination has convinced me that he’s a self-important Drama Llama.
Talk about needing to learn from the last defeat and not doing so…
I will not vote for Sanders unless he’s the last one standing after the primary. I would have voted for him in the last election, but everything he has done since losing the nomination has convinced me that he’s a self-important Drama Llama.
Talk about needing to learn from the last defeat and not doing so…
I’ll probably regret this, being new to commenting and the button still being quite warm to the touch, but what the hell…
To get an idea of where I’m coming from, literally, my appointment at the dentist tomorrow is one town over from Chappaqua. Make what you will of that. Anyway, the anecdotal, general consensus of my ever-shrinking circle of friends with whom I can discuss politics at a conversational volume is as follows, fwiw…
It wasn’t the speeches so much as the refusal to disclose what was said. It wasn’t the emails, it was the cloak-and-dagger feel of it. It was the hiring of DWS. It was the general message of “everything’s fine”, when for a lot of people everything is not fine.
One thing that particularly bothered me was that the first debate was scheduled after the primary registration deadline in NY. Maybe that’s small thing, but it just felt wrong. And that’s not on Hillary. But I kinda feel like that’s the kind of oversight that a better campaign wouldn’t have missed.
Nobody disputed her ability or credentials. Nor do I get the sense that anyone was swayed by the Fox-smearing and Benghazi-ing and the rest of that rubbish. It’s more a sense that there was nothing inspiring about a another third-way corporate-friendly politician. For a lot of people, she just felt “wrong”. And I don’t need to squint too hard to see how some might, even if I disagree with it.
That having been said, many of us, especially the lifetime NYers, have had the douchebaggery of Trump on full display for decades. He’s just orders of magnitude wronger, for every reason, and I don’t know anyone who voted for him – even those grumbling heavily on the way to the polls. We were mostly in the Sanders camp, so I guess that makes us “Left”. There may have been some grousing, but we all did the responsible thing when the time came. The alternative was unthinkable. I can only hope this fact will be mitigating when cleek takes me for a spittoon.
It occurs to me that I probably owe a bottle of wine to a lovely couple from Frankfurt I met in Tuscany, for assuring them that there was absolutely no way the US would be crazy enough to elect Trump. I was wrong. I still can’t believe I was so very wrong.
I’ll probably regret this, being new to commenting and the button still being quite warm to the touch, but what the hell…
To get an idea of where I’m coming from, literally, my appointment at the dentist tomorrow is one town over from Chappaqua. Make what you will of that. Anyway, the anecdotal, general consensus of my ever-shrinking circle of friends with whom I can discuss politics at a conversational volume is as follows, fwiw…
It wasn’t the speeches so much as the refusal to disclose what was said. It wasn’t the emails, it was the cloak-and-dagger feel of it. It was the hiring of DWS. It was the general message of “everything’s fine”, when for a lot of people everything is not fine.
One thing that particularly bothered me was that the first debate was scheduled after the primary registration deadline in NY. Maybe that’s small thing, but it just felt wrong. And that’s not on Hillary. But I kinda feel like that’s the kind of oversight that a better campaign wouldn’t have missed.
Nobody disputed her ability or credentials. Nor do I get the sense that anyone was swayed by the Fox-smearing and Benghazi-ing and the rest of that rubbish. It’s more a sense that there was nothing inspiring about a another third-way corporate-friendly politician. For a lot of people, she just felt “wrong”. And I don’t need to squint too hard to see how some might, even if I disagree with it.
That having been said, many of us, especially the lifetime NYers, have had the douchebaggery of Trump on full display for decades. He’s just orders of magnitude wronger, for every reason, and I don’t know anyone who voted for him – even those grumbling heavily on the way to the polls. We were mostly in the Sanders camp, so I guess that makes us “Left”. There may have been some grousing, but we all did the responsible thing when the time came. The alternative was unthinkable. I can only hope this fact will be mitigating when cleek takes me for a spittoon.
It occurs to me that I probably owe a bottle of wine to a lovely couple from Frankfurt I met in Tuscany, for assuring them that there was absolutely no way the US would be crazy enough to elect Trump. I was wrong. I still can’t believe I was so very wrong.
It wasn’t the speeches so much as…
Trump launched his campaign by descending a gold-plated esacalator and yammering away about mexican rapists. It kind of went downhill from there.
Whatever comes of this, it’s on the folks who voted for him.
They wanted him, they got him. They own the result.
It wasn’t the speeches so much as…
Trump launched his campaign by descending a gold-plated esacalator and yammering away about mexican rapists. It kind of went downhill from there.
Whatever comes of this, it’s on the folks who voted for him.
They wanted him, they got him. They own the result.
It occurs to me that I probably owe a bottle of wine to a lovely couple from Frankfurt I met in Tuscany, for assuring them that there was absolutely no way the US would be crazy enough to elect Trump. I was wrong. I still can’t believe I was so very wrong.
That’s nice. I am privileged too, having happened upon new friends in Tuscany.
We were mostly in the Sanders camp, so I guess that makes us “Left”.
Maybe you should explain that further. What about the tax returns? No problem for you? How about his nonsensical “explanation” of his own numbers? No problem – it’s all about sound bites.
Bernie people – hope y’all learn. Follow the money. Oh, you can’t? Hmmm. Red flag.
It occurs to me that I probably owe a bottle of wine to a lovely couple from Frankfurt I met in Tuscany, for assuring them that there was absolutely no way the US would be crazy enough to elect Trump. I was wrong. I still can’t believe I was so very wrong.
That’s nice. I am privileged too, having happened upon new friends in Tuscany.
We were mostly in the Sanders camp, so I guess that makes us “Left”.
Maybe you should explain that further. What about the tax returns? No problem for you? How about his nonsensical “explanation” of his own numbers? No problem – it’s all about sound bites.
Bernie people – hope y’all learn. Follow the money. Oh, you can’t? Hmmm. Red flag.
Bernie people – hope y’all learn.
This is tiresome. Learn fucking what, exactly? The “Bernie People” overwhelmingly voted for HRC in the general. They fought the good fight in the primaries, but ultimately got in line for the general. Just what more do you ask of us?
Her defeat was due to a multitude of factors, and other than the Comey October surprise, I am hard pressed to assign the bulk of the blame to any one of them in particular.
Let’s work together to win next time, shall we?
On another note, what does the peanut gallery think of this? Does the analysis (capitalism is not compatible with effectively dealing with climate change) hold any validity to you?
I am curious.
Thanks.
Bernie people – hope y’all learn.
This is tiresome. Learn fucking what, exactly? The “Bernie People” overwhelmingly voted for HRC in the general. They fought the good fight in the primaries, but ultimately got in line for the general. Just what more do you ask of us?
Her defeat was due to a multitude of factors, and other than the Comey October surprise, I am hard pressed to assign the bulk of the blame to any one of them in particular.
Let’s work together to win next time, shall we?
On another note, what does the peanut gallery think of this? Does the analysis (capitalism is not compatible with effectively dealing with climate change) hold any validity to you?
I am curious.
Thanks.
Michael Cain,
You are correct. I misread your comment…a not uncommon occurrence in my dotage.
Pete…no need to regret anything. Lots of sharp elbows here, but not particularly venomous.
Michael Cain,
You are correct. I misread your comment…a not uncommon occurrence in my dotage.
Pete…no need to regret anything. Lots of sharp elbows here, but not particularly venomous.
Yikes!
I was surprised at the vehemence in cleek’s 3:54 and was attempting (poorly, it seems) to illustrate that my experience, in my small circle, wasn’t Bernie-or-Bust or purity tests or talking point shrieking. And while support for Clinton in that small circle may have been lukewarm, it certainly didn’t translate to supporting Trump. Your experience may be different.
I’m not sure what returns and nonsensical numbers you’re referring to, but I’ll do my best to answer if you can clarify.
I thought Clinton and the “Left” (as opposed to the Extreme Left?) were largely moving in the same direction, if not to the same degree. Perhaps I’m missing even more than I thought.
I’ll check the privilege and the prose. Apologies. I’m not trying to step on any toes here.
Yikes!
I was surprised at the vehemence in cleek’s 3:54 and was attempting (poorly, it seems) to illustrate that my experience, in my small circle, wasn’t Bernie-or-Bust or purity tests or talking point shrieking. And while support for Clinton in that small circle may have been lukewarm, it certainly didn’t translate to supporting Trump. Your experience may be different.
I’m not sure what returns and nonsensical numbers you’re referring to, but I’ll do my best to answer if you can clarify.
I thought Clinton and the “Left” (as opposed to the Extreme Left?) were largely moving in the same direction, if not to the same degree. Perhaps I’m missing even more than I thought.
I’ll check the privilege and the prose. Apologies. I’m not trying to step on any toes here.
bobbyp,
Thanks! I’ve been lurking here for a while, so I kinda know what to expect.
But the game sure is faster up here in the bigs. 😉
bobbyp,
Thanks! I’ve been lurking here for a while, so I kinda know what to expect.
But the game sure is faster up here in the bigs. 😉
on the earlier discussion about corruption, even Trump’s own attorney (along with a number of his advisors) seems to assume he is a criminal:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/trumps-lawyer-cohen-forgets-to-pretend-trump-is-innocent.html
In a conversation with Trump last Friday, Jay Goldberg, one of Trump’s lawyers, warned the president, “Michael will never stand up [for you]” if charged by the government, according to the Wall Street Journal. But why would Trump have anything to worry about, unless… Trump committed a crime that Cohen knows about?
on the earlier discussion about corruption, even Trump’s own attorney (along with a number of his advisors) seems to assume he is a criminal:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/trumps-lawyer-cohen-forgets-to-pretend-trump-is-innocent.html
In a conversation with Trump last Friday, Jay Goldberg, one of Trump’s lawyers, warned the president, “Michael will never stand up [for you]” if charged by the government, according to the Wall Street Journal. But why would Trump have anything to worry about, unless… Trump committed a crime that Cohen knows about?
Hillary was a bad candidate. Not because she would have been a bad president, but because she lost an eminently winnable election.
The lesson is never again to throw the party machine behind a candidate whose main claim is name recognition through a husband (or father).
What almost every elected president of the modern era has in common is that they come across well on television. As they have to, to win the primary election. Hillary didn’t have to pass that test. That’s the mistake to avoid.
Hillary was a bad candidate. Not because she would have been a bad president, but because she lost an eminently winnable election.
The lesson is never again to throw the party machine behind a candidate whose main claim is name recognition through a husband (or father).
What almost every elected president of the modern era has in common is that they come across well on television. As they have to, to win the primary election. Hillary didn’t have to pass that test. That’s the mistake to avoid.
I think it should be a blind face off like The Voice. We listen to them for a year and then turn around to see if we picked a presentable looking President.
I think it should be a blind face off like The Voice. We listen to them for a year and then turn around to see if we picked a presentable looking President.
Not because she would have been a bad president, but because she lost an eminently winnable election.
Agreed.
I argued along these lines before, during, and after the election.
Not because she would have been a bad president, but because she lost an eminently winnable election.
Agreed.
I argued along these lines before, during, and after the election.
she lost an eminently winnable election.
by getting several million more votes than Trump did. yes, that’s the system. ever notice how it always hurts the Dems?
she lost an eminently winnable election.
by getting several million more votes than Trump did. yes, that’s the system. ever notice how it always hurts the Dems?
Not wanting to start a fight, but I tend to agree with cleek here. Clinton is probably the best qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever had, so saying that the party machine was thrown behind her because she was Bill Clinton’s wife really misses something. Though the second part, about a modern president not coming across well on TV is something to ponder. But if that is the standard, I think the US is screwed.
Of course, playing who’s next (in the barrel), while fun, misses out on what needs to be done, which is statehouses and local elections need to be turned solidly blue in a way that they will stay like that for a generation in order to stop gerrymandering, kneecapping unions, etc etc. That’s why you’ve got Scott Walker trying to not hold elections. That’s a hill they are going to be willing to die on.
I know it is irresistible to think on who should be the next Democratic candidate (and it is really fun to think of the next Republican candidate, bearing in mind two conditions, one where Trump gets kicked out and the other where Trump wants to run for a second term. Will there be a Eugene McCarthy/Robert Kennedy type run by some mavericky republican? Is that even possible in the framework of the Republican primaries?)
Pete’s comment makes me wonder about size and effect. The largest BLM facebook page was a Russian bot, so even though Pete suggests that there was movement in the same direction, I wonder how much actual visibility of Bernie Bros was needed to cause problems. Or indeed, how much of the Bernie Bros opposition was accurate and how much was just ratfucking…
Not wanting to start a fight, but I tend to agree with cleek here. Clinton is probably the best qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever had, so saying that the party machine was thrown behind her because she was Bill Clinton’s wife really misses something. Though the second part, about a modern president not coming across well on TV is something to ponder. But if that is the standard, I think the US is screwed.
Of course, playing who’s next (in the barrel), while fun, misses out on what needs to be done, which is statehouses and local elections need to be turned solidly blue in a way that they will stay like that for a generation in order to stop gerrymandering, kneecapping unions, etc etc. That’s why you’ve got Scott Walker trying to not hold elections. That’s a hill they are going to be willing to die on.
I know it is irresistible to think on who should be the next Democratic candidate (and it is really fun to think of the next Republican candidate, bearing in mind two conditions, one where Trump gets kicked out and the other where Trump wants to run for a second term. Will there be a Eugene McCarthy/Robert Kennedy type run by some mavericky republican? Is that even possible in the framework of the Republican primaries?)
Pete’s comment makes me wonder about size and effect. The largest BLM facebook page was a Russian bot, so even though Pete suggests that there was movement in the same direction, I wonder how much actual visibility of Bernie Bros was needed to cause problems. Or indeed, how much of the Bernie Bros opposition was accurate and how much was just ratfucking…
Since Clinton lost the election cleek and sapient have been creating a really lovely atmosphere here, reminiscent of a Russian show trial – it’s getting a bit ridiculous really.
Since Clinton lost the election cleek and sapient have been creating a really lovely atmosphere here, reminiscent of a Russian show trial – it’s getting a bit ridiculous really.
Or indeed, how much of the Bernie Bros opposition was accurate and how much was just ratfucking…
and we’re going to see it again, at even louder volumes, in 2020 (if not later this year).
there’s really nothing that can be done to stop it, after all. the paid trolls just need to get a little more fluent in English and a bit more subtle with their claims. the audience that gorged on in i 2016 is still out there, and it’s is ready to gobble-up even more.
it’s getting a bit ridiculous really.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?page_id=25541
Or indeed, how much of the Bernie Bros opposition was accurate and how much was just ratfucking…
and we’re going to see it again, at even louder volumes, in 2020 (if not later this year).
there’s really nothing that can be done to stop it, after all. the paid trolls just need to get a little more fluent in English and a bit more subtle with their claims. the audience that gorged on in i 2016 is still out there, and it’s is ready to gobble-up even more.
it’s getting a bit ridiculous really.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?page_id=25541
“Michael will never stand up [for you]” if charged by the government
what makes this situation even more surreal is that it’s not completely crazy to consider the possibility that Cohen might be involved in things that might cause him to worry about Russia putting Novichok in his Cheerios. so maybe he won’t want to talk. maybe he’d prefer to hang out in a federal prison, quietly, safely.
thanks Republicans. you’re the best.
“Michael will never stand up [for you]” if charged by the government
what makes this situation even more surreal is that it’s not completely crazy to consider the possibility that Cohen might be involved in things that might cause him to worry about Russia putting Novichok in his Cheerios. so maybe he won’t want to talk. maybe he’d prefer to hang out in a federal prison, quietly, safely.
thanks Republicans. you’re the best.
statehouses and local elections need to be turned solidly blue in a way that they will stay like that for a generation
yes. why settle for one generation, let’s shoot for two, or ten.
reminiscent of a Russian show trial
except, of course, nobody will br shot at dawn or sent to siberia.
so, not much like a russian show trial, after all.
Clinton’s deportment, policy positions, hair style, quantity of cookies baked – whatever, take your pick – were unobjectionable. No doubt lots of folks disagreed with her on broad policy terms, because they aren’t traditional activist government liberals. But that’s not why Trump won.
I do fault Clinton – or, more likely her party and her campaign – for taking the rust belt for granted. Tactical error, had they been pro-active there, she’d be POTUS.
Live and learn.
But the bottom line, for me, is that almost half the folks who showed up to vote, voted for a man whose campaign was based on bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice.
That is what he ran on, and that’s what his supporters ate up. With a spoon.
Folks are correct to say that Trump should never have won. But the reason he should not have won is that bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice should never have been attractive to enough people to put him within 10 miles of victory.
Remarkably, that was not so.
Clinton is not responsible for that.
statehouses and local elections need to be turned solidly blue in a way that they will stay like that for a generation
yes. why settle for one generation, let’s shoot for two, or ten.
reminiscent of a Russian show trial
except, of course, nobody will br shot at dawn or sent to siberia.
so, not much like a russian show trial, after all.
Clinton’s deportment, policy positions, hair style, quantity of cookies baked – whatever, take your pick – were unobjectionable. No doubt lots of folks disagreed with her on broad policy terms, because they aren’t traditional activist government liberals. But that’s not why Trump won.
I do fault Clinton – or, more likely her party and her campaign – for taking the rust belt for granted. Tactical error, had they been pro-active there, she’d be POTUS.
Live and learn.
But the bottom line, for me, is that almost half the folks who showed up to vote, voted for a man whose campaign was based on bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice.
That is what he ran on, and that’s what his supporters ate up. With a spoon.
Folks are correct to say that Trump should never have won. But the reason he should not have won is that bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice should never have been attractive to enough people to put him within 10 miles of victory.
Remarkably, that was not so.
Clinton is not responsible for that.
Yes, it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault that approaching half the people who voted were willing to vote for Trump.
But it is the Democratic Party’s fault that it picked a candidate who didn’t beat such an unattractive opponent.
Clinton is probably the best qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever had…
Perhaps the candidate best qualified to be president. But also the candidate in the modern era least qualified to win a presidential election.
…by getting several million more votes than Trump did…
Yes, we know. But the mission is to win elections under the system you’ve got, not the one you wish you had.
Yes, it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault that approaching half the people who voted were willing to vote for Trump.
But it is the Democratic Party’s fault that it picked a candidate who didn’t beat such an unattractive opponent.
Clinton is probably the best qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever had…
Perhaps the candidate best qualified to be president. But also the candidate in the modern era least qualified to win a presidential election.
…by getting several million more votes than Trump did…
Yes, we know. But the mission is to win elections under the system you’ve got, not the one you wish you had.
But it is the Democratic Party’s fault that it picked a candidate who didn’t beat such an unattractive opponent.
FWIW, IMVHO, if you factor out 20+ years of insane propaganda and paranoia, Clinton was not a particularly unattractive candidate.
Perhaps the (D)’s should have factored in the “everyone hates Hillary” factor.
But it is the Democratic Party’s fault that it picked a candidate who didn’t beat such an unattractive opponent.
FWIW, IMVHO, if you factor out 20+ years of insane propaganda and paranoia, Clinton was not a particularly unattractive candidate.
Perhaps the (D)’s should have factored in the “everyone hates Hillary” factor.
One of my reasons for supporting Bernie was my concern for how successfully the R’s had smeared Nillary. I brought this up at the caucus and people were just in denial. I had my own reasons for not liking her, but one of the dumbest things I hear people say in defense of voting for Trump is that she would have been worse. That’s just flat out stupid. Kafka-esque tupid.
I actually had a conversation with a guy who asserted that she should be locked up, but he could not say what crime. He said the evidence was being suppressed by the FBI.
I said that it was unAmerican to convict someone of an unknown crime based on unknown evidence.
Do Republican voters have any principles left at all? Seems to me that they have thrown everything they ever claimed to believe in into the trash to justify voting for the Republican party: fiscal responsibility, patriotism, strong defense, family values, Christianity, personal responsibility….
Granted those are buzz words, not policies or even principles, but that’s what R voters say they believe in And it ought to be pretty obvious that what the real Republican party stands for is the use of defamation and fear-mongerig to get votes in order to pervert our government into a kleptocracy. I mean REALLY obvious. Yet clearly R voters get something from voting R.
One of my FB friends said that she was glad Trump was president because it meant an end to Obama’s prejudice against white people and re=ace relations in her state (Alabama) had returned to normal which she regarded as a blissful state of happiness and racial unity.
One of my reasons for supporting Bernie was my concern for how successfully the R’s had smeared Nillary. I brought this up at the caucus and people were just in denial. I had my own reasons for not liking her, but one of the dumbest things I hear people say in defense of voting for Trump is that she would have been worse. That’s just flat out stupid. Kafka-esque tupid.
I actually had a conversation with a guy who asserted that she should be locked up, but he could not say what crime. He said the evidence was being suppressed by the FBI.
I said that it was unAmerican to convict someone of an unknown crime based on unknown evidence.
Do Republican voters have any principles left at all? Seems to me that they have thrown everything they ever claimed to believe in into the trash to justify voting for the Republican party: fiscal responsibility, patriotism, strong defense, family values, Christianity, personal responsibility….
Granted those are buzz words, not policies or even principles, but that’s what R voters say they believe in And it ought to be pretty obvious that what the real Republican party stands for is the use of defamation and fear-mongerig to get votes in order to pervert our government into a kleptocracy. I mean REALLY obvious. Yet clearly R voters get something from voting R.
One of my FB friends said that she was glad Trump was president because it meant an end to Obama’s prejudice against white people and re=ace relations in her state (Alabama) had returned to normal which she regarded as a blissful state of happiness and racial unity.
on the topic of insane propaganda and paranoia:
a long-time friend is a trumpie, also posts on FB. the latest news is that Kimba Wood officiated at the wedding of…..
wait for it….
GEORGE SOROS
See, it all fits together.
on the topic of insane propaganda and paranoia:
a long-time friend is a trumpie, also posts on FB. the latest news is that Kimba Wood officiated at the wedding of…..
wait for it….
GEORGE SOROS
See, it all fits together.
Thats pretty damning. Imagine the furor if she officiated at the wedding of one of the Kochs.
Thats pretty damning. Imagine the furor if she officiated at the wedding of one of the Kochs.
Imagine if people believed that the ability of a federal judge to act impartially as part of a federal investigation was compromised, because she had officiated at the wedding of one of the Kochs.
Wouldn’t that be kind of nutty?
Imagine if people believed that the ability of a federal judge to act impartially as part of a federal investigation was compromised, because she had officiated at the wedding of one of the Kochs.
Wouldn’t that be kind of nutty?
A judge has just ordered Trump to pay that 25 million he owes to the people he defrauded. But Hillary must have defrauded even more people and must hove even more money and the proof is being hidden by a judge somewhere…
A judge has just ordered Trump to pay that 25 million he owes to the people he defrauded. But Hillary must have defrauded even more people and must hove even more money and the proof is being hidden by a judge somewhere…
if only notorious commie symp Ronald Reagan hadn’t brought her into the Federal Judiciary.
if only notorious commie symp Ronald Reagan hadn’t brought her into the Federal Judiciary.
One of the recurrent characteristics of R defenders is that they never can defend anything R politicians do. They ALWAYS change the subject and make attacks on someone else. They never ever can defend the Republican who is the topic of the conversation. And yet they never seem to notice their inability to make a defense, nor do they ever consider the implications of their inability to present a defense.
One of the recurrent characteristics of R defenders is that they never can defend anything R politicians do. They ALWAYS change the subject and make attacks on someone else. They never ever can defend the Republican who is the topic of the conversation. And yet they never seem to notice their inability to make a defense, nor do they ever consider the implications of their inability to present a defense.
I’m sure the vast majority of Bernie supporters would have gotten behind Clinton (sooner) if they had had any idea that Trump would’ve ended up winning. That outcome seemed kooky at the time to most people.
But if you want to rail at the so-called “Bernie Bros” for the next two years and maintain the divide within the set of likely Democratic voters, good luck in 2020, I guess.
The ghost of Will Rogers will smile.
I’m sure the vast majority of Bernie supporters would have gotten behind Clinton (sooner) if they had had any idea that Trump would’ve ended up winning. That outcome seemed kooky at the time to most people.
But if you want to rail at the so-called “Bernie Bros” for the next two years and maintain the divide within the set of likely Democratic voters, good luck in 2020, I guess.
The ghost of Will Rogers will smile.
i’m OK with anyone who votes for the D candidate in the end. fighting the D candidate from the left after the primary is … counter-productive.
i’m OK with anyone who votes for the D candidate in the end. fighting the D candidate from the left after the primary is … counter-productive.
My two cents.
Hillary Clinton was a fine Democratic candidate and should have been able to win the election over the oaf. The number of small own goals that piled up in the campaign, I suspect due to over confidence, kept him in the race.
The missing piece to all of this, contrary to the assumption that 50 million plus people were racist, is what Slart said the other day. They, we, are not going to vote for someone who fundamentally disagrees with most of their points of view because we don’t like the Republican candidate.
Trump being who he is didn’t mean 50M people were suddenly going to become Democrats. No matter how dearly cleek would like to think that would be a reasonable choice, it isn’t. We think the way you want to do things is wrong.
They, we, disagree with the Democrats policies in most basic areas of governance.
So she was trying to sway a reasonably small core of independent voters and overestimated her hold on them, particularly in the rust belt where Obama had done well. The difference being Trump ran on a message that resonated with a core of rust belt voters that did remember when America seemed great to them, industries boomed, jobs were plentiful, life seemed secure.
And he got just enough in areas where she, her campaign, had overestimated their strength. Her campaign, with a few months to go, were so confident they decided to pour time and money into trying to create a landslide mandate by focusing on states that were really not in play.
I don’t see it as much more complicated than that. Would another candidate have been more likely to appeal to middle American voters? Would a different campaign staff have stressed guaranteeing the states in hand over trying to overreach and contest everywhere? Would have Comeys inexplicable and inappropriate comments even made a difference?
Pick a good candidate, run a professional and not overconfident campaign and you’re still running against a crippled and flawed candidate and you will win going away. But don’t expect a wave of Republicans to suddenly decide that a good Democratic candidate is reason enough to vote for policies they fundamentally disagree with, no matter how bad the GOP candidate is. The best you can hope for is they stay home.
My two cents.
Hillary Clinton was a fine Democratic candidate and should have been able to win the election over the oaf. The number of small own goals that piled up in the campaign, I suspect due to over confidence, kept him in the race.
The missing piece to all of this, contrary to the assumption that 50 million plus people were racist, is what Slart said the other day. They, we, are not going to vote for someone who fundamentally disagrees with most of their points of view because we don’t like the Republican candidate.
Trump being who he is didn’t mean 50M people were suddenly going to become Democrats. No matter how dearly cleek would like to think that would be a reasonable choice, it isn’t. We think the way you want to do things is wrong.
They, we, disagree with the Democrats policies in most basic areas of governance.
So she was trying to sway a reasonably small core of independent voters and overestimated her hold on them, particularly in the rust belt where Obama had done well. The difference being Trump ran on a message that resonated with a core of rust belt voters that did remember when America seemed great to them, industries boomed, jobs were plentiful, life seemed secure.
And he got just enough in areas where she, her campaign, had overestimated their strength. Her campaign, with a few months to go, were so confident they decided to pour time and money into trying to create a landslide mandate by focusing on states that were really not in play.
I don’t see it as much more complicated than that. Would another candidate have been more likely to appeal to middle American voters? Would a different campaign staff have stressed guaranteeing the states in hand over trying to overreach and contest everywhere? Would have Comeys inexplicable and inappropriate comments even made a difference?
Pick a good candidate, run a professional and not overconfident campaign and you’re still running against a crippled and flawed candidate and you will win going away. But don’t expect a wave of Republicans to suddenly decide that a good Democratic candidate is reason enough to vote for policies they fundamentally disagree with, no matter how bad the GOP candidate is. The best you can hope for is they stay home.
i’m OK with anyone who votes for the D candidate in the end.
Thank you.
To those few people to my left (can’t be many of you out there), I offer this.
i’m OK with anyone who votes for the D candidate in the end.
Thank you.
To those few people to my left (can’t be many of you out there), I offer this.
…fighting the D candidate from the left after the primary is … counter-productive.
I agree. But I also think:
1. It was a fairly small but vocal minority who did that.
2. Continuing to complain about it will only increase the likelihood and vigor of a repeat performance.
So the message needs to be “WE can’t let this happen again” rather than “YOU assh*les caused this.” Complaining about how counter-productive people’s politics were is …counter-productive.
…fighting the D candidate from the left after the primary is … counter-productive.
I agree. But I also think:
1. It was a fairly small but vocal minority who did that.
2. Continuing to complain about it will only increase the likelihood and vigor of a repeat performance.
So the message needs to be “WE can’t let this happen again” rather than “YOU assh*les caused this.” Complaining about how counter-productive people’s politics were is …counter-productive.
Holy crap, has this thread extended.
“Personally, I do not feel responsible for the fact that Trump is POTUS. I just deal with it.”
russell is once again eminently wise, here. Just deal with it and move on.
Look, my liking for Donald Trump as Chief Executive of my country is…small. I think I liked him rather less than I liked Barack Obama.
But invest your energies in things that are likely to move things forward from here, I advise. Not that my advice is something you should automatically heed. Just; Trump is president, now and until the end of his term. Whenever that will be.
Work on your next move. Maybe consider the next candidate to put up against Trump. Or work on Congressional opposition.
Putting your energy into denial and derision of something that isn’t going to go away in a multi-month timeframe is, I say, maybe a way to keep yourselves in misery.
But that’s where some people like to live, I think. People on both sides of the political divide
But what do I know?
Holy crap, has this thread extended.
“Personally, I do not feel responsible for the fact that Trump is POTUS. I just deal with it.”
russell is once again eminently wise, here. Just deal with it and move on.
Look, my liking for Donald Trump as Chief Executive of my country is…small. I think I liked him rather less than I liked Barack Obama.
But invest your energies in things that are likely to move things forward from here, I advise. Not that my advice is something you should automatically heed. Just; Trump is president, now and until the end of his term. Whenever that will be.
Work on your next move. Maybe consider the next candidate to put up against Trump. Or work on Congressional opposition.
Putting your energy into denial and derision of something that isn’t going to go away in a multi-month timeframe is, I say, maybe a way to keep yourselves in misery.
But that’s where some people like to live, I think. People on both sides of the political divide
But what do I know?
So the message needs to be “WE can’t let this happen again” rather than “YOU assh*les caused this.” Complaining about how counter-productive people’s politics were is …counter-productive.
This may be true, but the constant “Why was Hillary Clinton the WRONG candidate?” is asking for the answer: “She wasn’t.”
So instead of that “WRONG” refrain, we should ask “What strengths are we looking for, and is there someone who comes close to that, because we all need to be behind that person when the primaries are over.”
So the message needs to be “WE can’t let this happen again” rather than “YOU assh*les caused this.” Complaining about how counter-productive people’s politics were is …counter-productive.
This may be true, but the constant “Why was Hillary Clinton the WRONG candidate?” is asking for the answer: “She wasn’t.”
So instead of that “WRONG” refrain, we should ask “What strengths are we looking for, and is there someone who comes close to that, because we all need to be behind that person when the primaries are over.”
Marty at 11:09 does that thing where, after driving you nuts for however long, he’s spot on (for the most part, anyway). I mean, I do think Trump appealed to racism, jingoism, etc. That was almost certainly a contributing factor, if not something that got Trump anything close to every vote he received. But, otherwise, yeah.
Marty at 11:09 does that thing where, after driving you nuts for however long, he’s spot on (for the most part, anyway). I mean, I do think Trump appealed to racism, jingoism, etc. That was almost certainly a contributing factor, if not something that got Trump anything close to every vote he received. But, otherwise, yeah.
This may be true, but the constant “Why was Hillary Clinton the WRONG candidate?” is asking for the answer: “She wasn’t.”
Sure, but I also don’t think this maps well to the attacks from the left (or attacks from the left after the primary, if that’s what really bugs you). That’s a whole other kettle of fish, not specific to the farther left or “Bernie Bros” or whatever. Her supporters in the pundit class seem to be going through this exercise.
Anyway, yes, it’s over. Let’s get ready for the next one.
This may be true, but the constant “Why was Hillary Clinton the WRONG candidate?” is asking for the answer: “She wasn’t.”
Sure, but I also don’t think this maps well to the attacks from the left (or attacks from the left after the primary, if that’s what really bugs you). That’s a whole other kettle of fish, not specific to the farther left or “Bernie Bros” or whatever. Her supporters in the pundit class seem to be going through this exercise.
Anyway, yes, it’s over. Let’s get ready for the next one.
the bottom line, for me, is that almost half the folks who showed up to vote, voted for a man whose campaign was based on bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice.
That is what he ran on, and that’s what his supporters ate up. With a spoon.
Except I remember back to the elections when George Wallace was on the Presidential general election ballot. He did pretty darn well. And I suspect that the only reason he didn’t do (lots!) better is that there was also a Republican/conservative candidate on the ballot — who won. That time, tribalism helped; this time it hurt.
So if Trump’s vote count means we are screwed, we’ve been so for a lifetime. But in fact, we are getting better overall. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the GOP. Thanks Tricky Dick.
the bottom line, for me, is that almost half the folks who showed up to vote, voted for a man whose campaign was based on bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice.
That is what he ran on, and that’s what his supporters ate up. With a spoon.
Except I remember back to the elections when George Wallace was on the Presidential general election ballot. He did pretty darn well. And I suspect that the only reason he didn’t do (lots!) better is that there was also a Republican/conservative candidate on the ballot — who won. That time, tribalism helped; this time it hurt.
So if Trump’s vote count means we are screwed, we’ve been so for a lifetime. But in fact, we are getting better overall. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the GOP. Thanks Tricky Dick.
But I also think: 1. It was a fairly small but vocal minority who did that.
here’s what i’ve come to think about that.
in summer/fall 2016, that small vocal minority was the majority of my FB feed, and fueled the majority of the blog comment discussions i was in. and, it would be easy to dismiss that as a product of my self-selected friends and blog or just noise on the internet. but, that stuff, in diluted form, was also all over the TV. it was all over the press. The Daily Show and Colbert did “Bernie Was Robbed” half-jokes for weeks. the discussion was not limited to blogs. people knew about it and talked about it. which means it had an impact; people took it seriously.
and, the election was very close. it was close enough that it doesn’t take much effort to look at the results and imagine what they might have looked like without the downward pressure all that hissing from the left had created.
now, i won’t accuse people on The Left of being insincere in their motivations or their opinions (though Russian trolls were absolutely at work keeping the battle going on the left). but their efforts had an effect. and it’s disingenuous for any of them (hi Greenwald!) to claim otherwise.
if campaign speeches have an effect, then people talking about candidates have an effect. if yard signs have an effect, then the constant anti-Clinton barrage from the left had an effect. if favorable press coverage has effect, then unfavorable press coverage has effect. the effect is among the persuadable group of people. it might not be a huge effect, but Clinton’s EC loss was, IIRC, less than 100,000 votes. that’s not a lot of people.
but IMO, Clinton’s core problem, and the thing that doomed her, wasn’t the left, it wasn’t Trump, it wasn’t Comey, it wasn’t her gender, her personality, or any of her policies. it was the simple fact that everybody assumed she was going to win. that’s what gave The Left the space and confidence to attack her like it did; that’s what lead Comey to his announcements; that’s what lead the NYT to run countless pointless stories about the latest email nothing; that’s why the press was so giddy about Trump. everybody assumed Clinton’s win was a foregone conclusion so they didn’t have to worry that anything they were doing was going to matter – they were going after the President-to-be, not a candidate. they were being pro-actively tough on Clinton’s Presidency.
and what all of that did, based on that simple faulty premise, was to push just enough people to Trump or simply away from Clinton. because she didn’t have it in the bag. but thinking she did lead a lot of people to do a lot of really stupid things.
But I also think: 1. It was a fairly small but vocal minority who did that.
here’s what i’ve come to think about that.
in summer/fall 2016, that small vocal minority was the majority of my FB feed, and fueled the majority of the blog comment discussions i was in. and, it would be easy to dismiss that as a product of my self-selected friends and blog or just noise on the internet. but, that stuff, in diluted form, was also all over the TV. it was all over the press. The Daily Show and Colbert did “Bernie Was Robbed” half-jokes for weeks. the discussion was not limited to blogs. people knew about it and talked about it. which means it had an impact; people took it seriously.
and, the election was very close. it was close enough that it doesn’t take much effort to look at the results and imagine what they might have looked like without the downward pressure all that hissing from the left had created.
now, i won’t accuse people on The Left of being insincere in their motivations or their opinions (though Russian trolls were absolutely at work keeping the battle going on the left). but their efforts had an effect. and it’s disingenuous for any of them (hi Greenwald!) to claim otherwise.
if campaign speeches have an effect, then people talking about candidates have an effect. if yard signs have an effect, then the constant anti-Clinton barrage from the left had an effect. if favorable press coverage has effect, then unfavorable press coverage has effect. the effect is among the persuadable group of people. it might not be a huge effect, but Clinton’s EC loss was, IIRC, less than 100,000 votes. that’s not a lot of people.
but IMO, Clinton’s core problem, and the thing that doomed her, wasn’t the left, it wasn’t Trump, it wasn’t Comey, it wasn’t her gender, her personality, or any of her policies. it was the simple fact that everybody assumed she was going to win. that’s what gave The Left the space and confidence to attack her like it did; that’s what lead Comey to his announcements; that’s what lead the NYT to run countless pointless stories about the latest email nothing; that’s why the press was so giddy about Trump. everybody assumed Clinton’s win was a foregone conclusion so they didn’t have to worry that anything they were doing was going to matter – they were going after the President-to-be, not a candidate. they were being pro-actively tough on Clinton’s Presidency.
and what all of that did, based on that simple faulty premise, was to push just enough people to Trump or simply away from Clinton. because she didn’t have it in the bag. but thinking she did lead a lot of people to do a lot of really stupid things.
IMO, Clinton’s core problem, and the thing that doomed her, . . . was the simple fact that everybody assumed she was going to win.
In short, the conventional wisdom that seeming inevitable is a Good Thing for winning an election might not be entirely correct.
IMO, Clinton’s core problem, and the thing that doomed her, . . . was the simple fact that everybody assumed she was going to win.
In short, the conventional wisdom that seeming inevitable is a Good Thing for winning an election might not be entirely correct.
exactly.
so nobody start talking about a “blue wave”, here. mm k? don’t count those chickens!
exactly.
so nobody start talking about a “blue wave”, here. mm k? don’t count those chickens!
I will never stop reminding everybody about the American electorate’s long-time habit of re-electing the incumbent president and then electing one of the opposite party. Anybody who thinks that 2016 was “eminently winnable” for the (generic) Democrat is overlooking this pattern. The (generic) Republican had the advantage going in.
It’s easy to downplay the macro when analyzing the micro, in general. In 2016, when the Republican was emphatically NOT generic (being a vicious nutjob) and the Democrat was not generic (being a woman), the temptation was all the greater.
I can’t resist a chess analogy: it’s always POSSIBLE for Black to win any particular game, but by and large White starts with an advantage, generically speaking. In open-seat presidential elections, the incumbent’s party is always playing Black.
Based on the long-term trend, even so execrable a president as He, Trump will be playing White in 2020 — if he lasts that long. (I’m putting higher odds on Melania poisoning His cheeseburger than on McConnell abandoning Him, FWIW.) But trends are not immutable, so there’s always hope.
Incidentally, two data points don’t make a trend, but I think everybody knows that twice in a row now the Republican has won the presidency while losing the popular vote. So it’s possible that the correct chess analogy is: the Republican is ALWAYS playing White, in American presidential politics.
–TP
I will never stop reminding everybody about the American electorate’s long-time habit of re-electing the incumbent president and then electing one of the opposite party. Anybody who thinks that 2016 was “eminently winnable” for the (generic) Democrat is overlooking this pattern. The (generic) Republican had the advantage going in.
It’s easy to downplay the macro when analyzing the micro, in general. In 2016, when the Republican was emphatically NOT generic (being a vicious nutjob) and the Democrat was not generic (being a woman), the temptation was all the greater.
I can’t resist a chess analogy: it’s always POSSIBLE for Black to win any particular game, but by and large White starts with an advantage, generically speaking. In open-seat presidential elections, the incumbent’s party is always playing Black.
Based on the long-term trend, even so execrable a president as He, Trump will be playing White in 2020 — if he lasts that long. (I’m putting higher odds on Melania poisoning His cheeseburger than on McConnell abandoning Him, FWIW.) But trends are not immutable, so there’s always hope.
Incidentally, two data points don’t make a trend, but I think everybody knows that twice in a row now the Republican has won the presidency while losing the popular vote. So it’s possible that the correct chess analogy is: the Republican is ALWAYS playing White, in American presidential politics.
–TP
For all the analysis, I think we sometimes overlook the possibility that Trump’s win was simply a statistical fluke.
Clinton got a lot more votes, after all, but they were unluckily distributed, so she lost due to the insane EC system. As has been often noted, a handful of votes in some states – 11,000 in Michigan – would have made the difference.
There is a random element to elections. Bad weather, (honest) counting errors, traffic jams, who knows what, affect the result.
For all the analysis, I think we sometimes overlook the possibility that Trump’s win was simply a statistical fluke.
Clinton got a lot more votes, after all, but they were unluckily distributed, so she lost due to the insane EC system. As has been often noted, a handful of votes in some states – 11,000 in Michigan – would have made the difference.
There is a random element to elections. Bad weather, (honest) counting errors, traffic jams, who knows what, affect the result.
Re: cleek’s 11:59am post: mostly agree.
But I’d tack on: like not showing up at the polls when they otherwise might have.
Not guaranteed to have changed the outcome, but at least NPR thinks that Clinton lost some key states due to poor D turnout in those states.
Not that I am dispensing advice again. Because once a day is, these days, way past my limit.
Other than get the hell off my lawn, I mean.
Re: cleek’s 11:59am post: mostly agree.
But I’d tack on: like not showing up at the polls when they otherwise might have.
Not guaranteed to have changed the outcome, but at least NPR thinks that Clinton lost some key states due to poor D turnout in those states.
Not that I am dispensing advice again. Because once a day is, these days, way past my limit.
Other than get the hell off my lawn, I mean.
so nobody start talking about a “blue wave”, here. mm k? don’t count those chickens!
Exactly! Hope for it? Sure. Work for it? Absolutely. But don’t do things, like talking about it, which might convince people that they don’t need to bother voting because the results are a foregone conclusion.
so nobody start talking about a “blue wave”, here. mm k? don’t count those chickens!
Exactly! Hope for it? Sure. Work for it? Absolutely. But don’t do things, like talking about it, which might convince people that they don’t need to bother voting because the results are a foregone conclusion.
#itsalock Going to get the Facebook page The tsunami is guaranteed, don’t worry about it.
#itsalock Going to get the Facebook page The tsunami is guaranteed, don’t worry about it.
I find Marty’s 11:09 and Slarti’s 11:24 to be generally right on.
FWIW, I think Marty underestimates the appeal of profoundly negative themes in Trump’s campaign, and in what resonates with the folks who supported Trump. wj hits it on the head with his invocation of Wallace and Nixon.
Folks should think, and try to be candid with themselves, about what appealed to them in Trump’s message. He wasn’t just selling conservative (R) orthodoxy. Ugly does in fact have a constituency in this country. It’s worn the hat of different parties over the years, right now it tends to be (R). Folks who are invested in the (R) label might want to think about that.
Winning isn’t everything. Some prizes aren’t worth the candle.
I have no problem with people being angry over how events have played out for them. I recognize that many parts of the country are not doing well. The place I live now faced many of the same things that are facing “heartland America” not that long ago – entire industries decamping for other regions, where labor was cheaper, once-prosperous cities and towns turning into shabby boarded-up ghosts. It takes a lot of work to turn stuff like that around.
Hating on other people isn’t going to turn it around. And hating on other people was a big part of what was on offer from our current POTUS. You can try to tell me it ain’t so, but I saw it with my own eyes. I remember, and will not forget.
The common weal is not a given. Things can fall apart. Fostering resentment of other people is one of the things that can make that happen.
Over and out.
I find Marty’s 11:09 and Slarti’s 11:24 to be generally right on.
FWIW, I think Marty underestimates the appeal of profoundly negative themes in Trump’s campaign, and in what resonates with the folks who supported Trump. wj hits it on the head with his invocation of Wallace and Nixon.
Folks should think, and try to be candid with themselves, about what appealed to them in Trump’s message. He wasn’t just selling conservative (R) orthodoxy. Ugly does in fact have a constituency in this country. It’s worn the hat of different parties over the years, right now it tends to be (R). Folks who are invested in the (R) label might want to think about that.
Winning isn’t everything. Some prizes aren’t worth the candle.
I have no problem with people being angry over how events have played out for them. I recognize that many parts of the country are not doing well. The place I live now faced many of the same things that are facing “heartland America” not that long ago – entire industries decamping for other regions, where labor was cheaper, once-prosperous cities and towns turning into shabby boarded-up ghosts. It takes a lot of work to turn stuff like that around.
Hating on other people isn’t going to turn it around. And hating on other people was a big part of what was on offer from our current POTUS. You can try to tell me it ain’t so, but I saw it with my own eyes. I remember, and will not forget.
The common weal is not a given. Things can fall apart. Fostering resentment of other people is one of the things that can make that happen.
Over and out.
#itsalock Going to get the Facebook page
From the Russians, if nobody else….
#itsalock Going to get the Facebook page
From the Russians, if nobody else….
Clinton got a lot more votes, after all, but they were unluckily distributed, so she lost due to the insane EC system
“Unluckily” is not the word I would use, though I am not sure about a correct one. I have said it before, but Bill Bishop’s Big Sort is probably the most important book, and most important event, in 21st century politics.
Liberals and Democrats (and conversely Republicans) have been concentrating in blue areas, states and counties in red states at a breathtaking pace since 2004, and since politics have become so polarized. My guess is that this trend has even accelerated since 2011 publication. Why the hell would a bright young Dem stay in Kansas or Wisconsin?
The electoral college is not the problem, sure wasn’t in the past. Kansas is not red by geology. The problem are where people are choosing to live.
Rural states and counties will always be over-represented, that Const Amendment can’t even be amended, the only one. Liberals have to move there, away from the metropoles.
Clinton got a lot more votes, after all, but they were unluckily distributed, so she lost due to the insane EC system
“Unluckily” is not the word I would use, though I am not sure about a correct one. I have said it before, but Bill Bishop’s Big Sort is probably the most important book, and most important event, in 21st century politics.
Liberals and Democrats (and conversely Republicans) have been concentrating in blue areas, states and counties in red states at a breathtaking pace since 2004, and since politics have become so polarized. My guess is that this trend has even accelerated since 2011 publication. Why the hell would a bright young Dem stay in Kansas or Wisconsin?
The electoral college is not the problem, sure wasn’t in the past. Kansas is not red by geology. The problem are where people are choosing to live.
Rural states and counties will always be over-represented, that Const Amendment can’t even be amended, the only one. Liberals have to move there, away from the metropoles.
“Winning isn’t everything”
Right, agreed. But some people have made it an end. Maybe THE end.
And so we find ourselves in our current situation. Lather, rinse, repeat.
To be completely honest: to the extent that winning has in the past been an end unto itself, this is my circus; these are my monkeys.
But I am trying to separate myself from them. And to stop with the victory-at-any-cost kind of behaviors.
“Winning isn’t everything”
Right, agreed. But some people have made it an end. Maybe THE end.
And so we find ourselves in our current situation. Lather, rinse, repeat.
To be completely honest: to the extent that winning has in the past been an end unto itself, this is my circus; these are my monkeys.
But I am trying to separate myself from them. And to stop with the victory-at-any-cost kind of behaviors.
Liberals and Democrats (and conversely Republicans) have been concentrating in blue areas, states and counties in red states at a breathtaking pace since 2004
FWIW, I see the dynamic differently.
*People* have been concentrating in relatively more urban areas, see here.
All things considered, people in densely populated areas tend to skew relatively more (D). Because (D)’s tend to favor policies that are relatively more relevant and appropriate to densely populated areas.
It’s not a matter of (D)’s and (R)’s picking up sticks and migrating to places where everyone is just like them. Party affiliation is following the demographic pattern.
IMO Bishop misconstrues cause and effect.
Liberals and Democrats (and conversely Republicans) have been concentrating in blue areas, states and counties in red states at a breathtaking pace since 2004
FWIW, I see the dynamic differently.
*People* have been concentrating in relatively more urban areas, see here.
All things considered, people in densely populated areas tend to skew relatively more (D). Because (D)’s tend to favor policies that are relatively more relevant and appropriate to densely populated areas.
It’s not a matter of (D)’s and (R)’s picking up sticks and migrating to places where everyone is just like them. Party affiliation is following the demographic pattern.
IMO Bishop misconstrues cause and effect.
that Const Amendment [the 12th, which creates the Electoral College] can’t even be amended, the only one.
Why not? I’m not seeing anything in the text to suggest that?
that Const Amendment [the 12th, which creates the Electoral College] can’t even be amended, the only one.
Why not? I’m not seeing anything in the text to suggest that?
Bob,
“Unluckily” is not the word I would use, though I am not sure about a correct one.
There is a lot to what you say, but I think that when we consider the narrowness of Trump’s win in a few states that “unlucky” is a reasonable description. Had the overall popular vote been the same, but not so close in those states, then the “sort” analysis would be a stronger explanation.
Bob,
“Unluckily” is not the word I would use, though I am not sure about a correct one.
There is a lot to what you say, but I think that when we consider the narrowness of Trump’s win in a few states that “unlucky” is a reasonable description. Had the overall popular vote been the same, but not so close in those states, then the “sort” analysis would be a stronger explanation.
As the southern Democrats decamped to the GOP, the two parties have become more ideologically cohesive. This raises the stakes immensely, because if your side does not win, your side may be toast as far as public policy is concerned.
cf: Scott Pruit and EPA; Supreme Court justices.
That is why vanity 3rd party runs are so pointless and pointlessly stupid. And yes, harmful.
The conservative movement did not run 3rd party candidates. They took over the GOP. (note to wj-the 2nd time around, Wallace was running in the Democratic primaries). See also the link I provided somewhere above.
For now, this sort has given the GOP a better edge electorally, but long run demographics are not in their favor.
Man the trenches.
As the southern Democrats decamped to the GOP, the two parties have become more ideologically cohesive. This raises the stakes immensely, because if your side does not win, your side may be toast as far as public policy is concerned.
cf: Scott Pruit and EPA; Supreme Court justices.
That is why vanity 3rd party runs are so pointless and pointlessly stupid. And yes, harmful.
The conservative movement did not run 3rd party candidates. They took over the GOP. (note to wj-the 2nd time around, Wallace was running in the Democratic primaries). See also the link I provided somewhere above.
For now, this sort has given the GOP a better edge electorally, but long run demographics are not in their favor.
Man the trenches.
“Fostering resentment of other people is one of the things that can make that happen.”
Sure is.
“Fostering resentment of other people is one of the things that can make that happen.”
Sure is.
Do we Coastal Elites resent the “white working class” now? I thought we were supposed to be looking down on them with smug arrogance, or something.
–TP
Do we Coastal Elites resent the “white working class” now? I thought we were supposed to be looking down on them with smug arrogance, or something.
–TP
Part of Clinton’s disadvantage was that she was too well known. She had been in the public eye for over two decades.
Part of Trump’s advantage was that he was pretty well known. But not for politics.
Neither had Obama’s advantage, the glamor of the unknown.
Part of Clinton’s disadvantage was that she was too well known. She had been in the public eye for over two decades.
Part of Trump’s advantage was that he was pretty well known. But not for politics.
Neither had Obama’s advantage, the glamor of the unknown.
Trump’s advantage is that his voters are completely unconcerned with truth.
Trump’s advantage is that his voters are completely unconcerned with truth.
Neither could deliver a speech like Obama, either. He is a gifted and eloquent orator.
Neither could deliver a speech like Obama, either. He is a gifted and eloquent orator.
Tony,
Not quite correct. Your smug arrogance is creating (i.e., fostering) those real amercuns’ resentment. Therefore it is all your fault that Clinton lost because real amercuns have no agency.
Tony,
Not quite correct. Your smug arrogance is creating (i.e., fostering) those real amercuns’ resentment. Therefore it is all your fault that Clinton lost because real amercuns have no agency.
so nobody start talking about a “blue wave”, here. mm k? don’t count those chickens!
My same bet is still on offer…
(a) Team blue scores +1 point in the 2018 elections for every Congressional seat, governor, and state legislative chamber flipped.
(b) Divide the country into two parts; the first consists of 25 states, the 13 states in the Census Bureau’s western region plus 12 states in the NE urban corridor (VA up the coast to ME, plus VT); the second half is the other 25 states.
(c) The Dems will score positive numbers in both parts of that first half, and net zero in the second half.
(d) Stakes are a microbrew or comparably-priced adult drink of choice.
Takers?
Full disclosure: I’ll be giving money to Democrats, but only in the West. I am annoyed that my (D) US Senator keeps sending me nagging emails to give money to incumbents in the South and Midwest.
so nobody start talking about a “blue wave”, here. mm k? don’t count those chickens!
My same bet is still on offer…
(a) Team blue scores +1 point in the 2018 elections for every Congressional seat, governor, and state legislative chamber flipped.
(b) Divide the country into two parts; the first consists of 25 states, the 13 states in the Census Bureau’s western region plus 12 states in the NE urban corridor (VA up the coast to ME, plus VT); the second half is the other 25 states.
(c) The Dems will score positive numbers in both parts of that first half, and net zero in the second half.
(d) Stakes are a microbrew or comparably-priced adult drink of choice.
Takers?
Full disclosure: I’ll be giving money to Democrats, but only in the West. I am annoyed that my (D) US Senator keeps sending me nagging emails to give money to incumbents in the South and Midwest.
I pretty much find this to be the very essence of fostering resentment:
“Ugly does in fact have a constituency in this country. It’s worn the hat of different parties over the years, right now it tends to be (R). Folks who are invested in the (R) label might want to think about that.”
Lets hate those GOP ugly people and if you are a GOP’er, well, you’re guilty by association.
Ugly has always had a constituency in this country, and everywhere else. They find a place to popup and declare themselves relevant.
The folks that voted for Trump had no other rational alternative. I was told was the case that for months here as I proposed Gary Johnson as an alternative. The choice of a 3rd party was irrational, not voting was irrational. For most Republicans that only leaves one rational choice. And it isn’t the Democrat.
You can use words like “tend to be Republican” but the point is to foster resentment against the people that voted Republican. Or maybe resentment isn’t the right word but it sure as hell ain’t building bridges.
I pretty much find this to be the very essence of fostering resentment:
“Ugly does in fact have a constituency in this country. It’s worn the hat of different parties over the years, right now it tends to be (R). Folks who are invested in the (R) label might want to think about that.”
Lets hate those GOP ugly people and if you are a GOP’er, well, you’re guilty by association.
Ugly has always had a constituency in this country, and everywhere else. They find a place to popup and declare themselves relevant.
The folks that voted for Trump had no other rational alternative. I was told was the case that for months here as I proposed Gary Johnson as an alternative. The choice of a 3rd party was irrational, not voting was irrational. For most Republicans that only leaves one rational choice. And it isn’t the Democrat.
You can use words like “tend to be Republican” but the point is to foster resentment against the people that voted Republican. Or maybe resentment isn’t the right word but it sure as hell ain’t building bridges.
Marty: For most Republicans that only leaves one rational choice. And it isn’t the Democrat.
Right. It’s the racist drunk at the end of the bar. The billionaire “populist” — or “billionaire” populist, maybe. The twice-divorced pussy grabber. Putin’s little bitch. The only “rational” choice for “most Republicans”, because giving libruls the finger is more important than any so-called principle “rational” Republicans ever espoused.
Resent Trump voters? Not a chance. Resentment is for people you DON’T hold in contempt.
–TP
Marty: For most Republicans that only leaves one rational choice. And it isn’t the Democrat.
Right. It’s the racist drunk at the end of the bar. The billionaire “populist” — or “billionaire” populist, maybe. The twice-divorced pussy grabber. Putin’s little bitch. The only “rational” choice for “most Republicans”, because giving libruls the finger is more important than any so-called principle “rational” Republicans ever espoused.
Resent Trump voters? Not a chance. Resentment is for people you DON’T hold in contempt.
–TP
Marty, Republican voters also handed Trump the nomination. No Democrats were running in the Republican primaries or caucuses.
Marty, Republican voters also handed Trump the nomination. No Democrats were running in the Republican primaries or caucuses.
“a speech like Obama”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0
The ones he didn’t give are even more eloquent.
Clinton was the wrong candidate, we are endlessly chastised, we OBWI kingmakers.
I’m not a Clinton lover (I hope mp arrests and imprisons her and other Democrat leading lights, and the conservatives in federal law enforcement as well now carrying out the law, so we can have at the carnage that will follow; the sooner the better) though unlike many right wing republicans, I wouldn’t have shot her in the head had she been elected … and there would have been an endless number of grassy knolls to investigate given the hate for the woman and the intimated blood lust for gun vengeance among those animals …. but still, the election was stolen.
I forget who came in second to Mussolini or Hitler. Surely the losers could have chosen a better candidate to fend off brutal ruination via the only “rational alternative”.
They probably weren’t suitably photogenic up against the fascist gesturing and funny walks. And the Other-baiting. Especially that.
In other countries, like mebbe America during the early founding days, that event, a stolen election, would have been reversed by every means necessary, including good old savage American violence.
Here are some other loser “candidates”:
Bush
Carson
Christie
Cruz
Fiorina
Gilmore
Graham
Huckabee
Jindal
Kasich
Pataki
Paul
Perry
Rubio
Santorum
Walker
Please explain, republicans. A good half of them should have won the primary in a normal, functioning democracy.
What did mp sense, what low, malign urges and simmering hate for the Other in the conservative movement in America did he sniff out and exploit to pull it off?
Please explain, republicans.
He looked the lot of you up and down and like any transactional (the only politically correct republican “trans” that dare speak its name) reptilian thug, he read you like a petty Cosa Nostra chieftain in a Sicilian hilltop surveying his subjects for the quantity of the sentimental tribute each will render, their livestock, their meager savings, their daughters.
The crucial turning point in the disgraceful republican debates was the argument over who had the biggest dick.
Of course, prurient Christian fakir republicans didn’t ask for visible proof, despite the showing of hands, and despite their extended perverted edging fixation on the precise physical properties of Bill Clinton’s member these last decades.
And so like everything else republican rat fuckers touch, and I mean their electorate and their elected, we ended up with the smallest, ingrown swinging dick, the most ruthless and cruel and incompetent of them all.
An administration of killers.
Here’s the bridge McConnell and company self-sabotaged when they stole my electoral agency by denying, with no historical precedence, Merrick Garland a simple hearing under the presumed rules we have tried to operate under for 260 years, and that is the very least of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE
Resentment?
That doesn’t come anywhere close to the catastrophic end that is coming to the republican party.
Go ahead, build another bridge. Call it government.
I’ll help blow that one up too and tear it asunder.
Nothing personal, Marty. You know that.
But your sentimental reenactments of Michael Cohen’s and KellyAnne Conway’s rationalizations of mp’s behavior and policies here put you at the bottom of the pile on.
But, we’ve apparently chased off every other conservative, so you’ve taken on a lonely task.
Though I notice, as hairshirthedonist does as well, that you have an uncanny knack for being both the guy disappeared at the bottom of the pile-on AND the guy who moseys in through the saloon doors wearing the red MAGA hat and the hint of a Russian accent, takes a look at the pile, removes the toothpick from his mouth, and asks “Shucks, fellas, what’s all the commotion about?”
I know what you’re doing.
“a speech like Obama”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0
The ones he didn’t give are even more eloquent.
Clinton was the wrong candidate, we are endlessly chastised, we OBWI kingmakers.
I’m not a Clinton lover (I hope mp arrests and imprisons her and other Democrat leading lights, and the conservatives in federal law enforcement as well now carrying out the law, so we can have at the carnage that will follow; the sooner the better) though unlike many right wing republicans, I wouldn’t have shot her in the head had she been elected … and there would have been an endless number of grassy knolls to investigate given the hate for the woman and the intimated blood lust for gun vengeance among those animals …. but still, the election was stolen.
I forget who came in second to Mussolini or Hitler. Surely the losers could have chosen a better candidate to fend off brutal ruination via the only “rational alternative”.
They probably weren’t suitably photogenic up against the fascist gesturing and funny walks. And the Other-baiting. Especially that.
In other countries, like mebbe America during the early founding days, that event, a stolen election, would have been reversed by every means necessary, including good old savage American violence.
Here are some other loser “candidates”:
Bush
Carson
Christie
Cruz
Fiorina
Gilmore
Graham
Huckabee
Jindal
Kasich
Pataki
Paul
Perry
Rubio
Santorum
Walker
Please explain, republicans. A good half of them should have won the primary in a normal, functioning democracy.
What did mp sense, what low, malign urges and simmering hate for the Other in the conservative movement in America did he sniff out and exploit to pull it off?
Please explain, republicans.
He looked the lot of you up and down and like any transactional (the only politically correct republican “trans” that dare speak its name) reptilian thug, he read you like a petty Cosa Nostra chieftain in a Sicilian hilltop surveying his subjects for the quantity of the sentimental tribute each will render, their livestock, their meager savings, their daughters.
The crucial turning point in the disgraceful republican debates was the argument over who had the biggest dick.
Of course, prurient Christian fakir republicans didn’t ask for visible proof, despite the showing of hands, and despite their extended perverted edging fixation on the precise physical properties of Bill Clinton’s member these last decades.
And so like everything else republican rat fuckers touch, and I mean their electorate and their elected, we ended up with the smallest, ingrown swinging dick, the most ruthless and cruel and incompetent of them all.
An administration of killers.
Here’s the bridge McConnell and company self-sabotaged when they stole my electoral agency by denying, with no historical precedence, Merrick Garland a simple hearing under the presumed rules we have tried to operate under for 260 years, and that is the very least of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRHVMi3LxZE
Resentment?
That doesn’t come anywhere close to the catastrophic end that is coming to the republican party.
Go ahead, build another bridge. Call it government.
I’ll help blow that one up too and tear it asunder.
Nothing personal, Marty. You know that.
But your sentimental reenactments of Michael Cohen’s and KellyAnne Conway’s rationalizations of mp’s behavior and policies here put you at the bottom of the pile on.
But, we’ve apparently chased off every other conservative, so you’ve taken on a lonely task.
Though I notice, as hairshirthedonist does as well, that you have an uncanny knack for being both the guy disappeared at the bottom of the pile-on AND the guy who moseys in through the saloon doors wearing the red MAGA hat and the hint of a Russian accent, takes a look at the pile, removes the toothpick from his mouth, and asks “Shucks, fellas, what’s all the commotion about?”
I know what you’re doing.
True, hsh, but I think if Trump did one thing I like it was keeping Ted Cruz out of the White House.
Cruz may not have Trump’s flaws, but his own set is awful.
True, hsh, but I think if Trump did one thing I like it was keeping Ted Cruz out of the White House.
Cruz may not have Trump’s flaws, but his own set is awful.
The folks that voted for Trump had no other rational alternative.
As far as getting their desired set of federal policies go, after the convention, I’d agree they had no choice. That they did not rise up in shrieking unison during the primaries shouting, “No, not that m$therf*cker! Never! Never in a thousand years!” Speaks volumes.
As far as resentment goes, not once during the Clinton or Obama years did we see anybody of note writing op-eds to the effect that the GOP base had to dial it back some in order to get “centrist Democrats” to come over to their side. Apparently this resentment thing goes only one way.
The folks that voted for Trump had no other rational alternative.
As far as getting their desired set of federal policies go, after the convention, I’d agree they had no choice. That they did not rise up in shrieking unison during the primaries shouting, “No, not that m$therf*cker! Never! Never in a thousand years!” Speaks volumes.
As far as resentment goes, not once during the Clinton or Obama years did we see anybody of note writing op-eds to the effect that the GOP base had to dial it back some in order to get “centrist Democrats” to come over to their side. Apparently this resentment thing goes only one way.
Speaking of Cruz, he seems to have won the victory over himself.
Speaking of Cruz, he seems to have won the victory over himself.
Can Cruz’ nose get any browner? For a guy who trashed his father and his wife. Sad. Really, really sad. Not to mention pathetic.
Can Cruz’ nose get any browner? For a guy who trashed his father and his wife. Sad. Really, really sad. Not to mention pathetic.
hsh, I would only point out thst pretty much everyone, the press, Dems, Russians, were all happy to bury each of his competitors along the way thinking he would be easy pickins in the general. Bush was, well, a Bush. Cruz was crazy, Rubio was inexperienced, Fiorina was a Republican woman, Christie was fat, and Trump just had to make the caricature and everyone else ran with it.
Lots of stupid things happened along that path.
hsh, I would only point out thst pretty much everyone, the press, Dems, Russians, were all happy to bury each of his competitors along the way thinking he would be easy pickins in the general. Bush was, well, a Bush. Cruz was crazy, Rubio was inexperienced, Fiorina was a Republican woman, Christie was fat, and Trump just had to make the caricature and everyone else ran with it.
Lots of stupid things happened along that path.
What do folks make of the possible criminal charges against McCabe ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inspector-general-referred-findings-on-mccabe-to-us-attorney-for-consideration-of-criminal-charges/2018/04/19/a200cabc-43f3-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html
Seemingly for lying to investigators about his l(unsanctioned) eaking to the press,shortly before the election, the existence of a second investigation into Clinton.
What do folks make of the possible criminal charges against McCabe ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inspector-general-referred-findings-on-mccabe-to-us-attorney-for-consideration-of-criminal-charges/2018/04/19/a200cabc-43f3-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html
Seemingly for lying to investigators about his l(unsanctioned) eaking to the press,shortly before the election, the existence of a second investigation into Clinton.
I voted for Cruz in the primary, I confess. Not because I like the guy, because he’s not really likeable. But I don’t think likeability is any sort of key ingredient for a President.
It helps. But I preferred to vote for a guy whose words at least sounded a bit like he had some regard for the rule of law.
I might have voted for Fiorina, had she lasted that long. Sharp woman. I got the sense that she didn’t know politics all that well, but she could learn quickly if she got the chance.
Jeb! was actually a passing fair governor of Florida, and passing fair may make him one of the best Florida governor of all times. The guy was about as center-right as you’re likely to find in the Republican party. But he dropped out, so I didn’t have to hesitate over putting another Bush on the presidential ballot.
Basically all the other decent choices were gone by the primary, and then there was only Trump, so I said screw it and cast my vote for the rather eccentric Gary Johnson. Not that he had a chance of winning, nor that anyone besides Trump was going to win Indiana. Protest vote.
Hell of an athlete, though.
I voted for Cruz in the primary, I confess. Not because I like the guy, because he’s not really likeable. But I don’t think likeability is any sort of key ingredient for a President.
It helps. But I preferred to vote for a guy whose words at least sounded a bit like he had some regard for the rule of law.
I might have voted for Fiorina, had she lasted that long. Sharp woman. I got the sense that she didn’t know politics all that well, but she could learn quickly if she got the chance.
Jeb! was actually a passing fair governor of Florida, and passing fair may make him one of the best Florida governor of all times. The guy was about as center-right as you’re likely to find in the Republican party. But he dropped out, so I didn’t have to hesitate over putting another Bush on the presidential ballot.
Basically all the other decent choices were gone by the primary, and then there was only Trump, so I said screw it and cast my vote for the rather eccentric Gary Johnson. Not that he had a chance of winning, nor that anyone besides Trump was going to win Indiana. Protest vote.
Hell of an athlete, though.
Slarti,
Without commenting on the others, let me say that I considered Fiorina right up there with Trump and Cruz as candidates.
Her career was a classic example of failing upward. Her singular achievement was wrecking a great company. Smart woman? I beg to differ.
I admit that there weren’t going to be any potential GOP nominees who appealed to me, but Fiorina?
Slarti,
Without commenting on the others, let me say that I considered Fiorina right up there with Trump and Cruz as candidates.
Her career was a classic example of failing upward. Her singular achievement was wrecking a great company. Smart woman? I beg to differ.
I admit that there weren’t going to be any potential GOP nominees who appealed to me, but Fiorina?
The folks that voted for Trump had no other rational alternative.
the mobbed-up, daugther-lusting, serial-bankrupting, fake-“universitying”, completely-idiotic, truth-allergic, illegal-immigrant-marrying, mail-order steak-selling, corrupt, foreign-entangled, New York, formerly-liberal was the only rational alternative?
that was what we knew before the election!
your dumb-ass party just abandoned every goddamned principle it pretended to have in service of a guy who has been an obvious con-man since the mid-80s.
that was rational?
your whole party is drunk. go to bed. let the adults clean up your mess. we’ll call you when we need someone to harass the neighbors again.
The folks that voted for Trump had no other rational alternative.
the mobbed-up, daugther-lusting, serial-bankrupting, fake-“universitying”, completely-idiotic, truth-allergic, illegal-immigrant-marrying, mail-order steak-selling, corrupt, foreign-entangled, New York, formerly-liberal was the only rational alternative?
that was what we knew before the election!
your dumb-ass party just abandoned every goddamned principle it pretended to have in service of a guy who has been an obvious con-man since the mid-80s.
that was rational?
your whole party is drunk. go to bed. let the adults clean up your mess. we’ll call you when we need someone to harass the neighbors again.
The people who voted for Trump are responsible for their decision. They had a choice.
The people who voted for Trump are responsible for their decision. They had a choice.
Or,cleek, they could hsve voted to destroy the country for four more years, yep tough choice I have to say. But 4 more years of aggressively destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people, was not an acceptable alternative.
You can rail on but he has implemented, along with Congress, significant Republican policies that matter while perhaps, though not definitely, protected our rights in the SC for another generation. All the while dismantling the massive regulatory burden imposed over the last eight years.
Yes, all those things you say about him are true, and he is still a better choice than a Democrat, any Democrat.
You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.
A blue tsunami accomplishes nothing but turning Trump into a centrist Democrat for two years. I will hate that too.
Adults understand that sometimes the best thing still comes with a downside, This is one of those times.
As for principles, decisions sometimes require painful compromise. This is a hard one made completely necessary by the actions of the last President and congressional Democrats, especially the leadership. Our country can ill afford for them to be in charge.
Or,cleek, they could hsve voted to destroy the country for four more years, yep tough choice I have to say. But 4 more years of aggressively destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people, was not an acceptable alternative.
You can rail on but he has implemented, along with Congress, significant Republican policies that matter while perhaps, though not definitely, protected our rights in the SC for another generation. All the while dismantling the massive regulatory burden imposed over the last eight years.
Yes, all those things you say about him are true, and he is still a better choice than a Democrat, any Democrat.
You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.
A blue tsunami accomplishes nothing but turning Trump into a centrist Democrat for two years. I will hate that too.
Adults understand that sometimes the best thing still comes with a downside, This is one of those times.
As for principles, decisions sometimes require painful compromise. This is a hard one made completely necessary by the actions of the last President and congressional Democrats, especially the leadership. Our country can ill afford for them to be in charge.
You can use words like “tend to be Republican” but the point is to foster resentment against the people that voted Republican.
since i wrote it, i can tell you exactly what the intent was.
i’m calling out people who responded to trump’s appeals to bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice. because IMO those things suck, and you find them appealing IMO you need to check your head.
if that’s not you, then you have no reason to take offense.
i don’t give a crap about the letter after the name. i’ve voted for republicans, i’m sure i’ll do it again.
You can use words like “tend to be Republican” but the point is to foster resentment against the people that voted Republican.
since i wrote it, i can tell you exactly what the intent was.
i’m calling out people who responded to trump’s appeals to bigotry, militant nationalism, and malice. because IMO those things suck, and you find them appealing IMO you need to check your head.
if that’s not you, then you have no reason to take offense.
i don’t give a crap about the letter after the name. i’ve voted for republicans, i’m sure i’ll do it again.
fwiw, were i strongly disinclined to vote for clinton on policy grounds, i would likely have voted for mcmullin.
there have been situations where i thought the available (D) was not really an appropriate choice, and i’ve pulled the lever for the (R).
i’m not talking about party, i’m talking about ugly.
fwiw, were i strongly disinclined to vote for clinton on policy grounds, i would likely have voted for mcmullin.
there have been situations where i thought the available (D) was not really an appropriate choice, and i’ve pulled the lever for the (R).
i’m not talking about party, i’m talking about ugly.
Republican voters also handed Trump the nomination
yep
Republican voters also handed Trump the nomination
yep
You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.
it goes without saying, i assume, that these are your opinions.
You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.
it goes without saying, i assume, that these are your opinions.
it goes without saying, i assume, that these are your
opinionsdelusionsit goes without saying, i assume, that these are your
opinionsdelusionsBut 4 more years of aggressively destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people, was not an acceptable alternative.
But that is what they and we got because they voted for Trump and no there really is no fact based or rational argument that Clinton would have performed as badly or as detrimentally. NOt even close.
I do not like it at all when people generalize about the R base voters and call them racists or stupid. That is not fair or accurate. R base voters are prejudiced against EVERYONE outside their base and their disinformation bubble because of an over developed sense of entitlement which has metastasized into hyperpartisanship.
The basic message of the R party and its propaganda machine is the message its voters want to hear: that they are the only good Americans and everyone else is a threat to them, the only holders of good American values. It is a nostalgia for the good old days when people like them were the standard generic American and everyone else was a hyphenated American or not a real American at all. The basis of the R voting bloc is a sense of entitlement==Republican voters are entitled to government services and entitled to get their way and entitled to feel like they are the real true Americans. OUt of that sense of entitlement , they view everyone else as not as worthy as they are, Thus, the addiction to defamation, which is the mainstay of Republican discourse.
Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya.
Clinton Crime family
People in cities are the elitists
Bums on welfare
Gay people as a threat to family values
Trans people are lurking in the bathrooms!
Illegal immigrants are the cause of violent crime are raping women in numbers no one has ever seen before, are voting in California, and are getting welfare!
Muslims are taking over Dearborn!
Clinton should be locked up for something and the FBI knows what she should be locked up for and is keeping it secret!
The FISA warrent isn’t valid because Mueller is a Democrat and is running a witch hunt
Immigrants are bring ebola into the US!
Immigrants are stealing jobs!
Democrats cause budget deficits!
And so on.
Always those bad people over there are a threat to us, the real true and only good Americans. The innate virtuousness of Repubicans and the innate badness of everyone else is the fundamental core belief of contemporary conservatism. Perhaps hte only core belief
There really is no conservative philosophy. The pattern with R politicians is that they run for office on hate and fearmongering directed toward individuals or groups and the pattern with R voters is that they vote for the hate and fearmongering The pattern is also that they make exceptions for people they know personally. Its those other black people who are lazy, not their neighbor, those other Mexicans who are rapists, not their employee, and so on.
So no I dont think that it is fair or accurate to call R voters racists or idiots. I think it is fair and accurate to say they need to get over themselves.
But 4 more years of aggressively destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people, was not an acceptable alternative.
But that is what they and we got because they voted for Trump and no there really is no fact based or rational argument that Clinton would have performed as badly or as detrimentally. NOt even close.
I do not like it at all when people generalize about the R base voters and call them racists or stupid. That is not fair or accurate. R base voters are prejudiced against EVERYONE outside their base and their disinformation bubble because of an over developed sense of entitlement which has metastasized into hyperpartisanship.
The basic message of the R party and its propaganda machine is the message its voters want to hear: that they are the only good Americans and everyone else is a threat to them, the only holders of good American values. It is a nostalgia for the good old days when people like them were the standard generic American and everyone else was a hyphenated American or not a real American at all. The basis of the R voting bloc is a sense of entitlement==Republican voters are entitled to government services and entitled to get their way and entitled to feel like they are the real true Americans. OUt of that sense of entitlement , they view everyone else as not as worthy as they are, Thus, the addiction to defamation, which is the mainstay of Republican discourse.
Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya.
Clinton Crime family
People in cities are the elitists
Bums on welfare
Gay people as a threat to family values
Trans people are lurking in the bathrooms!
Illegal immigrants are the cause of violent crime are raping women in numbers no one has ever seen before, are voting in California, and are getting welfare!
Muslims are taking over Dearborn!
Clinton should be locked up for something and the FBI knows what she should be locked up for and is keeping it secret!
The FISA warrent isn’t valid because Mueller is a Democrat and is running a witch hunt
Immigrants are bring ebola into the US!
Immigrants are stealing jobs!
Democrats cause budget deficits!
And so on.
Always those bad people over there are a threat to us, the real true and only good Americans. The innate virtuousness of Repubicans and the innate badness of everyone else is the fundamental core belief of contemporary conservatism. Perhaps hte only core belief
There really is no conservative philosophy. The pattern with R politicians is that they run for office on hate and fearmongering directed toward individuals or groups and the pattern with R voters is that they vote for the hate and fearmongering The pattern is also that they make exceptions for people they know personally. Its those other black people who are lazy, not their neighbor, those other Mexicans who are rapists, not their employee, and so on.
So no I dont think that it is fair or accurate to call R voters racists or idiots. I think it is fair and accurate to say they need to get over themselves.
Of course its my opinion. And in some ways not very strongly held. But some of those policies I truly believe have significantly moved us to a more sustainable economic path.
If you only look at the ugly you miss most of the people who voted for him, all of us who didnt.
Of course its my opinion. And in some ways not very strongly held. But some of those policies I truly believe have significantly moved us to a more sustainable economic path.
If you only look at the ugly you miss most of the people who voted for him, all of us who didnt.
Marty: … every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people …
Rule of Law: “Lock Her Up!”; fire Comey; pardon Arpaio; threaten Rosenstein.
Personal Responsibility: pay hush money to porn star; hide your tax returns; “alternate facts”.
Free Markets: tariffs; promote coal; denounce Amazon.
Free People: reporters have too much freedom, white supremacists not enough.
Self-dealing, hiring “the best people” who turn out to be either incompetents or crooks, kissing Putin’s ass at every opportunity — these too must be principles the US was built on.
Glad to know what MAGA means, finally.
–TP
Marty: … every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people …
Rule of Law: “Lock Her Up!”; fire Comey; pardon Arpaio; threaten Rosenstein.
Personal Responsibility: pay hush money to porn star; hide your tax returns; “alternate facts”.
Free Markets: tariffs; promote coal; denounce Amazon.
Free People: reporters have too much freedom, white supremacists not enough.
Self-dealing, hiring “the best people” who turn out to be either incompetents or crooks, kissing Putin’s ass at every opportunity — these too must be principles the US was built on.
Glad to know what MAGA means, finally.
–TP
Here’s some free enterprise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/world/asia/elliott-broidy-trump-malaysia-china-guo.html
BTW does refusing to sanction a dictator who murders reporters count as keeping people free?
Here’s some free enterprise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/world/asia/elliott-broidy-trump-malaysia-china-guo.html
BTW does refusing to sanction a dictator who murders reporters count as keeping people free?
some of those policies I truly believe have significantly moved us to a more sustainable economic path…
I’m curious to know what those might be ?
And he just appointed this genius as his economic advisor…
https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/12/bush-boom-continues-larry-kudlow/
some of those policies I truly believe have significantly moved us to a more sustainable economic path…
I’m curious to know what those might be ?
And he just appointed this genius as his economic advisor…
https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/12/bush-boom-continues-larry-kudlow/
Exploding the deficit during a growth period is sustainable? Trade wars are sustainable?
Well, to be fair, if your plan is to reduce wages to Chinese levels, they’ll be no need to import manufactured goods from China.
Exploding the deficit during a growth period is sustainable? Trade wars are sustainable?
Well, to be fair, if your plan is to reduce wages to Chinese levels, they’ll be no need to import manufactured goods from China.
every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people …
yes. your party has abandoned all of them in service of a con man.
every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people …
yes. your party has abandoned all of them in service of a con man.
If you only look at the ugly you miss most of the people who voted for him, all of us who didnt.
I’m not talking about people who didn’t.
It’s unclear to me how many people who did found his rhetoric appealing and how many felt the alternative meant the demise of the republic.
A hell of a lot thought it was great. And IMO those foks need to do a head check.
And it ain’t just Trump.
If you only look at the ugly you miss most of the people who voted for him, all of us who didnt.
I’m not talking about people who didn’t.
It’s unclear to me how many people who did found his rhetoric appealing and how many felt the alternative meant the demise of the republic.
A hell of a lot thought it was great. And IMO those foks need to do a head check.
And it ain’t just Trump.
destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people
I can’t really let this go without comment, and it has nothing to do with Trump.
It’s offensive to me that conservatives assume that *their* preferred principles and policies are the ones that are closest to the “founding principles of the country”.
You and I have different understandings of how things should work. Neither one is outside the scope of what was intended when the country was founded. Neither is outside of the “American tradtion” because that tradition is not one single thing.
John Adam’s MA, Hamilton’s NY, Willam Penn’s PA, Jefferson’s VA, Oglethorpe’s GA. All very different societies and traditions. All American, for good or ill.
I have no problem with you wanting the policies you want. I will not accept your claiming that they are any more “American” than the policies I want.
And none of it has anything to do wih what I’m talking about when I talk about ugliness in our public life. That’s not a partian thing, it’s more of an American id thing.
destroying every principle this country was built on: rule of law, personal responsibility, free markets, free people
I can’t really let this go without comment, and it has nothing to do with Trump.
It’s offensive to me that conservatives assume that *their* preferred principles and policies are the ones that are closest to the “founding principles of the country”.
You and I have different understandings of how things should work. Neither one is outside the scope of what was intended when the country was founded. Neither is outside of the “American tradtion” because that tradition is not one single thing.
John Adam’s MA, Hamilton’s NY, Willam Penn’s PA, Jefferson’s VA, Oglethorpe’s GA. All very different societies and traditions. All American, for good or ill.
I have no problem with you wanting the policies you want. I will not accept your claiming that they are any more “American” than the policies I want.
And none of it has anything to do wih what I’m talking about when I talk about ugliness in our public life. That’s not a partian thing, it’s more of an American id thing.
And none of it has anything to do wih what I’m talking about when I talk about ugliness in our public life. That’s not a partian thing, it’s more of an American id thing.
This is incorrect. Republicans have fully embraced ugliness, including hate, exclusion, lies, corruption and exploitation, both in policy and rhetoric. Both sides don’t do it, and we have to quit pretending that the only way to be civil is to hide that nasty truth.
And none of it has anything to do wih what I’m talking about when I talk about ugliness in our public life. That’s not a partian thing, it’s more of an American id thing.
This is incorrect. Republicans have fully embraced ugliness, including hate, exclusion, lies, corruption and exploitation, both in policy and rhetoric. Both sides don’t do it, and we have to quit pretending that the only way to be civil is to hide that nasty truth.
while I’m happy to have a conversation, russell, cleeks comment above and sapients after is what
I was responding to, just matching tone. Actually
they are the evidence that some on both sides “do it”.
while I’m happy to have a conversation, russell, cleeks comment above and sapients after is what
I was responding to, just matching tone. Actually
they are the evidence that some on both sides “do it”.
This is incorrect.
Back in the day, Wallace was a (D), mostly.
Right now, and ever since Nixon, the (R)’s are making hay riding the national id. But it’s found a home in various places, over the years.
All I’m asking is for (R)’s *right now* to address it. If folks want to run on tax cuts and deregulation, fine with me. Leave the other stuff out of it.
This is incorrect.
Back in the day, Wallace was a (D), mostly.
Right now, and ever since Nixon, the (R)’s are making hay riding the national id. But it’s found a home in various places, over the years.
All I’m asking is for (R)’s *right now* to address it. If folks want to run on tax cuts and deregulation, fine with me. Leave the other stuff out of it.
every principle this country was built on: slavery, genocide, protective tariffs, geographical expansion by force of arms….
every principle this country was built on: slavery, genocide, protective tariffs, geographical expansion by force of arms….
Admittedly, of the major parties, only the GOP has leading members that espouse originalist policies like limiting the franchise to landed gentry, abolishing child labour laws, abolishing the election of senators by the people, considering the ban of (volontary) slavery a violation of the freedom of contract, considering the idea of an income tax unbiblical and unamerican…
And on the matter on anti-miscegenation laws one also finds the majority of originalists on the GOP side today (although it is more a state and local thing with limited resonance in D.C.).
Admittedly, of the major parties, only the GOP has leading members that espouse originalist policies like limiting the franchise to landed gentry, abolishing child labour laws, abolishing the election of senators by the people, considering the ban of (volontary) slavery a violation of the freedom of contract, considering the idea of an income tax unbiblical and unamerican…
And on the matter on anti-miscegenation laws one also finds the majority of originalists on the GOP side today (although it is more a state and local thing with limited resonance in D.C.).
It’s offensive to me that conservatives assume that *their* preferred principles and policies are the ones that are closest to the “founding principles of the country
That’s part of the entitlement I was talking about. Conservatives will also claim that independence, hard work, and personal responsibility are conservative values when there is nothing innately and certainly nothing exclusively conservative about them. In fact those are generic values that everyone has. What is exclusively conservative is the snobbery of assuming those values are theirs.
It’s offensive to me that conservatives assume that *their* preferred principles and policies are the ones that are closest to the “founding principles of the country
That’s part of the entitlement I was talking about. Conservatives will also claim that independence, hard work, and personal responsibility are conservative values when there is nothing innately and certainly nothing exclusively conservative about them. In fact those are generic values that everyone has. What is exclusively conservative is the snobbery of assuming those values are theirs.
All I’m asking is for (R)’s *right now* to address it. If folks want to run on tax cuts and deregulation, fine with me. Leave the other stuff out of it.
would be nice.
but “Deplorable and Proud” is a pretty common bumper sticker on pickups in rural NC. it’s usually right next to a Trump/Pence sticker.
they know what they are. they know why they like Trump.
All I’m asking is for (R)’s *right now* to address it. If folks want to run on tax cuts and deregulation, fine with me. Leave the other stuff out of it.
would be nice.
but “Deplorable and Proud” is a pretty common bumper sticker on pickups in rural NC. it’s usually right next to a Trump/Pence sticker.
they know what they are. they know why they like Trump.
And it is the kind of ‘pride’ that many theologians rank as top of the deadly sins and the root of most others.
(St.Augustine thought that original sin was really about sex but the majority of his colleagues were unanimous that it was, at the roor, pride).
And it is the kind of ‘pride’ that many theologians rank as top of the deadly sins and the root of most others.
(St.Augustine thought that original sin was really about sex but the majority of his colleagues were unanimous that it was, at the roor, pride).
In fact those are generic values that everyone has. What is exclusively conservative is the snobbery of assuming those values are theirs.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I’ve had this thought floating around in my head in a nebulous, non-verbal form for some time. Now I have the words, and a conveniently small number of them. The only thing I would change would be to add scare quotes around “conservative.”
The people who fit this description aren’t traditional conservatives, any more than the cells of a cancer tumor in someone’s lung are lung cells.
(I’m not sure exactly how this relates to cleek’s law, but the two of them sum it up pretty well.)
In fact those are generic values that everyone has. What is exclusively conservative is the snobbery of assuming those values are theirs.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly. I’ve had this thought floating around in my head in a nebulous, non-verbal form for some time. Now I have the words, and a conveniently small number of them. The only thing I would change would be to add scare quotes around “conservative.”
The people who fit this description aren’t traditional conservatives, any more than the cells of a cancer tumor in someone’s lung are lung cells.
(I’m not sure exactly how this relates to cleek’s law, but the two of them sum it up pretty well.)
You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.
the thing is, that’s not what “you Republicans” are doing, at all.
we’re coasting on the Obama economy. the unnecessary and ill-advised Trump/Ryan tax cuts are going to hurt, bad – even by “conservative” metrics, they’re bad, since they’re going to blow the deficit up to levels that had you all screaming about the end of days when it was last that large. his tariffs are insane (and now the GOP is the party of tariffs! lol).
you aren’t securing any “freedom” (whatever the hell that means). you aren’t making the world safer place. Trump is alienating our allies and emboldening our rivals. even if we don’t assume he’s deliberately trying to Make Russia Great Again, he’s effectively doing that.
he’s replaced stability and predictability with idiocy petulance and chaos, which is causing our allies to start to work around us instead of with us.
you hired a degenerate racist moron to run your party. things are working out as expected.
You sit over there and whine while us Republicans secure our freedom, fix the economy, make the world a safer place and create sustainable prosperity for your kids and grandkids.
the thing is, that’s not what “you Republicans” are doing, at all.
we’re coasting on the Obama economy. the unnecessary and ill-advised Trump/Ryan tax cuts are going to hurt, bad – even by “conservative” metrics, they’re bad, since they’re going to blow the deficit up to levels that had you all screaming about the end of days when it was last that large. his tariffs are insane (and now the GOP is the party of tariffs! lol).
you aren’t securing any “freedom” (whatever the hell that means). you aren’t making the world safer place. Trump is alienating our allies and emboldening our rivals. even if we don’t assume he’s deliberately trying to Make Russia Great Again, he’s effectively doing that.
he’s replaced stability and predictability with idiocy petulance and chaos, which is causing our allies to start to work around us instead of with us.
you hired a degenerate racist moron to run your party. things are working out as expected.
Im sure youre confusing “claiming those values as theirs” with “wanting to retain those values as core American values”.
Policy either rewards thise values or it doesn’t. Its s policy discussion not an owning of the values discussion. And it comes in degrees.
This policy promotes individual responsibility more than that one, while understanding a safety net is important. Is then portrayed as hateful of people that have fallen on hard times. The response being you dont believe in any personal responsibility? Which begets “you dont own that value”. Which begets “you sure as heck dont believe in it”. And tbe circle is complete.
Policy solutions to our most intransigent problems should be built on how to help the most people over time, governments primary role in this endeavor.
We can’t get past counting who gets helped and hurt the day things are implemented to have any of those duscussions, because that’s how Democrats win. Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe. Those hateful Republicans hurt Joe.
Bah.
Im sure youre confusing “claiming those values as theirs” with “wanting to retain those values as core American values”.
Policy either rewards thise values or it doesn’t. Its s policy discussion not an owning of the values discussion. And it comes in degrees.
This policy promotes individual responsibility more than that one, while understanding a safety net is important. Is then portrayed as hateful of people that have fallen on hard times. The response being you dont believe in any personal responsibility? Which begets “you dont own that value”. Which begets “you sure as heck dont believe in it”. And tbe circle is complete.
Policy solutions to our most intransigent problems should be built on how to help the most people over time, governments primary role in this endeavor.
We can’t get past counting who gets helped and hurt the day things are implemented to have any of those duscussions, because that’s how Democrats win. Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe. Those hateful Republicans hurt Joe.
Bah.
This is my good news for the day.
This is my good news for the day.
Exploding the deficit during a growth period is sustainable? Trade wars are sustainable?
It is perhaps notable that, among the 20 developed countries, the United States is the only one which is not reducing its government’s deficit. Even perennial basket cases like Greece are reducing their deficit. Everybody but us!
I suppose it’s conceivable that isn’t a problem. But it sure seems like a big red flag to me.
Exploding the deficit during a growth period is sustainable? Trade wars are sustainable?
It is perhaps notable that, among the 20 developed countries, the United States is the only one which is not reducing its government’s deficit. Even perennial basket cases like Greece are reducing their deficit. Everybody but us!
I suppose it’s conceivable that isn’t a problem. But it sure seems like a big red flag to me.
Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe. Those hateful Republicans hurt Joe.
Except your example is an inaccurate caricature. I wouldn’t oppose a tax cut if I actually believed it would help 300M people in the long run, including Joe, even if it hurt Joe in the short term. You’re begging the question by assuming your conclusion.
As it stands, the tax cut in reality helps a bunch of people who have been accumulating wealth at a record pace for decades, which I believe accelerates a trend that will be good for no one in the long run. You can disagree with that, but at least disagree with the argument someone is actually making.
Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe. Those hateful Republicans hurt Joe.
Except your example is an inaccurate caricature. I wouldn’t oppose a tax cut if I actually believed it would help 300M people in the long run, including Joe, even if it hurt Joe in the short term. You’re begging the question by assuming your conclusion.
As it stands, the tax cut in reality helps a bunch of people who have been accumulating wealth at a record pace for decades, which I believe accelerates a trend that will be good for no one in the long run. You can disagree with that, but at least disagree with the argument someone is actually making.
Trump is alienating our allies and emboldening our rivals. even if we don’t assume he’s deliberately trying to Make Russia Great Again, he’s effectively doing that.
To be fair, he’s doing more to Make China Great Again than for Russia. His intention seems to be as you say; certainly not to build up China. But that’s definitely what he is accomplishing with his various actions. (I started to write “policies.” But realized that term can’t really be applied to current US foreign “policy”. Or trade “policy”. It’s pretty much all flailing around more or less at random.)
Trump is alienating our allies and emboldening our rivals. even if we don’t assume he’s deliberately trying to Make Russia Great Again, he’s effectively doing that.
To be fair, he’s doing more to Make China Great Again than for Russia. His intention seems to be as you say; certainly not to build up China. But that’s definitely what he is accomplishing with his various actions. (I started to write “policies.” But realized that term can’t really be applied to current US foreign “policy”. Or trade “policy”. It’s pretty much all flailing around more or less at random.)
We can’t get past counting who gets helped and hurt the day things are implemented to have any of those duscussions, because that’s how Democrats win. Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe.
I’m missing something here. If a (Republican) policy will help 300 million people while hurting one (or a handful), how is counting a win for Democrats? Seems like counting ought to be exactly a win for the policy.
As for picking out individual examples to make a policy point, all politicians do that. Doesn’t matter what party they are in. Doesn’t matter if their policy is liberal, conservative, libertarian, populist, or whatever. It’s nonsense, but apparently helps people see whatever point they are trying to make. So I guess we are stuck with it.
We can’t get past counting who gets helped and hurt the day things are implemented to have any of those duscussions, because that’s how Democrats win. Thr tax cut hurt joe in nyc so its bad, no matter that kt helped 300m people and its economic impact will help everyone invluding Joe.
I’m missing something here. If a (Republican) policy will help 300 million people while hurting one (or a handful), how is counting a win for Democrats? Seems like counting ought to be exactly a win for the policy.
As for picking out individual examples to make a policy point, all politicians do that. Doesn’t matter what party they are in. Doesn’t matter if their policy is liberal, conservative, libertarian, populist, or whatever. It’s nonsense, but apparently helps people see whatever point they are trying to make. So I guess we are stuck with it.
To be fair, he’s doing more to Make China Great Again than for Russia.
Not just in relation to the economy, either. Who do we think is the better 10-dimensional chess player in relation to North Korea, Xi Jinping or Donald Trump?
To be fair, he’s doing more to Make China Great Again than for Russia.
Not just in relation to the economy, either. Who do we think is the better 10-dimensional chess player in relation to North Korea, Xi Jinping or Donald Trump?
m sure youre confusing “claiming those values as theirs” with “wanting to retain those values as core American values”.
I wish that was the case. However, those core values are not under attack by non-conservatives and are in fact shared by non-conservatives, and are in fact the basis for policies supported by non-conservatives, so the “conservative” assumption that they are the noble and heroic defenders of those values against the people who dont share them is based on the assumption that the values are more theirs than anyone else’s.
m sure youre confusing “claiming those values as theirs” with “wanting to retain those values as core American values”.
I wish that was the case. However, those core values are not under attack by non-conservatives and are in fact shared by non-conservatives, and are in fact the basis for policies supported by non-conservatives, so the “conservative” assumption that they are the noble and heroic defenders of those values against the people who dont share them is based on the assumption that the values are more theirs than anyone else’s.
so the “conservative” assumption that they are the noble and heroic defenders of those values against the people who dont share them is based on the assumption that the values are more theirs than anyone else’s.
seems like there’s an echo of “conservatives'” complaints against ‘identity politics’ in there. only people who aren’t white conservatives participate in identity politics because white conservative isn’t an identity – it’s the default setting for “American”. everybody else is some kind of special interest group.
so the “conservative” assumption that they are the noble and heroic defenders of those values against the people who dont share them is based on the assumption that the values are more theirs than anyone else’s.
seems like there’s an echo of “conservatives'” complaints against ‘identity politics’ in there. only people who aren’t white conservatives participate in identity politics because white conservative isn’t an identity – it’s the default setting for “American”. everybody else is some kind of special interest group.
For example, the recurrent theme that bums are wasting welfare dollars. That’s based, not on evidence, but on the paranoid assumption that those other people over there are not deserving like Repubicans are. Repubicans are the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power and all kinds of subsidies and supports like farm price supports and tax funded jobs in red states and subsidized crop and herd insurance and on and on and on, but boy we better cut Medicaid funding and Food Stamps out of fear that someone some where who is undeserving is getting help! Because Republicans are the hardworking people and those other people are (niggers on welfare, bums on welfare, illegals on welfare, women who are having kids to get welfare, whatever hatemongering stereotype is is handy for R politicians to promote).
That snobbish assumption of entitlement is not exclusively a Republican trait, but it is the biggest sales pitch for the Republican party, has been for decades, and is the primary message of Faux and the rest of the propaganda network. And I don’t think R politicians and propagandists would push the theme of tribal superiority if it was not effective with members of the tribe.
For example, the recurrent theme that bums are wasting welfare dollars. That’s based, not on evidence, but on the paranoid assumption that those other people over there are not deserving like Repubicans are. Repubicans are the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power and all kinds of subsidies and supports like farm price supports and tax funded jobs in red states and subsidized crop and herd insurance and on and on and on, but boy we better cut Medicaid funding and Food Stamps out of fear that someone some where who is undeserving is getting help! Because Republicans are the hardworking people and those other people are (niggers on welfare, bums on welfare, illegals on welfare, women who are having kids to get welfare, whatever hatemongering stereotype is is handy for R politicians to promote).
That snobbish assumption of entitlement is not exclusively a Republican trait, but it is the biggest sales pitch for the Republican party, has been for decades, and is the primary message of Faux and the rest of the propaganda network. And I don’t think R politicians and propagandists would push the theme of tribal superiority if it was not effective with members of the tribe.
This Frum article is perhaps germane to the discussion with Marty:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/comey-memo-conservatives/558521/
This Frum article is perhaps germane to the discussion with Marty:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/comey-memo-conservatives/558521/
the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power and all kinds of subsidies and supports like farm price supports and tax funded jobs in red states and subsidized crop and herd insurance and on and on and on, but boy we better cut Medicaid funding and Food Stamps out of fear that someone some where who is undeserving is getting help!
It occurs to me that perhaps the problem is one of labeling. If farm supports had a catchy name that they were always referred to by, they might be seen as more like Medicaid. And that would mean that the problem is that the Democrats come up with more easy-to-remember labels. 😉
the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power and all kinds of subsidies and supports like farm price supports and tax funded jobs in red states and subsidized crop and herd insurance and on and on and on, but boy we better cut Medicaid funding and Food Stamps out of fear that someone some where who is undeserving is getting help!
It occurs to me that perhaps the problem is one of labeling. If farm supports had a catchy name that they were always referred to by, they might be seen as more like Medicaid. And that would mean that the problem is that the Democrats come up with more easy-to-remember labels. 😉
Makers: steelworkers, nurses, teachers, janitors, plumbers, code writers, coal miners, medical technicians, truck drivers, etc., dishwashers, etc.
Takers: Hedge fund managers, vulture capitalists, too-big-to-fail banks.
The GOP has it exactly backwards.
Makers: steelworkers, nurses, teachers, janitors, plumbers, code writers, coal miners, medical technicians, truck drivers, etc., dishwashers, etc.
Takers: Hedge fund managers, vulture capitalists, too-big-to-fail banks.
The GOP has it exactly backwards.
Excellent Frum article, Nigel. But then so much of his post-Trump-nomination output is excellent. Thank God for the existence of decent conservatives, to remind us that such a category exists in the public sphere. And I never thought I’d be saying such a thing in his axis-of-evil days…..
Excellent Frum article, Nigel. But then so much of his post-Trump-nomination output is excellent. Thank God for the existence of decent conservatives, to remind us that such a category exists in the public sphere. And I never thought I’d be saying such a thing in his axis-of-evil days…..
the tax cut in reality helps a bunch of people who have been accumulating wealth at a record pace for decades, which I believe accelerates a trend that will be good for no one in the long run.
Tax cuts!
the tax cut in reality helps a bunch of people who have been accumulating wealth at a record pace for decades, which I believe accelerates a trend that will be good for no one in the long run.
Tax cuts!
hsh, and I disagree entirely. Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up in the second half of the year. So we will see who’s right
hsh, and I disagree entirely. Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up in the second half of the year. So we will see who’s right
make a graph of an economic indicator you like over the past ten years. leave off the axis labels.
see if you can spot Trump’s election.
make a graph of an economic indicator you like over the past ten years. leave off the axis labels.
see if you can spot Trump’s election.
wj–in regard to labeling. Conservatives label anything that helps them as support for jobs or workers, and anything that helps anyone else as welfare. It’s all wlefare, but we are back to that sense of entitlement….
wj–in regard to labeling. Conservatives label anything that helps them as support for jobs or workers, and anything that helps anyone else as welfare. It’s all wlefare, but we are back to that sense of entitlement….
Not just “welfare”. Give it a name of its own. (And if the other party won’t when it is enacted, well tack one on the next time you have control of the Congress.)
Not just “welfare”. Give it a name of its own. (And if the other party won’t when it is enacted, well tack one on the next time you have control of the Congress.)
Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up in the second half of the year.
In continuation of a trend that began literally years before Trump took office. What will tax revenues be up relative to in the second half of the year? The first half of the year? Prior years?
Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up in the second half of the year.
In continuation of a trend that began literally years before Trump took office. What will tax revenues be up relative to in the second half of the year? The first half of the year? Prior years?
Put it on your calendar to look at this graph in one year, Marty.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA
Put it on your calendar to look at this graph in one year, Marty.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA
I get your point about labbeling. This reminded me of an analysis of the economy of one of the northern teir counties in WA, I can’t remember which one; Okanogan, Pond d’Oreille (didnt spell that right0 doens’t matter, which since the study was applicable to many red areas nationwide. What the study found was that without goverment money, the county would be vertually uninhabited by humans.
Food Stamps were what kept local govercieries open since people who could drive or could afford gas drove into the nearest big town or city to grocery shop. Almost everyone else lived off the government: law enforcement, education, the PO, people connected to the National Forest or BLM, people who leased rach land at subsidized rates or work in a timber mill that was harvesting public tress off public land wihtout fully compensating the public for our loss
Ask those folks about that and they will tell you taht it is all necessary to support the economy. I was actually told by a logger once that as long as there was a National Forest he would always have a job. They feel so owed that they are not even aware of their since of being owned.
But suggest that tax dollars should be spent to support the economy of somewhere else? Especially somewhere inhabited by those coastal elites or those illegals or those bums or those people dont have the real true independent hardworking free enterprise values like they have…
I get your point about labbeling. This reminded me of an analysis of the economy of one of the northern teir counties in WA, I can’t remember which one; Okanogan, Pond d’Oreille (didnt spell that right0 doens’t matter, which since the study was applicable to many red areas nationwide. What the study found was that without goverment money, the county would be vertually uninhabited by humans.
Food Stamps were what kept local govercieries open since people who could drive or could afford gas drove into the nearest big town or city to grocery shop. Almost everyone else lived off the government: law enforcement, education, the PO, people connected to the National Forest or BLM, people who leased rach land at subsidized rates or work in a timber mill that was harvesting public tress off public land wihtout fully compensating the public for our loss
Ask those folks about that and they will tell you taht it is all necessary to support the economy. I was actually told by a logger once that as long as there was a National Forest he would always have a job. They feel so owed that they are not even aware of their since of being owned.
But suggest that tax dollars should be spent to support the economy of somewhere else? Especially somewhere inhabited by those coastal elites or those illegals or those bums or those people dont have the real true independent hardworking free enterprise values like they have…
Repubicans are the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power…
Just for the record, BPA is not the example you think it is. First, the revenues raised from electricity and irrigation water have always covered the cost of ongoing operations and maintenance, plus the cost of construction amortized over 50 years at a reasonable interest rate. BPA is a profit center for the federal government, rebating cash to the Treasury each year. Second, the electricity has overwhelmingly been sold to metro areas across the West; eg, huge amounts flow down Path 65 to Southern California. At some points in the year, Path 65 represents almost 50% of LADWP’s supply.
Repubicans are the hard workers who deserve socialist programs like Bonneville Power…
Just for the record, BPA is not the example you think it is. First, the revenues raised from electricity and irrigation water have always covered the cost of ongoing operations and maintenance, plus the cost of construction amortized over 50 years at a reasonable interest rate. BPA is a profit center for the federal government, rebating cash to the Treasury each year. Second, the electricity has overwhelmingly been sold to metro areas across the West; eg, huge amounts flow down Path 65 to Southern California. At some points in the year, Path 65 represents almost 50% of LADWP’s supply.
So we will see who’s right
Haven’t we already?
I’m not trying to pile on, but this is where the conversation breaks down for me. Is Kansas an economic utopia in need of a little tweaking or is it an abject failure? I don’t see how policy discussions can begin if we can’t agree on one of these notions.
So we will see who’s right
Haven’t we already?
I’m not trying to pile on, but this is where the conversation breaks down for me. Is Kansas an economic utopia in need of a little tweaking or is it an abject failure? I don’t see how policy discussions can begin if we can’t agree on one of these notions.
Pete, I can point to ten Blue states thst hsve been abject failures over time for various reasons. Mot really a valid comparison.
Pete, I can point to ten Blue states thst hsve been abject failures over time for various reasons. Mot really a valid comparison.
It might be useful to have a list of those 10 blue states. Or even just some of them.
If only so we can start figuring out what we think constitutes success and failure. Because without that, we aren’t going to get anywhere.
It might be useful to have a list of those 10 blue states. Or even just some of them.
If only so we can start figuring out what we think constitutes success and failure. Because without that, we aren’t going to get anywhere.
states traditionally considered ‘blue’:
WA
OR
CA
HI
ME
MA
CT
RI
NH
NY
NJ
MD
DE
IL
WI
light blue:
NV
CO
NM
PA
VA
so, 20 total. 21 if you add DC.
i don’t see any abject failures in there.
i see 16 of the top 20 states for personal income, though.
states traditionally considered ‘blue’:
WA
OR
CA
HI
ME
MA
CT
RI
NH
NY
NJ
MD
DE
IL
WI
light blue:
NV
CO
NM
PA
VA
so, 20 total. 21 if you add DC.
i don’t see any abject failures in there.
i see 16 of the top 20 states for personal income, though.
Marty,
Fair play, and I realize that federal is not state, but I think wj is right, and that might be the place to start. Connecticut, frex, is having its troubles as well.
Marty,
Fair play, and I realize that federal is not state, but I think wj is right, and that might be the place to start. Connecticut, frex, is having its troubles as well.
Gish, im wrong. Only two blue areas CT and DC. One more than Ksnsas. I dont reel like playing tit for tat anymore. The tax code wil solidify a long term tenuous recovery into one where the Fed can raise rafes and clean up kts balance sheet so it has some ammo if there is a other downturn. One where wages go up instead of remaining flat because all the GDP growth can be accomplished with better productivity. One where work force participation might, not comvinced, increase 2-4 %. All of those things build a stronger and more sustainable economy with some backstop.
And will reduce debt not increase it. But if you measure today the deficit is bigger becsuse we jus cut the taxes so receipts from existing skurces is down and the money hasnt had time to work through the economy.
So sure, so fsr some rich peoe got a tax cut, along with almost everyone else. Thats my point, policy often takes time to schieve the expected goals.
Gish, im wrong. Only two blue areas CT and DC. One more than Ksnsas. I dont reel like playing tit for tat anymore. The tax code wil solidify a long term tenuous recovery into one where the Fed can raise rafes and clean up kts balance sheet so it has some ammo if there is a other downturn. One where wages go up instead of remaining flat because all the GDP growth can be accomplished with better productivity. One where work force participation might, not comvinced, increase 2-4 %. All of those things build a stronger and more sustainable economy with some backstop.
And will reduce debt not increase it. But if you measure today the deficit is bigger becsuse we jus cut the taxes so receipts from existing skurces is down and the money hasnt had time to work through the economy.
So sure, so fsr some rich peoe got a tax cut, along with almost everyone else. Thats my point, policy often takes time to schieve the expected goals.
“Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up”
As they all were when Reagan raised taxes, Bush I raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes, and Obama raised taxes a little bit.
As they were, to a much greater degree, throughout the postwar era and the blissful Boehner 1950s when marginal tax rates were much higher for decades, up to 91-93% at the highest brackets and on down the line to the dozens of marginal tax brackets.
I’ve posted historical tax tables here many times before, but I’m not going to waste my time any longer.
The stock market on average does better under Democratic Administrations than Republican and that is a century-long trend.
The market went straight up under Obama. I have the improved net worth to prove it, but pearls before swine.
Corporations are plowing their recently reduced corporate tax rates into buying back their own stock, which they have done for decades as well.
That’s not a productive activity. But what it does is reduce the supply of shares available in the markets by vast amounts (by some large double digit percentage over the past thee or four decades), thus manipulating our way to higher equity prices.
Like OPEC. Like the diamond industry.
Hooray for me, but NOTHING was produced except stagnant wages for most of the mp afficianados now deciding whether to take a hit of opioids or the asshole’s daily tweet barrage, and that started way before Obama entered the scene.
How do I know this, without reading UNAmericanCommiePinko.com on a regular basis?
I read business sites and publications, largely published by pro-business, low-tax-loving moderate to conservative interests.
Still, polls are now showing that a plurality of Americans disapprove of the republican tax legislation as unnecessary and profligate, and that includes many of those in the higher tax brackets.
Larry Kudlow is full of fucking shit.
“Investment is up, businesses are buying and hiring, tax revenues will be up”
As they all were when Reagan raised taxes, Bush I raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes, and Obama raised taxes a little bit.
As they were, to a much greater degree, throughout the postwar era and the blissful Boehner 1950s when marginal tax rates were much higher for decades, up to 91-93% at the highest brackets and on down the line to the dozens of marginal tax brackets.
I’ve posted historical tax tables here many times before, but I’m not going to waste my time any longer.
The stock market on average does better under Democratic Administrations than Republican and that is a century-long trend.
The market went straight up under Obama. I have the improved net worth to prove it, but pearls before swine.
Corporations are plowing their recently reduced corporate tax rates into buying back their own stock, which they have done for decades as well.
That’s not a productive activity. But what it does is reduce the supply of shares available in the markets by vast amounts (by some large double digit percentage over the past thee or four decades), thus manipulating our way to higher equity prices.
Like OPEC. Like the diamond industry.
Hooray for me, but NOTHING was produced except stagnant wages for most of the mp afficianados now deciding whether to take a hit of opioids or the asshole’s daily tweet barrage, and that started way before Obama entered the scene.
How do I know this, without reading UNAmericanCommiePinko.com on a regular basis?
I read business sites and publications, largely published by pro-business, low-tax-loving moderate to conservative interests.
Still, polls are now showing that a plurality of Americans disapprove of the republican tax legislation as unnecessary and profligate, and that includes many of those in the higher tax brackets.
Larry Kudlow is full of fucking shit.
Gish, im wrong. Only two blue areas CT and DC. One more than Kansas.
Not a problem. It gives us a couple of places where we can look at tax (and spending) policies, and see if we can see similarities. (We might want to look at Oklahoma as well. My impression is that they have been having challenges as well.)
Gish, im wrong. Only two blue areas CT and DC. One more than Kansas.
Not a problem. It gives us a couple of places where we can look at tax (and spending) policies, and see if we can see similarities. (We might want to look at Oklahoma as well. My impression is that they have been having challenges as well.)
Thank God for the existence of decent conservatives
no offence GFTNC, but you might want to look into David Frum’s history a bit… he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger – if that’s what goes for a decent conservative these days, then Lord have mercy on us
Thank God for the existence of decent conservatives
no offence GFTNC, but you might want to look into David Frum’s history a bit… he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger – if that’s what goes for a decent conservative these days, then Lord have mercy on us
It’s funny to me that Obama’s recovery was too tepid, after the near-global economic collapse that came at the end of 2 Bush terms. Obama’s economic powers, in the face of relentless obstruction, fell short of being godlike. See?!?!
It’s funny to me that Obama’s recovery was too tepid, after the near-global economic collapse that came at the end of 2 Bush terms. Obama’s economic powers, in the face of relentless obstruction, fell short of being godlike. See?!?!
Marty,
Without going into all of your points, let me just say that the tax bill is a stupid disaster that will do nothing to help the economy, but will certainly save the Trump class a lot of money on their taxes.
Please stop believing idiot blowhards like Kudlow and Lou Dobbs.
Marty,
Without going into all of your points, let me just say that the tax bill is a stupid disaster that will do nothing to help the economy, but will certainly save the Trump class a lot of money on their taxes.
Please stop believing idiot blowhards like Kudlow and Lou Dobbs.
IL is probably worth keeping an eye on. S&P and Moody’s both rate their bonds one grade above “junk”; Fitch rates them two grades above, but says that’s subject to future downward consideration. The state is some $15B in arrears in its current account, and sold $4.5B (of an authorized $6B) in bonds in October to reduce that. It is never a good sign when a state is selling large bond issues to pay current operating expenses.
IL is probably worth keeping an eye on. S&P and Moody’s both rate their bonds one grade above “junk”; Fitch rates them two grades above, but says that’s subject to future downward consideration. The state is some $15B in arrears in its current account, and sold $4.5B (of an authorized $6B) in bonds in October to reduce that. It is never a good sign when a state is selling large bond issues to pay current operating expenses.
Share repurchases increase EPS, which executive comp is often based upon.
Share repurchases increase EPS, which executive comp is often based upon.
see, e.g.,
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-share-repurchases-boost-earnings-without-improving-returns
see, e.g.,
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-share-repurchases-boost-earnings-without-improving-returns
bernard, I am disappointed in Kudlows selection, not sure what Lou Dobbs has to do with anything. Ive been in business management in one role or another since 1988.
I base my opinions on the other business people I talk to, my own experience and reading tons of quarterly reports, both business and government. In additkon to listening to some smarter people than me that I know well and whose jobs is evaluating these things.
One of the places where I see folks on the left being elitist is the assumption that if you disagree with them you must be stupid or influenced by some media talking head. You cant be examining the facts and coming to an informed opinion tha doesnt happen to agree with theirs.
In fact, Im pretyy sure that condescension is at the heary of ehat I consider elitist, pick your word.
bernard, I am disappointed in Kudlows selection, not sure what Lou Dobbs has to do with anything. Ive been in business management in one role or another since 1988.
I base my opinions on the other business people I talk to, my own experience and reading tons of quarterly reports, both business and government. In additkon to listening to some smarter people than me that I know well and whose jobs is evaluating these things.
One of the places where I see folks on the left being elitist is the assumption that if you disagree with them you must be stupid or influenced by some media talking head. You cant be examining the facts and coming to an informed opinion tha doesnt happen to agree with theirs.
In fact, Im pretyy sure that condescension is at the heary of ehat I consider elitist, pick your word.
Eccept vount in all those 70 odd consecuyive months the Fed deigned to keep interest rates at essentially zero, they continued to add to their balance shert, capital investment was stagnant and wages eere didnt move. Inthe last 3 months of Obama and Trumps first year all those things changed.
The stock market eent up under Obama because of its starting point. GDP growth regained pre 2008 levels when?
2008 was a great time to have money to invest.
Eccept vount in all those 70 odd consecuyive months the Fed deigned to keep interest rates at essentially zero, they continued to add to their balance shert, capital investment was stagnant and wages eere didnt move. Inthe last 3 months of Obama and Trumps first year all those things changed.
The stock market eent up under Obama because of its starting point. GDP growth regained pre 2008 levels when?
2008 was a great time to have money to invest.
And since *i* cant even read what i just wrote im off for the day. I reay struggle commenting on my phone because I cant type on it or read very well. My apologies.
And since *i* cant even read what i just wrote im off for the day. I reay struggle commenting on my phone because I cant type on it or read very well. My apologies.
I’m about as good at economics as I am at sound engineering, so all caveats apply. We’re ~5% of the world population with ~40% of its wealth and we can’t keep the lights on or the water potable in some places, while corporate personhoods are living quite well as they pit state against state for the biggest tax giveaway.
I’m told that tax cuts are needed to get us out of a recession and to stimulate a lukewarm economy and also to stimulate an overstimulated economy. It seems to me that there is no circumstance in which the solution is not tax cuts.
I’m beginning to think there’s something else going on.
I’m about as good at economics as I am at sound engineering, so all caveats apply. We’re ~5% of the world population with ~40% of its wealth and we can’t keep the lights on or the water potable in some places, while corporate personhoods are living quite well as they pit state against state for the biggest tax giveaway.
I’m told that tax cuts are needed to get us out of a recession and to stimulate a lukewarm economy and also to stimulate an overstimulated economy. It seems to me that there is no circumstance in which the solution is not tax cuts.
I’m beginning to think there’s something else going on.
GDP growth regained pre 2008 levels when?
it hasn’t.
and it has never regained what it was during the Clinton years, either.
GDP growth regained pre 2008 levels when?
it hasn’t.
and it has never regained what it was during the Clinton years, either.
capital investment was stagnant…
hmmmm…really?
Please provide your pre 2008 growth rate number. Was that for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? Then we can compare/contrast.
You cling to a supply side theory that has been repeatedly discredited. Lowering taxes does not create more tax revenue. If the fed is against the lower bound, the government can apply fiscal stimulus. Why didn’t we apply more under Obama?
Answer: Deficit scolds.
The plain fact is the economy has suffered a shortage of demand since the crash. By not going all out to get growth back on track we essentially gave away a good deal of potential output that can never be recovered.
This, in turn, will adversely impact our standard of living in the future.
Giving more of our financial wealth to the already rich will not alleviate this.
2008 was a great time to have money to invest.
Indeed. I was 100% stocks then, and I still am. But then I love to gamble.
I don’t know the future any better than anybody else, but what goes up comes down. Sooner or later the gamblers on Wall Street selling stocks to each other will have pumped them up so high as to lose all meaningful relationship to future earnings. Then the shit hits the fan.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens on Trump’s watch (3rd or 4th year).
capital investment was stagnant…
hmmmm…really?
Please provide your pre 2008 growth rate number. Was that for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? Then we can compare/contrast.
You cling to a supply side theory that has been repeatedly discredited. Lowering taxes does not create more tax revenue. If the fed is against the lower bound, the government can apply fiscal stimulus. Why didn’t we apply more under Obama?
Answer: Deficit scolds.
The plain fact is the economy has suffered a shortage of demand since the crash. By not going all out to get growth back on track we essentially gave away a good deal of potential output that can never be recovered.
This, in turn, will adversely impact our standard of living in the future.
Giving more of our financial wealth to the already rich will not alleviate this.
2008 was a great time to have money to invest.
Indeed. I was 100% stocks then, and I still am. But then I love to gamble.
I don’t know the future any better than anybody else, but what goes up comes down. Sooner or later the gamblers on Wall Street selling stocks to each other will have pumped them up so high as to lose all meaningful relationship to future earnings. Then the shit hits the fan.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens on Trump’s watch (3rd or 4th year).
but you might want to look into David Frum’s history a bit… he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger
This. And he needs a shave.
but you might want to look into David Frum’s history a bit… he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger
This. And he needs a shave.
Sooner or later the gamblers on Wall Street selling stocks to each other will have pumped them up so high as to lose all meaningful relationship to future earnings.
I don’t know that they’ve lost all meaningful relationship to future earnings. But there is no real doubt that they are seriously overpriced. Which, in turn, means that a serious correction (not to say “crash”) is in prospect. Whether it will happen this year, next, or the one after — I have no idea. But it will happen, and probably sooner than later.
Sooner or later the gamblers on Wall Street selling stocks to each other will have pumped them up so high as to lose all meaningful relationship to future earnings.
I don’t know that they’ve lost all meaningful relationship to future earnings. But there is no real doubt that they are seriously overpriced. Which, in turn, means that a serious correction (not to say “crash”) is in prospect. Whether it will happen this year, next, or the one after — I have no idea. But it will happen, and probably sooner than later.
So we will see who’s right
Actually, that probably won’t happen.
However things turn out under Trump, it won’t change anybody’s mind about what proper tax and economic policy should be.
So we will see who’s right
Actually, that probably won’t happen.
However things turn out under Trump, it won’t change anybody’s mind about what proper tax and economic policy should be.
However things turn out under Trump, it won’t change anybody’s mind about what proper tax and economic policy should be.
If they go well, Trump succeeded. If they go poorly, he succeeded in preventing them from being far worse.
However things turn out under Trump, it won’t change anybody’s mind about what proper tax and economic policy should be.
If they go well, Trump succeeded. If they go poorly, he succeeded in preventing them from being far worse.
I think I’ve grasped Marty’s argument. Democratic Party presidents such as Obama can’t help doing well for the economy, since they inherit a crashed economy from their incompetent Republican predecessors. Whereas Republican Party presidents like Trump can’t help looking doing badly since they inherit a healthy economy from their competent Democratic predecessors.
Therefore Republican presidents are much better, and Democratic presidents much worse, than they appear to be.
I think I’ve grasped Marty’s argument. Democratic Party presidents such as Obama can’t help doing well for the economy, since they inherit a crashed economy from their incompetent Republican predecessors. Whereas Republican Party presidents like Trump can’t help looking doing badly since they inherit a healthy economy from their competent Democratic predecessors.
Therefore Republican presidents are much better, and Democratic presidents much worse, than they appear to be.
no offence GFTNC, but you might want to look into David Frum’s history a bit… he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger – if that’s what goes for a decent conservative these days, then Lord have mercy on us
I don’t need to look into it, novakant and bobbyp, I knew it. It was everything I vehemently disagreed with, nay despised. But Lord have mercy on us indeed: the fact that he sees Trump for what he is, has been prepared to say so openly and eloquently, and furthermore sees the incredible danger (moral and otherwise) that the Trump phenomenon presents to America, makes me put him in a different category from the 80% (thanks cleek) of Republicans who think the job Trump’s doing is just dandy. Frum’s no wj, it’s true, but as far as I’m concerned, by comparison with most of them, that makes him a decent conservative.
no offence GFTNC, but you might want to look into David Frum’s history a bit… he was a Bush toadie, Iraq war supporter, wrote a book with Richard Perle and is an unrepentant neocon warmonger – if that’s what goes for a decent conservative these days, then Lord have mercy on us
I don’t need to look into it, novakant and bobbyp, I knew it. It was everything I vehemently disagreed with, nay despised. But Lord have mercy on us indeed: the fact that he sees Trump for what he is, has been prepared to say so openly and eloquently, and furthermore sees the incredible danger (moral and otherwise) that the Trump phenomenon presents to America, makes me put him in a different category from the 80% (thanks cleek) of Republicans who think the job Trump’s doing is just dandy. Frum’s no wj, it’s true, but as far as I’m concerned, by comparison with most of them, that makes him a decent conservative.
The question is whether or not programs like Bonneville Power are socialist in nature.
•
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
•
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
This is an abstract from the link that follows;
ABSTRACT TVA and the other federal electric utilities were created under Democratic administrations, and their service territories were initially bluer than average. These subsidized enterprises sell cheap power preferentially to non-investorowned distributors, so such utilities are more prominent where the federal utilities are important sellers. The political map of the U.S. has changed dramatically since the federal utilities were created. The federal utilities and non-investorowned distributors are now more important on average in red states than in blue ones. Interest has trumped ideology: Republican policy-makers strongly opposed to socialism in principle seem happy with the important role of government enterprises in the U.S. electric utility industry.
http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/paper
The question is whether or not programs like Bonneville Power are socialist in nature.
•
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
•
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
This is an abstract from the link that follows;
ABSTRACT TVA and the other federal electric utilities were created under Democratic administrations, and their service territories were initially bluer than average. These subsidized enterprises sell cheap power preferentially to non-investorowned distributors, so such utilities are more prominent where the federal utilities are important sellers. The political map of the U.S. has changed dramatically since the federal utilities were created. The federal utilities and non-investorowned distributors are now more important on average in red states than in blue ones. Interest has trumped ideology: Republican policy-makers strongly opposed to socialism in principle seem happy with the important role of government enterprises in the U.S. electric utility industry.
http://ceepr.mit.edu/files/paper
Granted people can get into fusses over the meaning of terms like ‘socialism”. It is a broad term which is further confused by changes over time and by variations on the theme
However the basic idea is government on behalf of the coummunity owns and operates a means of production and distribution of some kind of good which is what PBA is and does.
The Paul Ryan types have not been gunning for the PBAl but they have been gunning for other socialist or quasi=socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid precisely because they are within the definition of socialism The push to privatize and the push to end big government programs is ideologically driven by ideologues who see socialist programs as bad (not because the programs do any harm, but because the programs are outside of their ideology).
Capitalism good, socialism bad, and the hell with the consequences to the community–unless the consequences will hit the Republican politician’s voters hard enough to affect the pols chances of re-election. Then re-define the socialist program as not socialist any more because Republican voters are entitled to big government programs.
Granted people can get into fusses over the meaning of terms like ‘socialism”. It is a broad term which is further confused by changes over time and by variations on the theme
However the basic idea is government on behalf of the coummunity owns and operates a means of production and distribution of some kind of good which is what PBA is and does.
The Paul Ryan types have not been gunning for the PBAl but they have been gunning for other socialist or quasi=socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid precisely because they are within the definition of socialism The push to privatize and the push to end big government programs is ideologically driven by ideologues who see socialist programs as bad (not because the programs do any harm, but because the programs are outside of their ideology).
Capitalism good, socialism bad, and the hell with the consequences to the community–unless the consequences will hit the Republican politician’s voters hard enough to affect the pols chances of re-election. Then re-define the socialist program as not socialist any more because Republican voters are entitled to big government programs.
Oh, real socialism. I thought you were using the word in the contemporary “propped up with taxpayer money” derogatory sense, like the various farm support programs. My bad.
Oh, real socialism. I thought you were using the word in the contemporary “propped up with taxpayer money” derogatory sense, like the various farm support programs. My bad.
you can have my publicly owned, sponsored, and/or managed water, sewer, electric, and gas services, police and fire department, schools and libraries, trash pickup, motorways, air traffic control, and national weather service when you can pry them from my cold dead hands.
i probably left a few out.
i’m coming after your broadband, too.
that is all.
you can have my publicly owned, sponsored, and/or managed water, sewer, electric, and gas services, police and fire department, schools and libraries, trash pickup, motorways, air traffic control, and national weather service when you can pry them from my cold dead hands.
i probably left a few out.
i’m coming after your broadband, too.
that is all.
The Norquistian/mp aborted baby by drowning in the bathtub, but only for the rich:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-will-benefit-investors-not-workers-ceo-says-191854710.html
The Norquistian/mp aborted baby by drowning in the bathtub, but only for the rich:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-will-benefit-investors-not-workers-ceo-says-191854710.html
…other socialist or quasi=socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid precisely because they are within the definition of socialism
Not my definition. The transfer payment form of these programs favors capital and accumulation and diminishes solidarity etc. This is welfare capitalism, with all the attending externalities and risks.
Socialism is state ownership and management of hospitals, with doctors educated on the giv’t dime, and drawing a gov’t salary. Socialism is about production and controlling prices, not distribution.
…other socialist or quasi=socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid precisely because they are within the definition of socialism
Not my definition. The transfer payment form of these programs favors capital and accumulation and diminishes solidarity etc. This is welfare capitalism, with all the attending externalities and risks.
Socialism is state ownership and management of hospitals, with doctors educated on the giv’t dime, and drawing a gov’t salary. Socialism is about production and controlling prices, not distribution.
Count, what that CEO, at ADP, said is it was going to the shareholders at ADP “because that’s where we’re at”.
I’m sure there are more companies that “thats where they are at”, but it was a company specific statement to his employees in which he noted that other companies were giving bonuses and raises.
I respect his candor.
Count, what that CEO, at ADP, said is it was going to the shareholders at ADP “because that’s where we’re at”.
I’m sure there are more companies that “thats where they are at”, but it was a company specific statement to his employees in which he noted that other companies were giving bonuses and raises.
I respect his candor.
you can have my publicly owned, sponsored, and/or managed….
Actually, our trash pickup isn’t. It’s put up for bid regularly, but that’s kind of the opposite of”sponsored”.
And unlike something like power, the infrastructure requirements are just a (transferable, or maybe publicly owned, landfill. So it’s not locked in like the public utilities.
But I definitely take your point about Internet provision. Moving that to the public utility model seems sensible. (Although probable lease use of the infrastructure for TV, etc., i.e. non-Internet, to Comcast or whoever. TV doesn’t need to be a public utility the way Internet does.)
you can have my publicly owned, sponsored, and/or managed….
Actually, our trash pickup isn’t. It’s put up for bid regularly, but that’s kind of the opposite of”sponsored”.
And unlike something like power, the infrastructure requirements are just a (transferable, or maybe publicly owned, landfill. So it’s not locked in like the public utilities.
But I definitely take your point about Internet provision. Moving that to the public utility model seems sensible. (Although probable lease use of the infrastructure for TV, etc., i.e. non-Internet, to Comcast or whoever. TV doesn’t need to be a public utility the way Internet does.)
“that’s where they are at” is more of a shrug than it is candor.
He could have said “because my hair is green” or “the stars are just not aligned properly” or “it is what it is” and just about the same amount of candid information would have been transmitted.
More, with numbers:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/investing/stock-buybacks-tax-law-bonuses/index.html
“that’s where they are at” is more of a shrug than it is candor.
He could have said “because my hair is green” or “the stars are just not aligned properly” or “it is what it is” and just about the same amount of candid information would have been transmitted.
More, with numbers:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/investing/stock-buybacks-tax-law-bonuses/index.html
Actually, our trash pickup isn’t.
My town puts out a contract for trash pickup for bid also. I pay taxes to the town, the town uses some of those taxes to hire a trash hauler.
Trash goes either to the local town-owned and -operated landfill, or to a regional private dump that hires out to local towns and cities.
I don’t haul my own trash, nor do I directly pay the guys who do. It’s negotiated and organized through the town, on my behalf. Which is kind of my point.
I don’t really care all that much who “owns the means of production”. Sometimes it makes sense for things to be owned publicly, sometimes it doesn’t.
What I do care about is the ability of people to collectively do useful things for their mutual general benefit through the instrument of their government. That is inimical to the goals of the Randian privatizers among us.
We, the people. Those are not abstract words.
I respect his candor.
My understanding is that something like single-digit millions of people will see a raise or one-time bonus out of the tax change. Raise-wise, it will be difficult to factor the effect of the tax change out of the overall effect of near-full employment. One-time bonus, most likely the effect of the tax change.
There are about 150 million people in the work force.
We’ll see how it goes. And, we’ll see what public services go on the chopping block after the midterms. The (R)’s are by god not going to look at reducing any of the entitlements before November. They are already at risk of losing the House.
Anecdotally, my employer responded to the tax windfall by bumping up their 401k match by a half a point. If you’re making $100K, and you participate in the 401k, that will net you about $500 for the year. Ten bucks a week.
Actually, our trash pickup isn’t.
My town puts out a contract for trash pickup for bid also. I pay taxes to the town, the town uses some of those taxes to hire a trash hauler.
Trash goes either to the local town-owned and -operated landfill, or to a regional private dump that hires out to local towns and cities.
I don’t haul my own trash, nor do I directly pay the guys who do. It’s negotiated and organized through the town, on my behalf. Which is kind of my point.
I don’t really care all that much who “owns the means of production”. Sometimes it makes sense for things to be owned publicly, sometimes it doesn’t.
What I do care about is the ability of people to collectively do useful things for their mutual general benefit through the instrument of their government. That is inimical to the goals of the Randian privatizers among us.
We, the people. Those are not abstract words.
I respect his candor.
My understanding is that something like single-digit millions of people will see a raise or one-time bonus out of the tax change. Raise-wise, it will be difficult to factor the effect of the tax change out of the overall effect of near-full employment. One-time bonus, most likely the effect of the tax change.
There are about 150 million people in the work force.
We’ll see how it goes. And, we’ll see what public services go on the chopping block after the midterms. The (R)’s are by god not going to look at reducing any of the entitlements before November. They are already at risk of losing the House.
Anecdotally, my employer responded to the tax windfall by bumping up their 401k match by a half a point. If you’re making $100K, and you participate in the 401k, that will net you about $500 for the year. Ten bucks a week.
my employer did nothing. i got the same raise and bonus i’ve got for the last five years. which is fine.
health insurance costs will more than eat the raise.
my employer did nothing. i got the same raise and bonus i’ve got for the last five years. which is fine.
health insurance costs will more than eat the raise.
I pay taxes to the town, the town uses some of those taxes to hire a trash hauler.
. . .
I don’t haul my own trash, nor do I directly pay the guys who do. It’s negotiated and organized through the town, on my behalf. Which is kind of my point.
Whereas I do directly pay the company which hauls the trash. Get a bill every month. (It’s based on the size of the bins I have. Plus a surcharge if I have weeks when the bin is overfull — i.e. the lid doesn’t close.)
I pay taxes to the town, the town uses some of those taxes to hire a trash hauler.
. . .
I don’t haul my own trash, nor do I directly pay the guys who do. It’s negotiated and organized through the town, on my behalf. Which is kind of my point.
Whereas I do directly pay the company which hauls the trash. Get a bill every month. (It’s based on the size of the bins I have. Plus a surcharge if I have weeks when the bin is overfull — i.e. the lid doesn’t close.)
FYI
byomtov comment from back on the 18th removed from the spam folder. No clue why it was there.
FYI
byomtov comment from back on the 18th removed from the spam folder. No clue why it was there.
that’s cool wj. trash pickup is not really a “we the people” hill I’m committed to dying on. 🙂
that’s cool wj. trash pickup is not really a “we the people” hill I’m committed to dying on. 🙂
health insurance costs will more than eat the raise.
yup.
health insurance costs will more than eat the raise.
yup.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/04/21/gop-faces-rural-rebellion-over-trump-trade-agenda/23416923/
Farmers upset because the President they elected because they thought he would screw other people is instead screwing them. Puts Congressional Republicans in a dilemma; do they apply to farmers the same ideologically driven policies they apply to cities, poor people, blue states and others who are not paying them donations or voting for them? Or so they lose the ideology when it comes to their own constituents?
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/04/21/gop-faces-rural-rebellion-over-trump-trade-agenda/23416923/
Farmers upset because the President they elected because they thought he would screw other people is instead screwing them. Puts Congressional Republicans in a dilemma; do they apply to farmers the same ideologically driven policies they apply to cities, poor people, blue states and others who are not paying them donations or voting for them? Or so they lose the ideology when it comes to their own constituents?
Sandy Springs, Georgia is a city with a population of over 100 thousand that, until recently, had less than a dozen employees. Except for city management, everything else was contracted to private companies or to police and fire services from other jurisdictions.
Sandy Springs, Georgia is a city with a population of over 100 thousand that, until recently, had less than a dozen employees. Except for city management, everything else was contracted to private companies or to police and fire services from other jurisdictions.
Sandy Springs, Georgia
Good for them, if that’s how they want to roll.
Handy for them that their neighbors have sufficient cops and firemen that they can hire some out.
No worries Charles, I’m not gonna come to your town and make you hire anybody.
Just keep your libertarian hands offa my stuff.
Sandy Springs, Georgia
Good for them, if that’s how they want to roll.
Handy for them that their neighbors have sufficient cops and firemen that they can hire some out.
No worries Charles, I’m not gonna come to your town and make you hire anybody.
Just keep your libertarian hands offa my stuff.
Just keep your libertarian hands offa my stuff.
Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people’s stuff.
Don’t tread on anyone.
Just keep your libertarian hands offa my stuff.
Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people’s stuff.
Don’t tread on anyone.
Handy for them that their neighbors have sufficient cops and firemen that they can hire some out.
These services can also be private.
For decades, Scottsdale, AZ had a private fire service. And Las Colinas, TX has had a private police force.
Handy for them that their neighbors have sufficient cops and firemen that they can hire some out.
These services can also be private.
For decades, Scottsdale, AZ had a private fire service. And Las Colinas, TX has had a private police force.
Don’t tread on anyone.
And of course, it’s as simple as that.
Leave the public goods and services that people rely on the hell alone. Or there will be hell to pay.
If you don’t want to hire your own cops and firemen in your town, live your life. I will not stop you. I don’t live in your town, I have no issue with how you want to run it. Just don’t f*** it up and make the rest of us come and bail you out.
That said, we don’t all live in your town.
Don’t tread on anyone.
And of course, it’s as simple as that.
Leave the public goods and services that people rely on the hell alone. Or there will be hell to pay.
If you don’t want to hire your own cops and firemen in your town, live your life. I will not stop you. I don’t live in your town, I have no issue with how you want to run it. Just don’t f*** it up and make the rest of us come and bail you out.
That said, we don’t all live in your town.
People should be free to as they wish, until they decide to form a government. Where did this government thing come from, anyway? Did the government mandate itself?
People should be free to as they wish, until they decide to form a government. Where did this government thing come from, anyway? Did the government mandate itself?
“For decades, Scottsdale, AZ had a private fire service. And Las Colinas, TX has had a private police force.”
And?
Well, c’mon, finish the story.
“Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people’s stuff.”
Since when?
My trash is the trash of a free American, whether its government or private hands placed on my trash stuff and telling me what to do with it and paying them to do what they forced me to do with it.
“That said, we don’t all live in your town.”
Yeah, but run over to their town and pick up their trash for them because they can’t be troubled to do it themselves, uncollected trash being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Trash and throw it on their lawn, shall be infringed but only by private actors or the suckers from nearby municipalities.
“For decades, Scottsdale, AZ had a private fire service. And Las Colinas, TX has had a private police force.”
And?
Well, c’mon, finish the story.
“Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people’s stuff.”
Since when?
My trash is the trash of a free American, whether its government or private hands placed on my trash stuff and telling me what to do with it and paying them to do what they forced me to do with it.
“That said, we don’t all live in your town.”
Yeah, but run over to their town and pick up their trash for them because they can’t be troubled to do it themselves, uncollected trash being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Trash and throw it on their lawn, shall be infringed but only by private actors or the suckers from nearby municipalities.
Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people’s stuff.
Well except for the libertarians (or, at least, self-proclaimed libertarians) who feel compelled to run for office and enact laws to keep other people from having a larger government if they want it.
Libertarianism is all about keeping hands off other people’s stuff.
Well except for the libertarians (or, at least, self-proclaimed libertarians) who feel compelled to run for office and enact laws to keep other people from having a larger government if they want it.
Beware the dead white algorithm:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/your-next-job-interview-could-be-with-a-racist-bot?via=newsletter&source=Weekend
Beware the dead white algorithm:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/your-next-job-interview-could-be-with-a-racist-bot?via=newsletter&source=Weekend
I see it this way.
People who want to privatize public education and libraries are taking something away from me.
People who want to privatize police, fire, and other public safety functions are taking something away from me.
People who want to privatize or remove from public oversight and regulation services like water, sewer, gas, and electricity, are taking something away from me.
People who want to defund or eliminate or privatize entities like the FAA, or the National Weather Service, or the public highway system, are taking something away from me.
People who want to defund, reduce, or eliminate programs like Social Security, into which I have been paying at a rate higher than outflow for the last 35 years so that there would be a cushion to fund my retirement so I wouldn’t be an excessive burden on the Gen X Y Z and millenials, are taking something away from me. Ditto Medicare.
I don’t make use of Medicaid, the VA, TANF, housing assistance, or any number of other things that keep poorer and / or unlucky people from being homeless, sick, or hungry, but people I know do. Don’t take that away from them.
Because my understanding of what government is about includes all of those things. People deciding to employ common resources to do useful and necessary things for themselves, things which would likely be harder to obtain if they waited for the blessed market to make them happen.
I don’t worship the market. I think it’s fine, but I also think it’s more less like the weather. If it’s raining out, I don’t act like that is some phenomenon ordained by some invisible hand, which I must simply suffer gladly. I bring an umbrella.
If you want private cops in your town, fine with me. I don’t live there. How you handle your public safety is not my problem or concern. Do as you wish.
If it’s stuff that isn’t just local to your town, leave it the hell alone. You might not rely on it, other people do.
Don’t tread on me.
I see it this way.
People who want to privatize public education and libraries are taking something away from me.
People who want to privatize police, fire, and other public safety functions are taking something away from me.
People who want to privatize or remove from public oversight and regulation services like water, sewer, gas, and electricity, are taking something away from me.
People who want to defund or eliminate or privatize entities like the FAA, or the National Weather Service, or the public highway system, are taking something away from me.
People who want to defund, reduce, or eliminate programs like Social Security, into which I have been paying at a rate higher than outflow for the last 35 years so that there would be a cushion to fund my retirement so I wouldn’t be an excessive burden on the Gen X Y Z and millenials, are taking something away from me. Ditto Medicare.
I don’t make use of Medicaid, the VA, TANF, housing assistance, or any number of other things that keep poorer and / or unlucky people from being homeless, sick, or hungry, but people I know do. Don’t take that away from them.
Because my understanding of what government is about includes all of those things. People deciding to employ common resources to do useful and necessary things for themselves, things which would likely be harder to obtain if they waited for the blessed market to make them happen.
I don’t worship the market. I think it’s fine, but I also think it’s more less like the weather. If it’s raining out, I don’t act like that is some phenomenon ordained by some invisible hand, which I must simply suffer gladly. I bring an umbrella.
If you want private cops in your town, fine with me. I don’t live there. How you handle your public safety is not my problem or concern. Do as you wish.
If it’s stuff that isn’t just local to your town, leave it the hell alone. You might not rely on it, other people do.
Don’t tread on me.