The Mueller Report

by

by wj

Apologies all. I should have gotten this up before the release. But here it is now.

(Feel free to repost your comments here.)

866 thoughts on “The Mueller Report”

  5. p370: “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
    sounds like intent to me.

  6. p370: “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
    sounds like intent to me.

  7. Amongst all the I-do-not-recalls and I-have-no-recollections from the written responses of President I-have-one-of-the-great-memories-of-all-time, it was encouraging that certain details remained redaction-free:
    “… I was scheduled to leave Trump Tower in the early evening for Westchester where I gave remarks after winning California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries held that day.”
    “In general, the documents include congratulatory letters on my campaign victories…”
    “In remarks I delivered the night I won the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries…”
    Of course the PDF version offered up isn’t searchable, and I haven’t come across anything regarding the inauguration crowd size. But I’m not saying it’s not in there somewhere.
    Maybe I’m focusing on the wrong stuff.

  8. Amongst all the I-do-not-recalls and I-have-no-recollections from the written responses of President I-have-one-of-the-great-memories-of-all-time, it was encouraging that certain details remained redaction-free:
    “… I was scheduled to leave Trump Tower in the early evening for Westchester where I gave remarks after winning California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries held that day.”
    “In general, the documents include congratulatory letters on my campaign victories…”
    “In remarks I delivered the night I won the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries…”
    Of course the PDF version offered up isn’t searchable, and I haven’t come across anything regarding the inauguration crowd size. But I’m not saying it’s not in there somewhere.
    Maybe I’m focusing on the wrong stuff.

  11. classic:
    3. Cohen Submits False Statements to Congress Minimizing the Trump Tower Moscow Project in Accordance With the Party line.
    in which the President’s personal counsel tells Cohen that the ‘President loves [him]’ and is told that if he stays ‘on message’, the President will ‘have his back’.
    impeach this piece of shit.

  12. classic:
    3. Cohen Submits False Statements to Congress Minimizing the Trump Tower Moscow Project in Accordance With the Party line.
    in which the President’s personal counsel tells Cohen that the ‘President loves [him]’ and is told that if he stays ‘on message’, the President will ‘have his back’.
    impeach this piece of shit.

  13. 36 times p couldn’t recall
    He then listed the name, rank, address, SS#, and the mothers’ maiden names of every MF who has done him wrong since big Fred’s teat popped out of his surly mouth and what he was going to do to them.
    Everyone who as much as snickered when Barack Obama called the lout out at the White Correspondents included.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6937113/Michael-Cohen-says-redacted-blanks-Mueller-report.html
    I can fill in the blanks too.
    It’s easy, like doing a word for word impression of my psychopath relative after 65 years of observing him.

  14. 36 times p couldn’t recall
    He then listed the name, rank, address, SS#, and the mothers’ maiden names of every MF who has done him wrong since big Fred’s teat popped out of his surly mouth and what he was going to do to them.
    Everyone who as much as snickered when Barack Obama called the lout out at the White Correspondents included.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6937113/Michael-Cohen-says-redacted-blanks-Mueller-report.html
    I can fill in the blanks too.
    It’s easy, like doing a word for word impression of my psychopath relative after 65 years of observing him.

  15. What’s Barr’s angle? Even the redacted version contradicts what he said today. Did he think no one would read it?

  16. What’s Barr’s angle? Even the redacted version contradicts what he said today. Did he think no one would read it?

  21. Marty needs to read the LG&M links and get back to us to continue to press his case that the Clintons are, by far. the most nefariously evil crime family ever.

  22. Marty needs to read the LG&M links and get back to us to continue to press his case that the Clintons are, by far. the most nefariously evil crime family ever.

  23. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donald-mcgahn-robert-mueller-donald-trump-report
    The despicable Roy Cohn didn’t take notes. Whouda guessed?
    Not only that, but after Cohn died, his partner had a pair of expensive diamond cufflinks p had given Cohn for some glorious celebration of their deep relationship appraised and the appraiser squinted at them thru his magnifying monocle, his eyebrow shot up, and he spat out the word: worthless.
    100% genuine glass.
    Tell me what it is about America that the scum of the Earth is declared cream and rises to the top.
    We’re an empty suit, the knees and elbows worn, and the cuff hem coming unstitched and sagging.

  24. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donald-mcgahn-robert-mueller-donald-trump-report
    The despicable Roy Cohn didn’t take notes. Whouda guessed?
    Not only that, but after Cohn died, his partner had a pair of expensive diamond cufflinks p had given Cohn for some glorious celebration of their deep relationship appraised and the appraiser squinted at them thru his magnifying monocle, his eyebrow shot up, and he spat out the word: worthless.
    100% genuine glass.
    Tell me what it is about America that the scum of the Earth is declared cream and rises to the top.
    We’re an empty suit, the knees and elbows worn, and the cuff hem coming unstitched and sagging.

  29. Dems are furious and powerless.
    Dems aren’t powerless. They can impeach Trump. No, they can’t remove him, but they can show who they are, who he is, and who Republicans are.
    That’s power.

  30. Dems are furious and powerless.
    Dems aren’t powerless. They can impeach Trump. No, they can’t remove him, but they can show who they are, who he is, and who Republicans are.
    That’s power.

  31. “In the end, while Mueller will not specifically say that Trump did or did not engage in obstruction, what he has written in this report is most certainly intended to direct us to look at a trend of behavior designed specifically to either bring the investigation to a halt or to stop the people around him from cooperating with investigators.
    And it does leave you to wonder what Mueller would conclude had he not decided from the start that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial decision about whether Trump had engaged in obstruction if Trump were not the president.
    All of which is to say: This report really reads as though Mueller believes that Trump engaged in obstruction.”
    What’s Really in the Mueller Report: Mueller won’t decide on obstruction charges, but a close read reveals he likely thinks there’s something there.

  32. “In the end, while Mueller will not specifically say that Trump did or did not engage in obstruction, what he has written in this report is most certainly intended to direct us to look at a trend of behavior designed specifically to either bring the investigation to a halt or to stop the people around him from cooperating with investigators.
    And it does leave you to wonder what Mueller would conclude had he not decided from the start that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial decision about whether Trump had engaged in obstruction if Trump were not the president.
    All of which is to say: This report really reads as though Mueller believes that Trump engaged in obstruction.”
    What’s Really in the Mueller Report: Mueller won’t decide on obstruction charges, but a close read reveals he likely thinks there’s something there.

  33. Marty needs to…
    Marty doesn’t need to do anything. Everybody is entitled to their point of view.
    That said, everybody gets to live with their point of view. The level of energy needed to continue with the “nothing to see here” mantra is going to become a burden.
    Not my problem. Best of luck to Marty.
    Not only that, but after Cohn died, his partner had a pair of expensive diamond cufflinks p had given Cohn for some glorious celebration of their deep relationship appraised and the appraiser squinted at them thru his magnifying monocle, his eyebrow shot up, and he spat out the word: worthless.
    When I asked my wife to marry me, I went to the diamond center in Boston and bought the best diamond I could afford. My wife loves it, has loved it since the day I got it for her, and will love it every day for the rest of her life. If she lives longer than me, she’ll know every day that I got her the best diamond I could get.
    People whose lives are built on lies live empty, anxious, insecure lives. Their days are filled with fear that they will be discovered. They mask this fear with stupid, bullying aggression. It’s a living hell, and in general they share that living hell with the folks who are, willingly or not, obliged to interact with them.
    Roy Cohn’s life was a waste. A tragic destructive damaging waste. Trump is still alive, so maybe he can turn the freaking clusterfuck that is his daily existence around. Even just a little bit. I put the odds at slim to none.
    Trump is a consequential person at the moment, because against all odds he won a consequential office. We’re obliged to put up with him because the only avenues our Constitution provides for being shed of him requires the participation of a number of folks who are basically whores to power, and at the moment the side the bread is buttered on leads them in the direction of getting his back.
    In and of himself, he is a person of no consequence. He’s a clown. A malicious, narcissistic clown.
    In a couple of years – two, or six, or somewhere in between – he’ll return to his former life of full time grifter and carnival barker for shitty steaks and condos for international criminals looking for a place to hide their cash.
    Shortly thereafter, he’ll be dead, because sooner or later we all are. And history will remember him as an embarrassment to his office and as a divisive exponent of repugnant nationalism and bigotry.
    On the whole, I’d rather be me than him.
    I don’t know what state the country will be in when this particular clown show is over and done with. It’s kind of up to us. I know that my understanding of what things ought to be like is profoundly different than that of a lot of other people that live here, so it’s probably kind of a crap shoot.
    If we can’t live up to our own ideals, somebody else will. The arc of history is not dependent on the virtue of the United States. Fortunately.
    It’s up to us which side of history we end up on. Trump per se is nothing – an epiphenomenon, an effect rather than a cause. What we do with and about him is the more important question.
    The arc of history does not depend on or require us. We can choose to be a force for good, or not. If we don’t choose well, we’ll simply be left behind.
    What I expect is that the (D)’s in the House will pursue investigations based on Mueller’s findings. I do not, remotely, expect any of that to proceed to impeachment, because I don’t think the (R)’s in the Senate have the spine to go against Trump. What I expect, and demand, and require, is that as much of Mueller’s findings be placed in the public record as is possible without actually compromising national security and ongoing investigations.
    And people will make of all of that whatever they will.
    Once upon a time, perhaps, we could make some kind of claim to being the indispensable nation, the ‘last great hope’ and all of that. I don’t think that’s true anymore, because we don’t actually own any kind of intellectual property on the ideas that were the basis of our founding, and a lot of other folks have discovered them and made good use of them. They precede us, and will continue after us, and will do so with or without us.
    We just need to figure out if we still want to be on the bus or not. I think it’s a toss up.

  34. Marty needs to…
    Marty doesn’t need to do anything. Everybody is entitled to their point of view.
    That said, everybody gets to live with their point of view. The level of energy needed to continue with the “nothing to see here” mantra is going to become a burden.
    Not my problem. Best of luck to Marty.
    Not only that, but after Cohn died, his partner had a pair of expensive diamond cufflinks p had given Cohn for some glorious celebration of their deep relationship appraised and the appraiser squinted at them thru his magnifying monocle, his eyebrow shot up, and he spat out the word: worthless.
    When I asked my wife to marry me, I went to the diamond center in Boston and bought the best diamond I could afford. My wife loves it, has loved it since the day I got it for her, and will love it every day for the rest of her life. If she lives longer than me, she’ll know every day that I got her the best diamond I could get.
    People whose lives are built on lies live empty, anxious, insecure lives. Their days are filled with fear that they will be discovered. They mask this fear with stupid, bullying aggression. It’s a living hell, and in general they share that living hell with the folks who are, willingly or not, obliged to interact with them.
    Roy Cohn’s life was a waste. A tragic destructive damaging waste. Trump is still alive, so maybe he can turn the freaking clusterfuck that is his daily existence around. Even just a little bit. I put the odds at slim to none.
    Trump is a consequential person at the moment, because against all odds he won a consequential office. We’re obliged to put up with him because the only avenues our Constitution provides for being shed of him requires the participation of a number of folks who are basically whores to power, and at the moment the side the bread is buttered on leads them in the direction of getting his back.
    In and of himself, he is a person of no consequence. He’s a clown. A malicious, narcissistic clown.
    In a couple of years – two, or six, or somewhere in between – he’ll return to his former life of full time grifter and carnival barker for shitty steaks and condos for international criminals looking for a place to hide their cash.
    Shortly thereafter, he’ll be dead, because sooner or later we all are. And history will remember him as an embarrassment to his office and as a divisive exponent of repugnant nationalism and bigotry.
    On the whole, I’d rather be me than him.
    I don’t know what state the country will be in when this particular clown show is over and done with. It’s kind of up to us. I know that my understanding of what things ought to be like is profoundly different than that of a lot of other people that live here, so it’s probably kind of a crap shoot.
    If we can’t live up to our own ideals, somebody else will. The arc of history is not dependent on the virtue of the United States. Fortunately.
    It’s up to us which side of history we end up on. Trump per se is nothing – an epiphenomenon, an effect rather than a cause. What we do with and about him is the more important question.
    The arc of history does not depend on or require us. We can choose to be a force for good, or not. If we don’t choose well, we’ll simply be left behind.
    What I expect is that the (D)’s in the House will pursue investigations based on Mueller’s findings. I do not, remotely, expect any of that to proceed to impeachment, because I don’t think the (R)’s in the Senate have the spine to go against Trump. What I expect, and demand, and require, is that as much of Mueller’s findings be placed in the public record as is possible without actually compromising national security and ongoing investigations.
    And people will make of all of that whatever they will.
    Once upon a time, perhaps, we could make some kind of claim to being the indispensable nation, the ‘last great hope’ and all of that. I don’t think that’s true anymore, because we don’t actually own any kind of intellectual property on the ideas that were the basis of our founding, and a lot of other folks have discovered them and made good use of them. They precede us, and will continue after us, and will do so with or without us.
    We just need to figure out if we still want to be on the bus or not. I think it’s a toss up.

  35. Re: impeachment, specifically.
    Should the House decide to impeach the POTUS, I do not remotely believe the Senate would ever convict. Ever.
    Because (R)’s.
    Whether there is value in impeaching him nonetheless is kind of an open question, to me. I can see value in making the (R)’s in the Senate go on record.
    Take a stand, for or against. There should be no middle ground about this crap.

  36. Re: impeachment, specifically.
    Should the House decide to impeach the POTUS, I do not remotely believe the Senate would ever convict. Ever.
    Because (R)’s.
    Whether there is value in impeaching him nonetheless is kind of an open question, to me. I can see value in making the (R)’s in the Senate go on record.
    Take a stand, for or against. There should be no middle ground about this crap.

  37. They can impeach Trump
    which amounts to a sternly-worded letter.
    he’s a menace in office. scolding him for being bad in office isn’t going to help.

  38. They can impeach Trump
    which amounts to a sternly-worded letter.
    he’s a menace in office. scolding him for being bad in office isn’t going to help.

  39. which amounts to a sternly-worded letter.
    No. It’s the best they can do under the Constitution. Will it be effective to remove him? No – I agree that Republicans won’t convict.
    I know that “democracy” isn’t perfect and all, but the fact that a foreign government may well have tipped the balance to produce an illegitimate election result is an “existential threat”. Remember when we all talked about how if something was an “existential threat” it might be worth an actual war? Yeah, as I’ve said, I don’t know about that either. One thing I do know is that we (Democrats and anyone else who cares) should go on record trying to assert whatever Constitutional means we have to throw this guy out. Symbolic? Maybe, but why not just do it. I don’t really understand what the downside is. People didn’t like the fact that Clinton was impeached because he lied about a consensual sex act. That doesn’t necessarily translate to people also being mad that a president is impeached for being an agent of a hostile, fascist, white supremacist foreign government. I think people might think that Democrats were showing some actual leadership. Or maybe they’ll lose. That’s definitely possible anyway (for a number of reasons, including electoral shenanigans).

  40. which amounts to a sternly-worded letter.
    No. It’s the best they can do under the Constitution. Will it be effective to remove him? No – I agree that Republicans won’t convict.
    I know that “democracy” isn’t perfect and all, but the fact that a foreign government may well have tipped the balance to produce an illegitimate election result is an “existential threat”. Remember when we all talked about how if something was an “existential threat” it might be worth an actual war? Yeah, as I’ve said, I don’t know about that either. One thing I do know is that we (Democrats and anyone else who cares) should go on record trying to assert whatever Constitutional means we have to throw this guy out. Symbolic? Maybe, but why not just do it. I don’t really understand what the downside is. People didn’t like the fact that Clinton was impeached because he lied about a consensual sex act. That doesn’t necessarily translate to people also being mad that a president is impeached for being an agent of a hostile, fascist, white supremacist foreign government. I think people might think that Democrats were showing some actual leadership. Or maybe they’ll lose. That’s definitely possible anyway (for a number of reasons, including electoral shenanigans).

  41. There’s probably some advantage to a well-timed impeachment.
    For example, right before a Supreme Court nomination fight.
    Dealing with impeachment, regardless of the outcome, will jam up the Senate rather effectively, leaving more time to get the (inevitable) dirt on the nominee.

  42. There’s probably some advantage to a well-timed impeachment.
    For example, right before a Supreme Court nomination fight.
    Dealing with impeachment, regardless of the outcome, will jam up the Senate rather effectively, leaving more time to get the (inevitable) dirt on the nominee.

  43. Should the House decide to impeach the POTUS, I do not remotely believe the Senate would ever convict. Ever.
    Because (R)’s.
    Say rather, because they aren’t bright enough to realize that
    a) a President Pence would do a far better (and more reliable) job of advancing their agenda, and
    b) a President Pence would have a better chance of winning in 2020.
    Both of which are reasons that the Democrats might choose not to spend effort on impeachment.
    As for the GOP, determined stupidity is its own reward.

  44. Should the House decide to impeach the POTUS, I do not remotely believe the Senate would ever convict. Ever.
    Because (R)’s.
    Say rather, because they aren’t bright enough to realize that
    a) a President Pence would do a far better (and more reliable) job of advancing their agenda, and
    b) a President Pence would have a better chance of winning in 2020.
    Both of which are reasons that the Democrats might choose not to spend effort on impeachment.
    As for the GOP, determined stupidity is its own reward.

  45. “that a president is impeached for being an agent of a hostile, fascist, white supremacist foreign government.”
    “White” isn’t quite the word I’d use, and “ hostile” isn’t right either, but yes, Trump is rather obviously doing everything both Netanyahu and Muhammad bin Salman tell him to do. He vetoed the Congressional attempt to stop our participation in a genocidal war. He recently declared the IRGC a terrorist organization, something his pal Bibi no doubt likes. Now he can launch military strikes at an Iranian military group and basically start a low key war if he chooses and why would he bother with the declaration if he didn’t want to do just that?
    So yes, he is basically participating in an unconstitutional war in Yemen and seems poised to start one with Iran. This makes Bibi and Bonesaw happy. He hasn’t been anywhere near so nice to Putin, not on policy matters. Not at all.
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/439167-poland-close-to-establishing-us-military-base-president-joked-would-be-called

  46. “that a president is impeached for being an agent of a hostile, fascist, white supremacist foreign government.”
    “White” isn’t quite the word I’d use, and “ hostile” isn’t right either, but yes, Trump is rather obviously doing everything both Netanyahu and Muhammad bin Salman tell him to do. He vetoed the Congressional attempt to stop our participation in a genocidal war. He recently declared the IRGC a terrorist organization, something his pal Bibi no doubt likes. Now he can launch military strikes at an Iranian military group and basically start a low key war if he chooses and why would he bother with the declaration if he didn’t want to do just that?
    So yes, he is basically participating in an unconstitutional war in Yemen and seems poised to start one with Iran. This makes Bibi and Bonesaw happy. He hasn’t been anywhere near so nice to Putin, not on policy matters. Not at all.
    https://thehill.com/policy/defense/439167-poland-close-to-establishing-us-military-base-president-joked-would-be-called

  47. wj, I doubt that Pence really has better chances to get elected (no dissent on your first point). The base loves Trump. The very thing that Pence would be far more efficient by not being a narcisstic bullying clown would be a bug. Pence is a boring insider with little distinct profile to the general public. The runner-up to The Donald was the slimy scumbag Ted Cruz, Pence would not have gotten even to the kids’ table in the GOP presidential primaries.
    I could imagine the GOP leadership waiting for The Donald getting re-elected by hook and crook both and then telling him that they’d be open to impeach him, should he not leave the actual running of the government to e.g. Pence while limiting himself to public antics (barker in chief) and lots of ‘executive time’ (watching TV), i.e. being just the figure head.
    Dropping The Donald could mean electoral suicide in 2020. The base will not vote for any Dem but may stay at home disgusted, if their Hero falls victim to a palace revolt.

  48. wj, I doubt that Pence really has better chances to get elected (no dissent on your first point). The base loves Trump. The very thing that Pence would be far more efficient by not being a narcisstic bullying clown would be a bug. Pence is a boring insider with little distinct profile to the general public. The runner-up to The Donald was the slimy scumbag Ted Cruz, Pence would not have gotten even to the kids’ table in the GOP presidential primaries.
    I could imagine the GOP leadership waiting for The Donald getting re-elected by hook and crook both and then telling him that they’d be open to impeach him, should he not leave the actual running of the government to e.g. Pence while limiting himself to public antics (barker in chief) and lots of ‘executive time’ (watching TV), i.e. being just the figure head.
    Dropping The Donald could mean electoral suicide in 2020. The base will not vote for any Dem but may stay at home disgusted, if their Hero falls victim to a palace revolt.

  49. Let’s impeach Barr – the Attorney General is not supposed to act as a spin doctor for the President.
    However, there’s no chance that the Senate will convict Trump or any of his henchman. Republican Senators think he should be allowed to commit whatever crimes he wishes, so long as they help the Republican Party.

  50. Let’s impeach Barr – the Attorney General is not supposed to act as a spin doctor for the President.
    However, there’s no chance that the Senate will convict Trump or any of his henchman. Republican Senators think he should be allowed to commit whatever crimes he wishes, so long as they help the Republican Party.

  51. To me the read goal is the defeat at the federal and state level of the Republican party because it is a neo fascist organization. We have to save representative government from them.
    In terms of passing laws and getting someone reasonable on the Supreme Court, it is more important to take the Senate than the Presidency. In terms of protecting the right to vote, it is essential to take state legislatures.
    I understand and even agree with the argument that Trump should be impeached because he has committed so many impeachable offenses.
    How does that fit in with saving America from Republicans?
    I don’t know. Would impeachment fire up the same part of our population to throw all the bastards out everywhere? Or would it be death at the next election and we would not gain the Senate and would lose House seats? Would failure to impeach demoralize the anti-Republican voters by making the dems look gutless?
    IF we don’t take the Senate and if any Republican gets the next presidency then kiss America good by and get ready for the unmitigated effects of global warming. So the stakes are high.
    I kind of think the House should impeach to show that DEms will stand up for the rule of law and the Rethugs won’t. That will put the new Dem congress[people who won red seats in a bind, but it is the power position for running for office in 2020.
    But I don’t really know , maybe it is better to not impeach and tell the voters to get rid of them all at the ballot box. That doesn’t feel right to me though.

  52. To me the read goal is the defeat at the federal and state level of the Republican party because it is a neo fascist organization. We have to save representative government from them.
    In terms of passing laws and getting someone reasonable on the Supreme Court, it is more important to take the Senate than the Presidency. In terms of protecting the right to vote, it is essential to take state legislatures.
    I understand and even agree with the argument that Trump should be impeached because he has committed so many impeachable offenses.
    How does that fit in with saving America from Republicans?
    I don’t know. Would impeachment fire up the same part of our population to throw all the bastards out everywhere? Or would it be death at the next election and we would not gain the Senate and would lose House seats? Would failure to impeach demoralize the anti-Republican voters by making the dems look gutless?
    IF we don’t take the Senate and if any Republican gets the next presidency then kiss America good by and get ready for the unmitigated effects of global warming. So the stakes are high.
    I kind of think the House should impeach to show that DEms will stand up for the rule of law and the Rethugs won’t. That will put the new Dem congress[people who won red seats in a bind, but it is the power position for running for office in 2020.
    But I don’t really know , maybe it is better to not impeach and tell the voters to get rid of them all at the ballot box. That doesn’t feel right to me though.

  53. I think impeachment changes little. It will be viewed as completely partisan by everyone, if the Senate doesnt vote for removal.
    If the Senate votes for removal there will be two impacts. The Dems will win the Senate as the GOP convulses and fractures, Trumps support will not go to Pence, and we would most likely suffer through a generation of Democratic dominance.
    So I find it unlikely the GOP Senators will risk that.

  54. I think impeachment changes little. It will be viewed as completely partisan by everyone, if the Senate doesnt vote for removal.
    If the Senate votes for removal there will be two impacts. The Dems will win the Senate as the GOP convulses and fractures, Trumps support will not go to Pence, and we would most likely suffer through a generation of Democratic dominance.
    So I find it unlikely the GOP Senators will risk that.

  55. Of course the Dems ought to win the Senate and everything else, because today’s Republican party is a loathsome thing, deeply damaging to the USA. And because even with a unified Republican Party (albeit unified behind their disgusting president), many more people vote D than R.
    As a matter of tactics, I think the House should not impeach Trump – that just hands his case to his collaborators in the undemocratic Senate. Instead it should spend the next year or so examining and extending Mueller’s findings, so that the electorate can vote on the basis of the truth about Trump.
    But do impeach Barr. Because it would be justified, enjoyable, and give plenty of opportunity for highlighting what Mueller actually wrote.

  56. Of course the Dems ought to win the Senate and everything else, because today’s Republican party is a loathsome thing, deeply damaging to the USA. And because even with a unified Republican Party (albeit unified behind their disgusting president), many more people vote D than R.
    As a matter of tactics, I think the House should not impeach Trump – that just hands his case to his collaborators in the undemocratic Senate. Instead it should spend the next year or so examining and extending Mueller’s findings, so that the electorate can vote on the basis of the truth about Trump.
    But do impeach Barr. Because it would be justified, enjoyable, and give plenty of opportunity for highlighting what Mueller actually wrote.

  57. I doubt that Pence really has better chances to get elected (no dissent on your first point). The base loves Trump. The very thing that Pence would be far more efficient by not being a narcisstic bullying clown would be a bug. Pence is a boring insider with little distinct profile to the general public.
    Hartmut, my thinking was this. There wouldn’t actually be a loss from the Trump fans, because they would turn out in droves to (as they would see it) punish those who had brought down their hero. But there also would be fewer votes lost because of voters being repulsed by Trump as a (nominal) human being. So, not more votes for Pence, but more votes against the Democratic candidate.

  58. I doubt that Pence really has better chances to get elected (no dissent on your first point). The base loves Trump. The very thing that Pence would be far more efficient by not being a narcisstic bullying clown would be a bug. Pence is a boring insider with little distinct profile to the general public.
    Hartmut, my thinking was this. There wouldn’t actually be a loss from the Trump fans, because they would turn out in droves to (as they would see it) punish those who had brought down their hero. But there also would be fewer votes lost because of voters being repulsed by Trump as a (nominal) human being. So, not more votes for Pence, but more votes against the Democratic candidate.

  59. Hm, in the unlikely case that Barr gets removed (btw, can POTUS veto that?), who would be chosen as successor? It has by definition to be an even greater scumbag/scofflaw/insert epithet of choice than the predecessor but also have a ‘reputable’ (in the eye of GOP) pedigree. Could John Yoo be persuaded?

  60. Hm, in the unlikely case that Barr gets removed (btw, can POTUS veto that?), who would be chosen as successor? It has by definition to be an even greater scumbag/scofflaw/insert epithet of choice than the predecessor but also have a ‘reputable’ (in the eye of GOP) pedigree. Could John Yoo be persuaded?

  61. OF course the Rs in the Senate will not vote to convict. They have already made it clear that they are amoral unpatriotic hyperpartisan hacks who will protect Trump as long as he is a useful idiot for the kleptocracy.
    But a Senate trial is also a time to rehash Trump’s nefarious behavior and put the Senate Rs on record as defending that behavior–thus making it clear that the whole party is morally bankrupt.
    At least that’s one way it could play out.

  62. OF course the Rs in the Senate will not vote to convict. They have already made it clear that they are amoral unpatriotic hyperpartisan hacks who will protect Trump as long as he is a useful idiot for the kleptocracy.
    But a Senate trial is also a time to rehash Trump’s nefarious behavior and put the Senate Rs on record as defending that behavior–thus making it clear that the whole party is morally bankrupt.
    At least that’s one way it could play out.

  63. a Senate trial is also a time to rehash Trump’s nefarious behavior and put the Senate Rs on record as defending that behavior–thus making it clear that the whole party is morally bankrupt.
    Except that those who are persuadeable already know. And the Trump fans won’t be persuaded no matter what the evidence. So who, exactly, is your target audience?

  64. a Senate trial is also a time to rehash Trump’s nefarious behavior and put the Senate Rs on record as defending that behavior–thus making it clear that the whole party is morally bankrupt.
    Except that those who are persuadeable already know. And the Trump fans won’t be persuaded no matter what the evidence. So who, exactly, is your target audience?

  65. So who, exactly, is your target audience?
    History?
    The argument here seems to be that it won’t change any minds. So what?
    Is it too idealistic to argue that the House has a duty to the country to begin an inquiry? At some point all the political calculations of this and that – which are pretty much guesswork anyway – become less important.

  66. So who, exactly, is your target audience?
    History?
    The argument here seems to be that it won’t change any minds. So what?
    Is it too idealistic to argue that the House has a duty to the country to begin an inquiry? At some point all the political calculations of this and that – which are pretty much guesswork anyway – become less important.

  67. What may be the most damning part of the report is that Mueller started from the position that, per long-standing Justice Department policy, the President could not be indicted while in office. From there, he wasn’t charged. BUT, there were multiple cases (10, I think) where Mueller lays pretty clearly that Trump took actions where were clearly obstruction, and for which there was sufficient evidence that a conviction could be obtained.
    What that says is that, once Trump is out of office, he could be charged. (Unless he gets reelected and the statute of limitations runs out.)

  68. What may be the most damning part of the report is that Mueller started from the position that, per long-standing Justice Department policy, the President could not be indicted while in office. From there, he wasn’t charged. BUT, there were multiple cases (10, I think) where Mueller lays pretty clearly that Trump took actions where were clearly obstruction, and for which there was sufficient evidence that a conviction could be obtained.
    What that says is that, once Trump is out of office, he could be charged. (Unless he gets reelected and the statute of limitations runs out.)

  69. “A decent respect to the opinions of mankind” was young Tom Jefferson’s and old Ben Franklin’s stated reason for publishing the indictment of King George III known as the Declaration of Independence. The indictment was tried, though not in court.
    Not all of mankind agreed with bringing the indictment. Tom, Ben, and that crowd, did not have “bipartisan” support. His Majesty had adoring fans even in the colonies; surely there was also a contingent of “swing voters” who might have rallied to His side because Tom and Ben “overreached”.
    Still, Tom and Ben and their “party” DID bring the indictment. The trial might easily have come out differently, of course. Nobody can know what the world would look like now if it had — but it’s a decent bet that King Donald, Princess Ivanka, and Prime Minister Jarred would still be unindicted Putin collaborators.
    –TP

  70. “A decent respect to the opinions of mankind” was young Tom Jefferson’s and old Ben Franklin’s stated reason for publishing the indictment of King George III known as the Declaration of Independence. The indictment was tried, though not in court.
    Not all of mankind agreed with bringing the indictment. Tom, Ben, and that crowd, did not have “bipartisan” support. His Majesty had adoring fans even in the colonies; surely there was also a contingent of “swing voters” who might have rallied to His side because Tom and Ben “overreached”.
    Still, Tom and Ben and their “party” DID bring the indictment. The trial might easily have come out differently, of course. Nobody can know what the world would look like now if it had — but it’s a decent bet that King Donald, Princess Ivanka, and Prime Minister Jarred would still be unindicted Putin collaborators.
    –TP

  73. there were Russian connections. Trump obstructed the investigation.
    the Rule Of Law party doesn’t care because they know they can’t violate their highest principle : always oppose Democrats.

  74. there were Russian connections. Trump obstructed the investigation.
    the Rule Of Law party doesn’t care because they know they can’t violate their highest principle : always oppose Democrats.

  75. History?
    The argument here seems to be that it won’t change any minds. So what?
    Is it too idealistic to argue that the House has a duty to the country to begin an inquiry?
    My thought is that the House does not have unlimited bandwidth. Sometimes, you have to set priorities, based on what you can accomplish. Notwithstanding that other things are also important, but just because you cannot do all of the things that, in a more perfect world, you believe should be done.
    As for history, it will draw conclusions from the Report, with or without the exercise of an impeachment proceeding.

  76. History?
    The argument here seems to be that it won’t change any minds. So what?
    Is it too idealistic to argue that the House has a duty to the country to begin an inquiry?
    My thought is that the House does not have unlimited bandwidth. Sometimes, you have to set priorities, based on what you can accomplish. Notwithstanding that other things are also important, but just because you cannot do all of the things that, in a more perfect world, you believe should be done.
    As for history, it will draw conclusions from the Report, with or without the exercise of an impeachment proceeding.

  77. Mexico should seek the extradition of every member of this “militia” group, and when they are delivered hogtied, after being dragged over the razor wire festooning the border fence, Mexico should execute them or hand then over to the drug cartels for disemboweling.
    Then, we, as patriotic Americans, should hunt down their entire extended families and kick their asses across the Canadian border with advisories that if they try to re-enter the Land of the Free, they will die.
    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/on-the-road-to-fascism

  78. Mexico should seek the extradition of every member of this “militia” group, and when they are delivered hogtied, after being dragged over the razor wire festooning the border fence, Mexico should execute them or hand then over to the drug cartels for disemboweling.
    Then, we, as patriotic Americans, should hunt down their entire extended families and kick their asses across the Canadian border with advisories that if they try to re-enter the Land of the Free, they will die.
    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/on-the-road-to-fascism

  79. Democrats need to start hearings towards impeachment. It’s their duty. Let the political chips fall where they may. If we don’t use the Constitutional tools we have, we’re complicit.

  80. Democrats need to start hearings towards impeachment. It’s their duty. Let the political chips fall where they may. If we don’t use the Constitutional tools we have, we’re complicit.

  81. “BUT, there were multiple cases (10, I think) where Mueller lays pretty clearly that Trump took actions where were clearly obstruction, and for which there was sufficient evidence that a conviction could be obtained.”
    It doesn’t come within a dozen realities of saying this. It specifically says that it is not possible to determine if these actions constitute obstruction.
    I waited for the Mueller report, move on to governing please? I prefer any discussion of current Trump policies being cruel and inhumane to some discussion of 440 pages of stuff WE ALREADY KNEW. In constant reading I havent seen one fact that hadn’t been leaked and discussed to death.

  82. “BUT, there were multiple cases (10, I think) where Mueller lays pretty clearly that Trump took actions where were clearly obstruction, and for which there was sufficient evidence that a conviction could be obtained.”
    It doesn’t come within a dozen realities of saying this. It specifically says that it is not possible to determine if these actions constitute obstruction.
    I waited for the Mueller report, move on to governing please? I prefer any discussion of current Trump policies being cruel and inhumane to some discussion of 440 pages of stuff WE ALREADY KNEW. In constant reading I havent seen one fact that hadn’t been leaked and discussed to death.

  87. Well yeah we already knew, but that doesn’t mean wew should now drop it down the memory hole. Itg is really stunning to me how unpatriotic about forty percent of the population is.

  88. Well yeah we already knew, but that doesn’t mean wew should now drop it down the memory hole. Itg is really stunning to me how unpatriotic about forty percent of the population is.

  89. a Senate trial is also a time to rehash Trump’s nefarious behavior and put the Senate Rs on record as defending that behavior–thus making it clear that the whole party is morally bankrupt.
    Except that those who are persuadeable already know. And the Trump fans won’t be persuaded no matter what the evidence. So who, exactly, is your target audience?
    I’m not sure that there is a wide spread realism of just how bad the Republican party is. Even ono the political left there seem to be people who think that all we have to do is get rid of Trump. And many of the never Trumper Republicans think the rest of the party is fine. And I bet it would take about five seconds after Trump’s departure for the MEM to start their bothsidesdoit somesaytheearthisroundothersdisagree coverage and treat the rest of the party like they were normal politicians not authoritarians who are an existential threat to our government and our institutions. There’s still a belief that there are moderate Rs in congress (WHo? Romney and Collins? Republicans in Congress range from the cowardly to the neofascist. None are moderates )

  90. a Senate trial is also a time to rehash Trump’s nefarious behavior and put the Senate Rs on record as defending that behavior–thus making it clear that the whole party is morally bankrupt.
    Except that those who are persuadeable already know. And the Trump fans won’t be persuaded no matter what the evidence. So who, exactly, is your target audience?
    I’m not sure that there is a wide spread realism of just how bad the Republican party is. Even ono the political left there seem to be people who think that all we have to do is get rid of Trump. And many of the never Trumper Republicans think the rest of the party is fine. And I bet it would take about five seconds after Trump’s departure for the MEM to start their bothsidesdoit somesaytheearthisroundothersdisagree coverage and treat the rest of the party like they were normal politicians not authoritarians who are an existential threat to our government and our institutions. There’s still a belief that there are moderate Rs in congress (WHo? Romney and Collins? Republicans in Congress range from the cowardly to the neofascist. None are moderates )

  91. So I find it unlikely the GOP Senators will risk that.
    What you’re saying here is that, regardless of the merits, the (R)’s would not vote to remove Trump, because in doing so they would lose their grip on power.
    Nuff said, it seems to me.
    move on to governing please?
    Moving on won’t happen until there is a resolution to the facts presented in Mueller’s report. Barr’s memo was no such resolution.

  92. So I find it unlikely the GOP Senators will risk that.
    What you’re saying here is that, regardless of the merits, the (R)’s would not vote to remove Trump, because in doing so they would lose their grip on power.
    Nuff said, it seems to me.
    move on to governing please?
    Moving on won’t happen until there is a resolution to the facts presented in Mueller’s report. Barr’s memo was no such resolution.

  93. 440 pages of stuff WE ALREADY KNEW
    Marty can always be counted on to support Dear Leader, even with idiotic arguments.
    Idiotic because false: “we” did NOT know that He, Trump reacted to word of Mueller’s appointment with “I’m fucked”. Maybe Marty did, though.
    Idiotic because irrelevant: SO WHAT if “we” already knew? Marty seems to imply that if “we” did not impeach, convict, and jail He, Trump the minute we “knew” the “stuff” it’s too late now. Mighty short statute of limitations there, Marty.
    And idiotic because Marty keeps pretending to himself (not just to us) that he is no fan of the racist, misogynist grifter in the White House.
    The one person on Earth who is guaranteed to know what crimes He, Trump is guilty of is He, Trump his own self. Not Marty, not even Mueller. A totally innocent man might possibly say “I’m fucked, my presidency is over” on learning he will be investigated by somebody whose balls he doesn’t own. Maybe. I bet Marty thinks so, anyhow.
    I don’t.
    –TP

  94. 440 pages of stuff WE ALREADY KNEW
    Marty can always be counted on to support Dear Leader, even with idiotic arguments.
    Idiotic because false: “we” did NOT know that He, Trump reacted to word of Mueller’s appointment with “I’m fucked”. Maybe Marty did, though.
    Idiotic because irrelevant: SO WHAT if “we” already knew? Marty seems to imply that if “we” did not impeach, convict, and jail He, Trump the minute we “knew” the “stuff” it’s too late now. Mighty short statute of limitations there, Marty.
    And idiotic because Marty keeps pretending to himself (not just to us) that he is no fan of the racist, misogynist grifter in the White House.
    The one person on Earth who is guaranteed to know what crimes He, Trump is guilty of is He, Trump his own self. Not Marty, not even Mueller. A totally innocent man might possibly say “I’m fucked, my presidency is over” on learning he will be investigated by somebody whose balls he doesn’t own. Maybe. I bet Marty thinks so, anyhow.
    I don’t.
    –TP

  95. It doesn’t come within a dozen realities of saying this. It specifically says that it is not possible to determine if these actions constitute obstruction.
    That is not what it says.
    It is very clear that on the evidence it is impossible to exonerate Trump – and specifically says so – but refuses to make any further determination on the sole grounds that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
    Leaving aside whether that is true, and it’s a matter of constitutional debate unsettled by any SC decision, it is very clear indeed from the report that Mueller believes there is sufficient evidence to bring Trump to trial for obstruction.
    As for Trump’s evidence, it is simply pathetic. “I do not recall” repeated at least thirty times.
    As Shep Smith noted on Fox…“[I] was surprised that [Trump] had forgotten so many things, though, because I remember specifically him telling us that he has one of the best memories ever.”
    And Marty is afraid the country might “suffer” a Democratic administration.
    Pfffffft.

  96. It doesn’t come within a dozen realities of saying this. It specifically says that it is not possible to determine if these actions constitute obstruction.
    That is not what it says.
    It is very clear that on the evidence it is impossible to exonerate Trump – and specifically says so – but refuses to make any further determination on the sole grounds that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
    Leaving aside whether that is true, and it’s a matter of constitutional debate unsettled by any SC decision, it is very clear indeed from the report that Mueller believes there is sufficient evidence to bring Trump to trial for obstruction.
    As for Trump’s evidence, it is simply pathetic. “I do not recall” repeated at least thirty times.
    As Shep Smith noted on Fox…“[I] was surprised that [Trump] had forgotten so many things, though, because I remember specifically him telling us that he has one of the best memories ever.”
    And Marty is afraid the country might “suffer” a Democratic administration.
    Pfffffft.

  99. Marty is right that we knew before the redacted report was published that the Trump campaign, with Trump’s knowledge and approval, had welcomed and sometimes sought interference in the election from a hostile foreign government, and that since elected he has abused his execute powers to seek to stymie investigation of this wrongdoing.
    We just need him to explain this seemingly novel constitutional doctrine that high crimes and misdemeanours don’t matter if we know about them. And of course, if they’re committed by a Republican.

  100. Marty is right that we knew before the redacted report was published that the Trump campaign, with Trump’s knowledge and approval, had welcomed and sometimes sought interference in the election from a hostile foreign government, and that since elected he has abused his execute powers to seek to stymie investigation of this wrongdoing.
    We just need him to explain this seemingly novel constitutional doctrine that high crimes and misdemeanours don’t matter if we know about them. And of course, if they’re committed by a Republican.

  101. The finding of “no collusion” amounts to a finding that neither Trump nor members of his campaign conspired with the Russian government to commit crimes in the context of Russian interference with the 2016 election. They did not participate with the Russians in the actual hacking of the DNC servers.
    Russian interference in the 2016 election is not in question. Criminal actions in the course of that interference are not in question. Numerous contacts between principals in Trump’s campaign and Russian nationals, including people associated with the Russian government, is not in question.
    The sharing of (R) polling data with Konstantin Klimnick, a Russian national with ties to Russian intelligence, is not in question. Members of Trump’s campaign, including his son, son in law, and campaign manager, with individuals promising “dirt on Hilary” and holding themselves out as representatives of the Russian government is not in question. Cooperation between members of Trump’s campaign and Julian Assange regarding the release of material obtained via criminal activity by the Russian government and its affiliates is not in question.
    Trump’s numerous attempts to have his staff take actions that actually would constitute obstruction of justice are not in question. His people saved his ass by not doing as he requested.
    And all of this leaves aside his acceptance of things of value from foreign governments in clear and unambiguous violation of the Constitution, his blatant use of his office to enrich himself and his family, his obvious and blatant conflicts of interest in negotiating real estate development projects with the Russian government while running for office.
    It leaves aside his payments to his porn star girlfriends to keep them quiet, in violation of campaign finance law.
    It leaves aside his farcically belligerent deportment, and his promise to respond to the investigation by using the DOJ to pursue his political opponents.
    It leaves aside his decades-long career of fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering as a business model. It leaves aside his business associations with Russian mafiosi.
    It leaves aside his utter and obvious personal vulgarity, narcissism, and general lack of the most basic forms and expressions of common human decency.
    I’m sure I’ve left some stuff out.
    But yes, there is no evidence that he or members of his staff participated with the Russians in hacking into the DNC servers.
    If you make the bar low enough, even worms can crawl over.

  102. The finding of “no collusion” amounts to a finding that neither Trump nor members of his campaign conspired with the Russian government to commit crimes in the context of Russian interference with the 2016 election. They did not participate with the Russians in the actual hacking of the DNC servers.
    Russian interference in the 2016 election is not in question. Criminal actions in the course of that interference are not in question. Numerous contacts between principals in Trump’s campaign and Russian nationals, including people associated with the Russian government, is not in question.
    The sharing of (R) polling data with Konstantin Klimnick, a Russian national with ties to Russian intelligence, is not in question. Members of Trump’s campaign, including his son, son in law, and campaign manager, with individuals promising “dirt on Hilary” and holding themselves out as representatives of the Russian government is not in question. Cooperation between members of Trump’s campaign and Julian Assange regarding the release of material obtained via criminal activity by the Russian government and its affiliates is not in question.
    Trump’s numerous attempts to have his staff take actions that actually would constitute obstruction of justice are not in question. His people saved his ass by not doing as he requested.
    And all of this leaves aside his acceptance of things of value from foreign governments in clear and unambiguous violation of the Constitution, his blatant use of his office to enrich himself and his family, his obvious and blatant conflicts of interest in negotiating real estate development projects with the Russian government while running for office.
    It leaves aside his payments to his porn star girlfriends to keep them quiet, in violation of campaign finance law.
    It leaves aside his farcically belligerent deportment, and his promise to respond to the investigation by using the DOJ to pursue his political opponents.
    It leaves aside his decades-long career of fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering as a business model. It leaves aside his business associations with Russian mafiosi.
    It leaves aside his utter and obvious personal vulgarity, narcissism, and general lack of the most basic forms and expressions of common human decency.
    I’m sure I’ve left some stuff out.
    But yes, there is no evidence that he or members of his staff participated with the Russians in hacking into the DNC servers.
    If you make the bar low enough, even worms can crawl over.

  103. Trump’s numerous attempts to have his staff take actions that actually would constitute obstruction of justice are not in question. His people saved his ass by not doing as he requested.
    in one case his people did exactly what he asked: Cohen lied to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.
    also, Jr lied about the Trump Tower meeting, at Sr’s command.
    Trump obstructed. Mueller makes that clear.

  104. Trump’s numerous attempts to have his staff take actions that actually would constitute obstruction of justice are not in question. His people saved his ass by not doing as he requested.
    in one case his people did exactly what he asked: Cohen lied to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.
    also, Jr lied about the Trump Tower meeting, at Sr’s command.
    Trump obstructed. Mueller makes that clear.

  105. The finding of “no collusion” amounts to a finding that neither Trump nor members of his campaign conspired with the Russian government to commit crimes in the context of Russian interference with the 2016 election
    I don’t think that’s quite accurate.
    The finding is that there is no evidence to support bringing any such charge – but it’s perfectly conceivable the inability to find such evidence is a result of the obstruction, for which there is strong prima facile evidence.

  106. The finding of “no collusion” amounts to a finding that neither Trump nor members of his campaign conspired with the Russian government to commit crimes in the context of Russian interference with the 2016 election
    I don’t think that’s quite accurate.
    The finding is that there is no evidence to support bringing any such charge – but it’s perfectly conceivable the inability to find such evidence is a result of the obstruction, for which there is strong prima facile evidence.

  107. Noted, on both cleek’s and Nigel’s points.
    I’ve more or less reached the “fnck this noise” point regarding Trump. He is an utterly crap POTUS, he needs to go. There are clear grounds for impeachment – by which I mean ample, shaken down and flowing over – and if the House wants to go for it, I say do it. The Senate would clearly vote against, because the (R)’s have lost any sense of country before party, so if the House opts to not impeach, also fine with me.
    But there should really be no question about the existence of truly ample grounds for impeachment.
    Surely somewhere in this great land of ours, there is a conservative who will work to advance all of the goals of the folks who claim to support Trump “on the issues”, but who is not such a colossal offensive divisive clusterfnck of a human being.
    Go forth, find that person, and persuade them to run for office. At that point we might be able to actually have reasonable conversations about issues. We might be able to get back to the plain, pragmatic business of governance.
    Trump is a fucking offense. He intends to be an offense, his supporters love him because he is an offense, he won the (R) nomination because of his unparalleled offensiveness, and he has made his unflagging instinct for offensiveness the hallmark of his administration.
    The reason folks focus on the bullshit is because Trump rains bullshit on the American people every single day. People focus on it because it’s landing on their heads every minute. We’d all love to talk about something else, but Trump says or does something profoundly stupid and harmful several times a day, every day.
    He is a toxic, malicious, belligerent jerk. And he lives for attention, so if the subject of public discourse veers from his antics for ten minutes, he is sure to drop another load of toxic crap on our heads to make sure he has our full attention.
    I’m fucking sick of this guy, I’m sick of talking about him, hearing about him, seeing him on the TV, hearing him on the radio, and reading about him in the news. Our Constitution provides only the most narrow of ways to remove a sitting POTUS, and the (R)’s in Congress refuse to stand and deliver for the good of the nation, so we are stuck with him.
    But I am well and truly sick and disgusted with the man and with what he is making of our country.
    Want to get back to governing? Get that creep out of office. The levers for doing so are at this point in the hands of conservatives and their representatives, so it’s on those of you who call yourselves conservatives to get it done.
    So get it fucking done.
    When you get it done, we can talk about issues, and policies, and governance.

  108. Noted, on both cleek’s and Nigel’s points.
    I’ve more or less reached the “fnck this noise” point regarding Trump. He is an utterly crap POTUS, he needs to go. There are clear grounds for impeachment – by which I mean ample, shaken down and flowing over – and if the House wants to go for it, I say do it. The Senate would clearly vote against, because the (R)’s have lost any sense of country before party, so if the House opts to not impeach, also fine with me.
    But there should really be no question about the existence of truly ample grounds for impeachment.
    Surely somewhere in this great land of ours, there is a conservative who will work to advance all of the goals of the folks who claim to support Trump “on the issues”, but who is not such a colossal offensive divisive clusterfnck of a human being.
    Go forth, find that person, and persuade them to run for office. At that point we might be able to actually have reasonable conversations about issues. We might be able to get back to the plain, pragmatic business of governance.
    Trump is a fucking offense. He intends to be an offense, his supporters love him because he is an offense, he won the (R) nomination because of his unparalleled offensiveness, and he has made his unflagging instinct for offensiveness the hallmark of his administration.
    The reason folks focus on the bullshit is because Trump rains bullshit on the American people every single day. People focus on it because it’s landing on their heads every minute. We’d all love to talk about something else, but Trump says or does something profoundly stupid and harmful several times a day, every day.
    He is a toxic, malicious, belligerent jerk. And he lives for attention, so if the subject of public discourse veers from his antics for ten minutes, he is sure to drop another load of toxic crap on our heads to make sure he has our full attention.
    I’m fucking sick of this guy, I’m sick of talking about him, hearing about him, seeing him on the TV, hearing him on the radio, and reading about him in the news. Our Constitution provides only the most narrow of ways to remove a sitting POTUS, and the (R)’s in Congress refuse to stand and deliver for the good of the nation, so we are stuck with him.
    But I am well and truly sick and disgusted with the man and with what he is making of our country.
    Want to get back to governing? Get that creep out of office. The levers for doing so are at this point in the hands of conservatives and their representatives, so it’s on those of you who call yourselves conservatives to get it done.
    So get it fucking done.
    When you get it done, we can talk about issues, and policies, and governance.

  115. meanwhile, some crew of freelance vigilante @ssholes has rounded up something 300 people trying to enter the US.
    some would call that ‘kidnapping’.
    but let’s argue about whether Trump is guilty of obstruction, or almost-obstruction, or attempted-but-foiled-obstruction, or obstruction-but-Mueller-isn’t-going-to-indict-because-of-OLC-policy-but-he-doesn’t-mind-if-someone-else-does obstruction.
    Trump tried his damnedest to interfere in an investigation into his personal cesspool. Full stop.
    Now let’s talk about how to keep self-appointed Guardians Of The Nation from running amock and kidnapping people by the hundreds.

  116. meanwhile, some crew of freelance vigilante @ssholes has rounded up something 300 people trying to enter the US.
    some would call that ‘kidnapping’.
    but let’s argue about whether Trump is guilty of obstruction, or almost-obstruction, or attempted-but-foiled-obstruction, or obstruction-but-Mueller-isn’t-going-to-indict-because-of-OLC-policy-but-he-doesn’t-mind-if-someone-else-does obstruction.
    Trump tried his damnedest to interfere in an investigation into his personal cesspool. Full stop.
    Now let’s talk about how to keep self-appointed Guardians Of The Nation from running amock and kidnapping people by the hundreds.

  117. So, I sing karaoke, and I’m not too shabby at it, but there is always one person, usually a woman, who advances to the mic and blows the roof off the joint; they hit every note across an incredible range, every phrase of the song is perfectly expressed, and with stage presence, and I want to stand and announce to the assembled that … OK, that’ll be it for the night, let’s shut it down, retreat to our respective corners until such time as we can reclaim the courage to follow THAT performance.
    But under my breath, I say “WRS”.
    9:28 is a little early in the day for a virtuoso, shoot the lights out drum solo, so I’m going to put my piccolo back in its case for the weekend.
    Which reminds of a time decades ago when my softball team decided to hit a bar and there was a one-man band performer, and as these things go after numerous rounds, some of us, not I, became a little irritable after one Jim Croce song after another on the keyboard/synthesizer and began “requesting” from the back of the room, “In A Gadda Da Vida”, and after a bit much time, an hour, of stoically putting up with our idiotic bad form, the guy performing punched a couple of buttons on his synthesizer, and without casting so much as a glance our way, we gotta da note perfect “In A Gadda Da Vita” sure nuff, including a very extended drum solo.
    The room went silent and the rest of the patrons shot us “shut yer trap” looks and I suddenly found the hem on my dumb softball jersey extraordinary fascinating.

  118. So, I sing karaoke, and I’m not too shabby at it, but there is always one person, usually a woman, who advances to the mic and blows the roof off the joint; they hit every note across an incredible range, every phrase of the song is perfectly expressed, and with stage presence, and I want to stand and announce to the assembled that … OK, that’ll be it for the night, let’s shut it down, retreat to our respective corners until such time as we can reclaim the courage to follow THAT performance.
    But under my breath, I say “WRS”.
    9:28 is a little early in the day for a virtuoso, shoot the lights out drum solo, so I’m going to put my piccolo back in its case for the weekend.
    Which reminds of a time decades ago when my softball team decided to hit a bar and there was a one-man band performer, and as these things go after numerous rounds, some of us, not I, became a little irritable after one Jim Croce song after another on the keyboard/synthesizer and began “requesting” from the back of the room, “In A Gadda Da Vida”, and after a bit much time, an hour, of stoically putting up with our idiotic bad form, the guy performing punched a couple of buttons on his synthesizer, and without casting so much as a glance our way, we gotta da note perfect “In A Gadda Da Vita” sure nuff, including a very extended drum solo.
    The room went silent and the rest of the patrons shot us “shut yer trap” looks and I suddenly found the hem on my dumb softball jersey extraordinary fascinating.

  119. Obviously, what russell, and therefore Janie and hsh, said.
    Surely somewhere in this great land of ours, there is a conservative who will work to advance all of the goals of the folks who claim to support Trump “on the issues”, but who is not such a colossal offensive divisive clusterfnck of a human being.
    There are conservatives like this apart from wj, David Frum for one, but it looks like none who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet to actually fight for office, and from what I can see none who is given much airtime/bandwidth either. Presumably, this is because the writing on the wall is clearly legible: the 40% of the population who love and support Trump in all his technicolour offensiveness have effectively bought into the characterisation of such NeverTrumpers, who openly call him out for much of the same stuff we do, as elite so-called experts whose so-called expertise is so unnecessary that Ivanka Trump is a credible suggestion to head the World Bank. The credulousness and ignorance of the public (and believe me I claim no great superiority for the public in the UK) is what is driving this car straight to hell, and the fuel is provided courtesy of Fox, the Mercers, the Kochs, Putin etc etc, in gas stations provided by Facebook, Google and Twitter.

  120. Obviously, what russell, and therefore Janie and hsh, said.
    Surely somewhere in this great land of ours, there is a conservative who will work to advance all of the goals of the folks who claim to support Trump “on the issues”, but who is not such a colossal offensive divisive clusterfnck of a human being.
    There are conservatives like this apart from wj, David Frum for one, but it looks like none who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet to actually fight for office, and from what I can see none who is given much airtime/bandwidth either. Presumably, this is because the writing on the wall is clearly legible: the 40% of the population who love and support Trump in all his technicolour offensiveness have effectively bought into the characterisation of such NeverTrumpers, who openly call him out for much of the same stuff we do, as elite so-called experts whose so-called expertise is so unnecessary that Ivanka Trump is a credible suggestion to head the World Bank. The credulousness and ignorance of the public (and believe me I claim no great superiority for the public in the UK) is what is driving this car straight to hell, and the fuel is provided courtesy of Fox, the Mercers, the Kochs, Putin etc etc, in gas stations provided by Facebook, Google and Twitter.

  121. “running amock and kidnapping”
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27210884/united-constitutional-patriots-new-mexico-detained-immigrants/
    Armed moderate and liberal American patriot militias should set up encampments (like the one pictured at the bottom of the linked article), across the street from the White House to monitor the lawbreakers inside the White House and detain them should they try to leave the joint and re-unite with their families for dinner each evening.
    We can provide Russian translators to facilitate the detainment of the traitors and supporting miscreants.
    We would provide “bullshit” translators as well but no one has been trained in this brand of bullshit outside of the conservative movement and the latter are deaf to all sense:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/19/friday-night-respite-open-thread/

  122. “running amock and kidnapping”
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27210884/united-constitutional-patriots-new-mexico-detained-immigrants/
    Armed moderate and liberal American patriot militias should set up encampments (like the one pictured at the bottom of the linked article), across the street from the White House to monitor the lawbreakers inside the White House and detain them should they try to leave the joint and re-unite with their families for dinner each evening.
    We can provide Russian translators to facilitate the detainment of the traitors and supporting miscreants.
    We would provide “bullshit” translators as well but no one has been trained in this brand of bullshit outside of the conservative movement and the latter are deaf to all sense:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/19/friday-night-respite-open-thread/

  125. Surely somewhere in this great land of ours, there is a conservative who will work to advance all of the goals of the folks who claim to support Trump “on the issues”, but who is not such a colossal offensive divisive clusterfnck of a human being.
    Go forth, find that person, and persuade them to run for office.
    The good news is, there are and they are. For example,
    http://time.com/5571336/william-weld-gop-nomination-2020/
    The bad news is, the chances to them actually taking the nomination away from him, absent some screw up of epic proportions even for Trump, are close to nil. But at least the primary vote will give us a read on how much of the GOP is beyond redemption.

  126. Surely somewhere in this great land of ours, there is a conservative who will work to advance all of the goals of the folks who claim to support Trump “on the issues”, but who is not such a colossal offensive divisive clusterfnck of a human being.
    Go forth, find that person, and persuade them to run for office.
    The good news is, there are and they are. For example,
    http://time.com/5571336/william-weld-gop-nomination-2020/
    The bad news is, the chances to them actually taking the nomination away from him, absent some screw up of epic proportions even for Trump, are close to nil. But at least the primary vote will give us a read on how much of the GOP is beyond redemption.

  129. As for history, it will draw conclusions from the Report, with or without the exercise of an impeachment proceeding.
    I was referring to history’s judgment about the Democrats, not Trump.

  130. As for history, it will draw conclusions from the Report, with or without the exercise of an impeachment proceeding.
    I was referring to history’s judgment about the Democrats, not Trump.

  131. wj: “BUT, there were multiple cases (10, I think) where Mueller lays pretty clearly that Trump took actions where were clearly obstruction, and for which there was sufficient evidence that a conviction could be obtained.”
    Marty: It doesn’t come within a dozen realities of saying this. It specifically says that it is not possible to determine if these actions constitute obstruction.
    You might find this instructive:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/19/muellers-biggest-bombshell-trump-told-white-house-counsel-lie/
    Money quote (although you should read the whole thing):

    President Trump ordered the top White House lawyer to lie to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. That is one difficult-to-escape conclusion of Mueller’s 448-page report, released to the public in redacted form Thursday. Telling another person to lie to investigators is obstruction of justice.

    Not a whole lot of wiggle room there.

  132. wj: “BUT, there were multiple cases (10, I think) where Mueller lays pretty clearly that Trump took actions where were clearly obstruction, and for which there was sufficient evidence that a conviction could be obtained.”
    Marty: It doesn’t come within a dozen realities of saying this. It specifically says that it is not possible to determine if these actions constitute obstruction.
    You might find this instructive:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/19/muellers-biggest-bombshell-trump-told-white-house-counsel-lie/
    Money quote (although you should read the whole thing):

    President Trump ordered the top White House lawyer to lie to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. That is one difficult-to-escape conclusion of Mueller’s 448-page report, released to the public in redacted form Thursday. Telling another person to lie to investigators is obstruction of justice.

    Not a whole lot of wiggle room there.

  141. A difficult to escape conclusion, not s fact.
    What is it in the WaPo piece that you are saying is not factual?

  142. A difficult to escape conclusion, not s fact.
    What is it in the WaPo piece that you are saying is not factual?

  145. Bottom line, there is a clear prima facile sacs for a charge of obstruction against Trump. I know you’re in the tank for him, Marty, but to deny that is simply foolish.
    Whether or not he is guilty would have to be established in a trial.
    That he is a disgrace to the office is not something I’m going to debate with you.

  146. Bottom line, there is a clear prima facile sacs for a charge of obstruction against Trump. I know you’re in the tank for him, Marty, but to deny that is simply foolish.
    Whether or not he is guilty would have to be established in a trial.
    That he is a disgrace to the office is not something I’m going to debate with you.

  147. the “How did Hitler happen?” question gets easier and easier to answer every day.
    It actually doesn’t. Hitler’s rise was the result of very different circumstances and conditions.
    Hitler tried the Trump way (running for president) but failed. In the end he got installed as chancellor as last choice by a palace cabal grossly miscalculating his true goals (believing him to be corrupt or easily corruptible). He became president by coup when his predecessor died of old age and then murdered and sidelined those that handed him the chancellory.
    The he went to work with high efficiency and not just to line his own pockets*.
    If there is a parallel, it’s the media empire of Hugenberg greasing the wheels in the run-up but if the US today were like Germany then The Donald would have taken over Murdoch’s empire instead of getting led by the nose by it.
    For the Donald power and status are mere trophies, for Hitler they were tools to achieve his political vision.
    Neither Mitch the Turtle nor The Newt have true counterparts in the events that led to Hitler.
    *admittedly he freed himself from paying income tax but he left most of the personal corruption to his entourage.

  148. the “How did Hitler happen?” question gets easier and easier to answer every day.
    It actually doesn’t. Hitler’s rise was the result of very different circumstances and conditions.
    Hitler tried the Trump way (running for president) but failed. In the end he got installed as chancellor as last choice by a palace cabal grossly miscalculating his true goals (believing him to be corrupt or easily corruptible). He became president by coup when his predecessor died of old age and then murdered and sidelined those that handed him the chancellory.
    The he went to work with high efficiency and not just to line his own pockets*.
    If there is a parallel, it’s the media empire of Hugenberg greasing the wheels in the run-up but if the US today were like Germany then The Donald would have taken over Murdoch’s empire instead of getting led by the nose by it.
    For the Donald power and status are mere trophies, for Hitler they were tools to achieve his political vision.
    Neither Mitch the Turtle nor The Newt have true counterparts in the events that led to Hitler.
    *admittedly he freed himself from paying income tax but he left most of the personal corruption to his entourage.

  151. Nicked from a Cheryl Rofer post and BJ
    “As French Ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, said
    ‘[Trump] once criticized the French president [Emmanuel Macron], and people called me from Paris to say, “What should we do?” My answer was clear: “Nothing.” Do nothing because he will always outbid you. Because he can’t accept appearing to lose. You have restraint on your side, and he has no restraint on his side, so you lose. It is escalation dominance.'”
    That’s about right.
    We must lose all restraint as well, you see.
    But for the same reason that moderates and liberals seem to never form armed militias to take things into their own hands, because it is not in our small “c” constitutions to do so, we maintain restraint.
    “escalation dominance”
    I can always give one less fuck than p can.
    We need an army of the always escalating fuckless to destroy the fuckers.

  152. Nicked from a Cheryl Rofer post and BJ
    “As French Ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, said
    ‘[Trump] once criticized the French president [Emmanuel Macron], and people called me from Paris to say, “What should we do?” My answer was clear: “Nothing.” Do nothing because he will always outbid you. Because he can’t accept appearing to lose. You have restraint on your side, and he has no restraint on his side, so you lose. It is escalation dominance.'”
    That’s about right.
    We must lose all restraint as well, you see.
    But for the same reason that moderates and liberals seem to never form armed militias to take things into their own hands, because it is not in our small “c” constitutions to do so, we maintain restraint.
    “escalation dominance”
    I can always give one less fuck than p can.
    We need an army of the always escalating fuckless to destroy the fuckers.

  153. I’ll bring the heat 😉
    It says something that the Hitler trope isn’t quite adequate.
    If p WAS identifiably Hitlerian, something would be done, because we’d know what we were looking at.
    p is unprecedented in American politics and history, which is why we’ve exhausted all comparisons short of Hitler.
    Like the comedian said, he’s a horse loose in a hospital. A rabid, spit-the-bit, kick you in the teeth, eyes-rolling, foaming at the mouth too crazy for the rodeo bucker with a stun prong up his fundament 24 hours a day for whom there will never be a horse whisperer.
    But, come to think of it, you’d deal the same way with a horse loose in a hospital that you would with a Hitler loose in a Dusegupka.

  154. I’ll bring the heat 😉
    It says something that the Hitler trope isn’t quite adequate.
    If p WAS identifiably Hitlerian, something would be done, because we’d know what we were looking at.
    p is unprecedented in American politics and history, which is why we’ve exhausted all comparisons short of Hitler.
    Like the comedian said, he’s a horse loose in a hospital. A rabid, spit-the-bit, kick you in the teeth, eyes-rolling, foaming at the mouth too crazy for the rodeo bucker with a stun prong up his fundament 24 hours a day for whom there will never be a horse whisperer.
    But, come to think of it, you’d deal the same way with a horse loose in a hospital that you would with a Hitler loose in a Dusegupka.

  155. escalation dominance
    The way all of that looks to me is Macron has restraint on his side, Trump does not, so Macron wins.
    Because he is less vulnerable to being goaded. He is able to think and not just react, and he can consider aspects of an issue other than how a given outcome is going to make him look.
    Trump’s options in any situation are always going to be limited. Macron, less so.
    Advantage Macron.

  156. escalation dominance
    The way all of that looks to me is Macron has restraint on his side, Trump does not, so Macron wins.
    Because he is less vulnerable to being goaded. He is able to think and not just react, and he can consider aspects of an issue other than how a given outcome is going to make him look.
    Trump’s options in any situation are always going to be limited. Macron, less so.
    Advantage Macron.

  159. You just have to vote them out if office.
    Yes, but they don’t believe in democracy, they believe in winning and holding power by whatever means.
    The US electoral system, with overrepresentation of small states, gives them a head start.
    Then they gerrymander the districts. They pass laws to make it hard for poor people to vote. They appoint judges to let them do it. They appoint an Attorney General to protect them.
    That’s so far. Who knows what comes next.
    The time to vote them out is now, before it’s too late. There is no excuse any more for anyone who cares about democracy, whatever their general political leanings, to do anything else.

  160. You just have to vote them out if office.
    Yes, but they don’t believe in democracy, they believe in winning and holding power by whatever means.
    The US electoral system, with overrepresentation of small states, gives them a head start.
    Then they gerrymander the districts. They pass laws to make it hard for poor people to vote. They appoint judges to let them do it. They appoint an Attorney General to protect them.
    That’s so far. Who knows what comes next.
    The time to vote them out is now, before it’s too late. There is no excuse any more for anyone who cares about democracy, whatever their general political leanings, to do anything else.

  161. That’s so far.
    You forgot about the fact that they accept cyber warfare assistance from hostile foreign governments. That’s kind of a biggie, considering that foreign governments continue to buy them as we speak.
    The time to vote them out is now, before it’s too late.
    I agree, assuming that it’s not already too late. The time to vote them out was 2016. But maybe, just maybe, we can start the long process of repairing our country in 2020. Even if we win, it’s going to be a very long and difficult haul.

  162. That’s so far.
    You forgot about the fact that they accept cyber warfare assistance from hostile foreign governments. That’s kind of a biggie, considering that foreign governments continue to buy them as we speak.
    The time to vote them out is now, before it’s too late.
    I agree, assuming that it’s not already too late. The time to vote them out was 2016. But maybe, just maybe, we can start the long process of repairing our country in 2020. Even if we win, it’s going to be a very long and difficult haul.

  163. It actually doesn’t.
    it does.
    the context was JDT’s post about a group of armed citizens who have so thoroughly absorbed into Trump’s/Fox’s anti-brown-people hysteria that they are kidnapping brown people.
    this is not normal behavior. these people have left reality and set up camp in the world of fantasy that Trump/Fox created: a world created entirely to scare people and keep them voting in the correct way.
    in other words: this shows the power of propaganda and the weakness of societal norms.

  164. It actually doesn’t.
    it does.
    the context was JDT’s post about a group of armed citizens who have so thoroughly absorbed into Trump’s/Fox’s anti-brown-people hysteria that they are kidnapping brown people.
    this is not normal behavior. these people have left reality and set up camp in the world of fantasy that Trump/Fox created: a world created entirely to scare people and keep them voting in the correct way.
    in other words: this shows the power of propaganda and the weakness of societal norms.

  165. It actually doesn’t.
    it does.
    the context was JDT’s post about a group of armed citizens who have so thoroughly absorbed into Trump’s/Fox’s anti-brown-people hysteria that they are kidnapping brown people.
    this is not normal behavior. these people have left reality and set up camp in the world of fantasy that Trump/Fox created: a world created entirely to scare people and keep them voting in the correct way.
    in other words: this shows the power of propaganda and the weakness of societal norms.

  166. It actually doesn’t.
    it does.
    the context was JDT’s post about a group of armed citizens who have so thoroughly absorbed into Trump’s/Fox’s anti-brown-people hysteria that they are kidnapping brown people.
    this is not normal behavior. these people have left reality and set up camp in the world of fantasy that Trump/Fox created: a world created entirely to scare people and keep them voting in the correct way.
    in other words: this shows the power of propaganda and the weakness of societal norms.

  167. why doesn’t Mueller reach a judgement about obstruction?
    “We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”
    Total *pinch the sky* Exoneration *jazz hands*.

  168. why doesn’t Mueller reach a judgement about obstruction?
    “We considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.”
    Total *pinch the sky* Exoneration *jazz hands*.

  169. What pro bono said, Over and over and over. The Republican party–not just Trump–is literally and deliberately as a matter of chosen policy an existential threat to representative government, They are purposefully destroying America for the benefit of a minority–the kleptocrats All the hatemongering is in service to that goal Trump is just a useful idiot.

  170. What pro bono said, Over and over and over. The Republican party–not just Trump–is literally and deliberately as a matter of chosen policy an existential threat to representative government, They are purposefully destroying America for the benefit of a minority–the kleptocrats All the hatemongering is in service to that goal Trump is just a useful idiot.

  173. Today’s bit of baseless speculation from yours truly….
    We know that on multiple occasions in the past, Republican administrations gave aid and comfort to our enemies. Nixon did it in 1968, arranging to keep the Vietnam War going; Reagan did it in 1980, to prolong the Iranian hostage crisis, and then with various twists and turns throughout the ’80s.
    How many of the setbacks American and allied forces have encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and environments have been arranged (or just endorsed and supported) by Republican administrations when in power and by Republican officials when not in power, to keep us stirred up and willing for more?

  174. Today’s bit of baseless speculation from yours truly….
    We know that on multiple occasions in the past, Republican administrations gave aid and comfort to our enemies. Nixon did it in 1968, arranging to keep the Vietnam War going; Reagan did it in 1980, to prolong the Iranian hostage crisis, and then with various twists and turns throughout the ’80s.
    How many of the setbacks American and allied forces have encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and environments have been arranged (or just endorsed and supported) by Republican administrations when in power and by Republican officials when not in power, to keep us stirred up and willing for more?

  175. I don’t disagree for a moment about the danger to democracy, and that there are large parts of the Republican party displaying an active contempt for it, but right now the remedy has to be at the ballot box, or you’ve already given up.

  176. I don’t disagree for a moment about the danger to democracy, and that there are large parts of the Republican party displaying an active contempt for it, but right now the remedy has to be at the ballot box, or you’ve already given up.

  177. Nothing is different. This is a shared human foible:
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
    Until the transmission modes, the vectors, for this “human” disease change, and/or the true believers of one carefully crafted set of “facts” take over the “radio station” and the transmission lines, the FOX news-crawl, if you like.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/22/whats-new-about-conspiracy-theories
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/8560030/Sarah-Palin-supporters-attempt-to-change-history-to-help-her-White-House-bid.html
    It’s worldwide (see Bolsanaro in Brazil, etc):
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
    Applebaum, let’s remember, is of a conservative cast of mind. She wrote “Red Famine”, among other works (which I’m reading at the moment), about Stalin’s imposing alternative facts on the Ukraine in the 1920s and thereafter.
    This is unwittingly revealing about these minds:
    https://patch.com/texas/downtownaustin/austin-shock-jock-concedes-sandy-hook-killings-werent-hoax
    He says “a psychosis” made him spread these filthy alternative facts.
    Ms. Sanders, who believes divine election placed p in the White House, not a crooked election, lies on the run, as the occasion arises … these things aren’t scripted in advance.
    The plan, and yes the conservative movement is an elaborately crafted plan, not a hoax.
    Psychosis, as personified by p, transmitted from mind to mind via the new “media” has become the vector for implementing the conservative movement’s program.
    “Let’s act psychotic” was the plan in the service of blunting ANY policy that would stymie the possession of military grade weaponry in everyone’s hands.
    “Hey, we ARE psychotic, what did you expect?” is the plea when called on it. “Whaddaya gonna do about it now, we have all of the guns?”
    Christ, all that’s missing is a conspiratorial cackle.
    So yes, advantage to the non-psychotic Macron to round this out (I’m not talking about policy and issues, I’m talking methods) in a world where what comes next remains predictable.
    Yeah, but, “Who knows what comes next?”
    That’s the advantage p has. And that he has used his entire life. No one can predict what comes next, except that ‘next” will be something the non-psychotic cannot envision.
    Neville Chamberlain’s downfall was, IMHO, that he was constitutionally incapable of thinking like a psychotic, of placing his mind inside the mind of a psychotic.
    Hitler, unswervingly in possession of the nutszoid clearmindedness of the psychotic, read Chamberlain like a FOX news crawl.
    But, p is not Hitler, or Stalin.
    Would that he were, so we could look it up in a book or an old news reel, like checking the symptoms of a disease in the Merck Manual.
    He’s something else, yet to be fully revealed.
    He and his crazy people are like those “Ebola” victims early on in the spread of the disease that came stumbling out of remote African settlements hemorrhaging their precious bodily fluids.
    Someone call a doctor.
    Diagnosis: “I’ve never seen this particular presentation of symptoms before, so I’ve no idea what comes next.”
    Meanwhile, run for your lives.
    You too, Macron.

  178. Nothing is different. This is a shared human foible:
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
    Until the transmission modes, the vectors, for this “human” disease change, and/or the true believers of one carefully crafted set of “facts” take over the “radio station” and the transmission lines, the FOX news-crawl, if you like.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/22/whats-new-about-conspiracy-theories
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/8560030/Sarah-Palin-supporters-attempt-to-change-history-to-help-her-White-House-bid.html
    It’s worldwide (see Bolsanaro in Brazil, etc):
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/
    Applebaum, let’s remember, is of a conservative cast of mind. She wrote “Red Famine”, among other works (which I’m reading at the moment), about Stalin’s imposing alternative facts on the Ukraine in the 1920s and thereafter.
    This is unwittingly revealing about these minds:
    https://patch.com/texas/downtownaustin/austin-shock-jock-concedes-sandy-hook-killings-werent-hoax
    He says “a psychosis” made him spread these filthy alternative facts.
    Ms. Sanders, who believes divine election placed p in the White House, not a crooked election, lies on the run, as the occasion arises … these things aren’t scripted in advance.
    The plan, and yes the conservative movement is an elaborately crafted plan, not a hoax.
    Psychosis, as personified by p, transmitted from mind to mind via the new “media” has become the vector for implementing the conservative movement’s program.
    “Let’s act psychotic” was the plan in the service of blunting ANY policy that would stymie the possession of military grade weaponry in everyone’s hands.
    “Hey, we ARE psychotic, what did you expect?” is the plea when called on it. “Whaddaya gonna do about it now, we have all of the guns?”
    Christ, all that’s missing is a conspiratorial cackle.
    So yes, advantage to the non-psychotic Macron to round this out (I’m not talking about policy and issues, I’m talking methods) in a world where what comes next remains predictable.
    Yeah, but, “Who knows what comes next?”
    That’s the advantage p has. And that he has used his entire life. No one can predict what comes next, except that ‘next” will be something the non-psychotic cannot envision.
    Neville Chamberlain’s downfall was, IMHO, that he was constitutionally incapable of thinking like a psychotic, of placing his mind inside the mind of a psychotic.
    Hitler, unswervingly in possession of the nutszoid clearmindedness of the psychotic, read Chamberlain like a FOX news crawl.
    But, p is not Hitler, or Stalin.
    Would that he were, so we could look it up in a book or an old news reel, like checking the symptoms of a disease in the Merck Manual.
    He’s something else, yet to be fully revealed.
    He and his crazy people are like those “Ebola” victims early on in the spread of the disease that came stumbling out of remote African settlements hemorrhaging their precious bodily fluids.
    Someone call a doctor.
    Diagnosis: “I’ve never seen this particular presentation of symptoms before, so I’ve no idea what comes next.”
    Meanwhile, run for your lives.
    You too, Macron.

  181. the remedy has to be at the ballot box, or you’ve already given up.
    I plan to cast my ballot for whatever Democrat wins the nomination, and (as I do every election, including local), I’ll work on the campaign. I’m hoping for miracles, and I won’t give up on the strength of our Democracy. But I have little confidence in Democrats’ ability to overcome the autocrats who have managed to gain a firm foothold. As Marty has demonstrated, power is their agenda, and hate is their enabler.

  182. the remedy has to be at the ballot box, or you’ve already given up.
    I plan to cast my ballot for whatever Democrat wins the nomination, and (as I do every election, including local), I’ll work on the campaign. I’m hoping for miracles, and I won’t give up on the strength of our Democracy. But I have little confidence in Democrats’ ability to overcome the autocrats who have managed to gain a firm foothold. As Marty has demonstrated, power is their agenda, and hate is their enabler.

  183. “As Marty has demonstrated, power is their agenda, and hate is their enabler”
    So now I’m getting tired of this. I vote for the GOP, even though I couldnt for Trump ever, because I put my country ahead of even my disgust for him. Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    This whole party before country bs is tiresome. If I didnt care about the country I would be all for impeachment tomorrow. I suspect there are a significant number of Senators that feel the same way.
    The same is true of the whole voting third party “ensuring” Trump won. Me voting third party, in my mind, was taking the risk that Hillary might win because I couldnt possibly vote for Trump. It was the best I could do, because I love my country.
    I have, to the best of my recollection, not spent any time questioning your motives.
    See the autocrats are you. Either agree with me or you’re evil and hateful.
    Two words, not happy birthday. Dont fucking throw my name around if you dont know what your talking about.

  184. “As Marty has demonstrated, power is their agenda, and hate is their enabler”
    So now I’m getting tired of this. I vote for the GOP, even though I couldnt for Trump ever, because I put my country ahead of even my disgust for him. Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    This whole party before country bs is tiresome. If I didnt care about the country I would be all for impeachment tomorrow. I suspect there are a significant number of Senators that feel the same way.
    The same is true of the whole voting third party “ensuring” Trump won. Me voting third party, in my mind, was taking the risk that Hillary might win because I couldnt possibly vote for Trump. It was the best I could do, because I love my country.
    I have, to the best of my recollection, not spent any time questioning your motives.
    See the autocrats are you. Either agree with me or you’re evil and hateful.
    Two words, not happy birthday. Dont fucking throw my name around if you dont know what your talking about.

  185. Marty: If I didnt care about the country I would be all for impeachment tomorrow.
    Pelosi and the Democrats should hold Congressional hearings on the topic:
    Is Trump WORTH impeaching?
    I’d like to see both the MAGA crowd and Marty’s dangerous Democratic Socialists weigh in on that particular question.
    –TP

  186. Marty: If I didnt care about the country I would be all for impeachment tomorrow.
    Pelosi and the Democrats should hold Congressional hearings on the topic:
    Is Trump WORTH impeaching?
    I’d like to see both the MAGA crowd and Marty’s dangerous Democratic Socialists weigh in on that particular question.
    –TP

  187. I vote for the GOP, even though I couldnt for Trump ever, because I put my country ahead of even my disgust for him…
    And yet, whatever your motives, the representatives you vote for are utterly determined to keep him in power, and the party is being remade in his image.

  188. I vote for the GOP, even though I couldnt for Trump ever, because I put my country ahead of even my disgust for him…
    And yet, whatever your motives, the representatives you vote for are utterly determined to keep him in power, and the party is being remade in his image.

  191. Power isn’t the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    Marty, I’ll assume out of respect that you mean something by that. But what? I looked up “Democratic Socialism” in a well-known online encyclopaedia, and read:
    “Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production”
    Are you saying that the Democratic Party generally, and Hillary Clinton in particular, advocate social ownership of the means of production. If so, why do you think that? If not, what on earth do you mean?

  192. Power isn’t the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    Marty, I’ll assume out of respect that you mean something by that. But what? I looked up “Democratic Socialism” in a well-known online encyclopaedia, and read:
    “Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production”
    Are you saying that the Democratic Party generally, and Hillary Clinton in particular, advocate social ownership of the means of production. If so, why do you think that? If not, what on earth do you mean?

  193. And yet, whatever your motives, the representatives you vote for are utterly determined to keep him in power, and the party is being remade in his image.
    sure, because Democrats!

  194. And yet, whatever your motives, the representatives you vote for are utterly determined to keep him in power, and the party is being remade in his image.
    sure, because Democrats!

  195. cleek, Hitler did not tolerate free-lancing militias and personally kicked guys out of his personal militia and the party for out-of-uniform and/or unauthorized actions (even if they were in furtherance of his goals). And that was before he came to power. After that he dissolved all independent RW militias (in particular the Freikorps). And all ‘spontaneous outbreaks of the people’s wrath’ thereafter were carefully organized.
    The Donald does not control the thugs even while trying to take credit for their actions.
    As Lenin correctly said (if the quote is genuine): When Germans storm a railway station, they will buy platform tickets before.
    In the US the inclination for mob action* is significantly higher than it was in Germany back then (at least that is my impression).
    The Donald did not himself create a mass movement, he managed to become the focal point of an existing one. The Nazis (and the German communists**) started more or less from scratch. And unlike TP/GOP they deliberately shunned going together with the Old Right (the Harzburger Front went nowhere). The GOP managed what the German Old Right tried but failed. The TP did not lead to a real power shift, it’s still Mitch the Turtle (and the donors) calling the shots. Mitch may find The Donald a pain to work with but he still is the one really in control. If he wishes, The Donald is toast (no need yet).
    *un- or semi-organized
    **under the name of independent social democrats (USPD) during WW1 before switching to Spartakists and then KPD afterwards.

  196. cleek, Hitler did not tolerate free-lancing militias and personally kicked guys out of his personal militia and the party for out-of-uniform and/or unauthorized actions (even if they were in furtherance of his goals). And that was before he came to power. After that he dissolved all independent RW militias (in particular the Freikorps). And all ‘spontaneous outbreaks of the people’s wrath’ thereafter were carefully organized.
    The Donald does not control the thugs even while trying to take credit for their actions.
    As Lenin correctly said (if the quote is genuine): When Germans storm a railway station, they will buy platform tickets before.
    In the US the inclination for mob action* is significantly higher than it was in Germany back then (at least that is my impression).
    The Donald did not himself create a mass movement, he managed to become the focal point of an existing one. The Nazis (and the German communists**) started more or less from scratch. And unlike TP/GOP they deliberately shunned going together with the Old Right (the Harzburger Front went nowhere). The GOP managed what the German Old Right tried but failed. The TP did not lead to a real power shift, it’s still Mitch the Turtle (and the donors) calling the shots. Mitch may find The Donald a pain to work with but he still is the one really in control. If he wishes, The Donald is toast (no need yet).
    *un- or semi-organized
    **under the name of independent social democrats (USPD) during WW1 before switching to Spartakists and then KPD afterwards.

  197. granted. but again, i was (obliquely, i admit) referring to the power of propaganda and the ultimate weakness of societal norms. as in: how can ‘normal’ people do horrible things? well, they buy into enough myths and lies and then they find themselves kidnapping people, or worse.

  198. granted. but again, i was (obliquely, i admit) referring to the power of propaganda and the ultimate weakness of societal norms. as in: how can ‘normal’ people do horrible things? well, they buy into enough myths and lies and then they find themselves kidnapping people, or worse.

  199. Power isn’t the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    Yes, Hillary Clinton is the pure embodiment of Democratic Socialism. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
    You’re kidding, right?
    Hartmut: The GOP managed what the German Old Right tried but failed.
    Yes. An economic elite reactionary old guard has harnessed (so far) an ethno-nationalist populist movement built on racism and grievance.
    I find a lot of truth in this statement, but a kinder gentler fascism is not all that great either.
    Also, vigilantism is as American as apple pie.

  200. Power isn’t the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    Yes, Hillary Clinton is the pure embodiment of Democratic Socialism. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
    You’re kidding, right?
    Hartmut: The GOP managed what the German Old Right tried but failed.
    Yes. An economic elite reactionary old guard has harnessed (so far) an ethno-nationalist populist movement built on racism and grievance.
    I find a lot of truth in this statement, but a kinder gentler fascism is not all that great either.
    Also, vigilantism is as American as apple pie.

  203. bobbyp, I think that article is outdated. They’ve stuffed a sock into Steny.
    First, I favor impeachment, as I’ve stated.
    Second, Democrats are worried about quickly impeaching, then handing the narrative to the Republicans in the Senate. The new strategy is that we move towards impeachment with more investigations and fact gathering, so that we keep the ball in our court as long as possible before handing it to Mitch McConnell and his band of Rudy Giulianis. I think that’s a fair approach as long as impeachment is the ultimate end game.

  204. bobbyp, I think that article is outdated. They’ve stuffed a sock into Steny.
    First, I favor impeachment, as I’ve stated.
    Second, Democrats are worried about quickly impeaching, then handing the narrative to the Republicans in the Senate. The new strategy is that we move towards impeachment with more investigations and fact gathering, so that we keep the ball in our court as long as possible before handing it to Mitch McConnell and his band of Rudy Giulianis. I think that’s a fair approach as long as impeachment is the ultimate end game.

  207. Yes, the p/republican axis are haters. They are fucking Evil:
    https://twitter.com/Zeddary/status/1118977188047609856
    They once hated the Russkies too, until Putin decided to confirm their stronger domestic biases in the service of ….. we don’t really know what yet, do we?
    A comedian was just elected President of the Ukraine. No campaign … all via social media.
    A comedian.

  208. Yes, the p/republican axis are haters. They are fucking Evil:
    https://twitter.com/Zeddary/status/1118977188047609856
    They once hated the Russkies too, until Putin decided to confirm their stronger domestic biases in the service of ….. we don’t really know what yet, do we?
    A comedian was just elected President of the Ukraine. No campaign … all via social media.
    A comedian.

  211. Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    So, definitions are important here.
    First, the people holding national office who refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
    Second, none of them are Democratic Socialists. They don’t want public ownership of the means of production. They don’t want a planned economy. What they are, are social democrats.
    Basically, they are interested in extending the “welfare state” to include public support for things like health insurance and higher education.
    Those are things about which reasonable people can have reasonable discussions. As long as we’re clear what exactly it is we’re talking about.
    The question I have for people who want to “save the country” from things like that is this:
    What if “the country”, which is to say the people who live here, want those things? By what right do you tell them they can’t have them?
    The essence of our project as a nation is self-government, in a republican form, under the rule of law. If we want the public sector to be involved in providing health insurance, or higher education, then that is what should happen.
    This whole party before country bs is tiresome.
    That was my comment, and it wasn’t about you. It was about the likes of the (R)’s in the Senate.
    I stand by it.
    The same is true of the whole voting third party “ensuring” Trump won.
    To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized you for voting third party.
    See the autocrats are you. Either agree with me or you’re evil and hateful.
    First, you are describing intolerance, not autocracy.
    Second, we are actually at a place where things under public discussion have consequential moral and ethical dimensions. We’re also at a place where actual malice is a normal part of the discourse on offer from the office of the POTUS and his supporters.
    “Fuck you feelings” is, actually, a hateful thing to say. As are “lock her up”, and “Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists”.
    A lot of people try to finesse that by saying, well I don’t like what he says, but I support him because I like the policies.
    Leaving aside whether the policies themselves are evil or hateful, there is a limit to the amount of daylight you can put between those things. At a certain point, you have to draw a line and say that certain things are unacceptable, and find other ways to achieve the policies you want.
    And, in some cases, the evil and hatefulness of the policies themselves are kind of an open question.
    Lines have been crossed. We’re not just talking about differences of opinion anymore.
    There are some things that inspire intolerance, and correctly so.

  212. Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    So, definitions are important here.
    First, the people holding national office who refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
    Second, none of them are Democratic Socialists. They don’t want public ownership of the means of production. They don’t want a planned economy. What they are, are social democrats.
    Basically, they are interested in extending the “welfare state” to include public support for things like health insurance and higher education.
    Those are things about which reasonable people can have reasonable discussions. As long as we’re clear what exactly it is we’re talking about.
    The question I have for people who want to “save the country” from things like that is this:
    What if “the country”, which is to say the people who live here, want those things? By what right do you tell them they can’t have them?
    The essence of our project as a nation is self-government, in a republican form, under the rule of law. If we want the public sector to be involved in providing health insurance, or higher education, then that is what should happen.
    This whole party before country bs is tiresome.
    That was my comment, and it wasn’t about you. It was about the likes of the (R)’s in the Senate.
    I stand by it.
    The same is true of the whole voting third party “ensuring” Trump won.
    To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized you for voting third party.
    See the autocrats are you. Either agree with me or you’re evil and hateful.
    First, you are describing intolerance, not autocracy.
    Second, we are actually at a place where things under public discussion have consequential moral and ethical dimensions. We’re also at a place where actual malice is a normal part of the discourse on offer from the office of the POTUS and his supporters.
    “Fuck you feelings” is, actually, a hateful thing to say. As are “lock her up”, and “Mexico is sending us murderers and rapists”.
    A lot of people try to finesse that by saying, well I don’t like what he says, but I support him because I like the policies.
    Leaving aside whether the policies themselves are evil or hateful, there is a limit to the amount of daylight you can put between those things. At a certain point, you have to draw a line and say that certain things are unacceptable, and find other ways to achieve the policies you want.
    And, in some cases, the evil and hatefulness of the policies themselves are kind of an open question.
    Lines have been crossed. We’re not just talking about differences of opinion anymore.
    There are some things that inspire intolerance, and correctly so.

  215. IMO the grounds for impeachment are open and shut. Leaving aside the question of collaboration with the Russians, Trump obviously attempted to interfere with the investigation.
    It’s also clear that, at this point, the Senate (R)’s will never find him guilty.
    So, it’s a political calculation for the (D)’s in the House as to whether it’s worth doing or not.
    Above my pay grade.
    But hell yeah, the House leadership should dig into this stuff. They are obliged to do so. The Senate is, too, for that matter, but they will not.
    Party before country.

  216. IMO the grounds for impeachment are open and shut. Leaving aside the question of collaboration with the Russians, Trump obviously attempted to interfere with the investigation.
    It’s also clear that, at this point, the Senate (R)’s will never find him guilty.
    So, it’s a political calculation for the (D)’s in the House as to whether it’s worth doing or not.
    Above my pay grade.
    But hell yeah, the House leadership should dig into this stuff. They are obliged to do so. The Senate is, too, for that matter, but they will not.
    Party before country.

  217. To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized you for voting third party.
    I probably did. If not, I’ll do it now. People who voted third party decided that risking Donald Trump was worth it. It wasn’t worth it, even to save the country from scary Hillary. Trump is Putin’s puppet. Although Donald [Johnson the commenter here] doesn’t acknowledge the Russia factor, I agree with him that Trump is also beholden to other dictators. He’s a fraudster, a liar, and (for those who care) a horrible husband. He has his own personal mafia, and is connected closely to other mafia networks. He’s scum. Thanks for making him President of the United States. I have nothing but contempt for people who contributed to that, including those who voted third party.

  218. To my knowledge, nobody here has criticized you for voting third party.
    I probably did. If not, I’ll do it now. People who voted third party decided that risking Donald Trump was worth it. It wasn’t worth it, even to save the country from scary Hillary. Trump is Putin’s puppet. Although Donald [Johnson the commenter here] doesn’t acknowledge the Russia factor, I agree with him that Trump is also beholden to other dictators. He’s a fraudster, a liar, and (for those who care) a horrible husband. He has his own personal mafia, and is connected closely to other mafia networks. He’s scum. Thanks for making him President of the United States. I have nothing but contempt for people who contributed to that, including those who voted third party.

  219. the grounds for impeachment are open and shut. Leaving aside the question of collaboration with the Russians, Trump obviously attempted to interfere with the investigation.
    It’s also clear that, at this point, the Senate (R)’s will never find him guilty.
    That pretty much sums it up.

  220. the grounds for impeachment are open and shut. Leaving aside the question of collaboration with the Russians, Trump obviously attempted to interfere with the investigation.
    It’s also clear that, at this point, the Senate (R)’s will never find him guilty.
    That pretty much sums it up.

  221. “What if “the country”, which is to say the people who live here, want those things? By what right do you tell them they can’t have them?”
    Then “the country” will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.
    My right is to adamantly proselytize and vote for my solutions, just like their rights, without being called names, told what I believe or that the people I vote for just want power while the people they vote for just want what’s best for the country.
    I and, I believe, we are fighting for what’s best for the country and having to make a much harder choice than any Democrat. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions. Nothing would be easier than jumping on the impeachment/get rid of him at all costs bandwagon.
    I think the cost is too high. I believe your estimate of the changes the left will make is too conservative. I have a right to fight for that opinion.

  222. “What if “the country”, which is to say the people who live here, want those things? By what right do you tell them they can’t have them?”
    Then “the country” will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.
    My right is to adamantly proselytize and vote for my solutions, just like their rights, without being called names, told what I believe or that the people I vote for just want power while the people they vote for just want what’s best for the country.
    I and, I believe, we are fighting for what’s best for the country and having to make a much harder choice than any Democrat. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions. Nothing would be easier than jumping on the impeachment/get rid of him at all costs bandwagon.
    I think the cost is too high. I believe your estimate of the changes the left will make is too conservative. I have a right to fight for that opinion.

  223. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions.
    What a joke. Or a failure.
    You have an entire Republican party. You can’t come up with something better than this? You have to appeal to racism and hate and foreign dictatorship support to get your “policies”? What are your policies, Marty? What kind of country do you want? Guns and hating immigrants and hating poor people? What a nightmare.
    Donald Trump is scum. And you’re good with that.

  224. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions.
    What a joke. Or a failure.
    You have an entire Republican party. You can’t come up with something better than this? You have to appeal to racism and hate and foreign dictatorship support to get your “policies”? What are your policies, Marty? What kind of country do you want? Guns and hating immigrants and hating poor people? What a nightmare.
    Donald Trump is scum. And you’re good with that.

  225. By the way, you try to paint yourself as a hero, turning America into Scum, because you’re willing to support s**tbag to get your extra money.
    I can’t even.

  226. By the way, you try to paint yourself as a hero, turning America into Scum, because you’re willing to support s**tbag to get your extra money.
    I can’t even.

  227. Marty: My right is to adamantly proselytize and vote for my solutions, just like their rights, …
    My Right Honorable Friend Marty is absolutely correct about that. Not only do I agree he has the right to “proselytize”, but I heartily support his doing so. It makes him feel good, and it amuses me, and that’s all that matters to yours truly, the world’s most selfish communist.
    … without being called names, told what I believe or that the people I vote for just want power while the people they vote for just want what’s best for the country.
    There, however, my Right Honorable Friend goes off the rails. Persons who “proselytize” on the World Wide Web and then protest about being told they’re nuts, think way too highly of themselves. I do not suggest that their high self-regard arises out of some peculiar sense of entitlement, but I wouldn’t bet against it either.
    If I might venture to advise the Right Honorable Marty, let me suggest this: if your sincere desire is to “save” a “country” which includes ME, then consider framing your proselytizing in terms of why your preferred “(Republican) policies” will make MY life, and not just your own, better in some way. Let me warn you, however, that YOUR notion of what MY definition of “better” is may be misguided. I cannot promise to coddle your tender feelings in that case. Not on the World Wide Web, and not in what we laughably call “real life”.
    –TP

  228. Marty: My right is to adamantly proselytize and vote for my solutions, just like their rights, …
    My Right Honorable Friend Marty is absolutely correct about that. Not only do I agree he has the right to “proselytize”, but I heartily support his doing so. It makes him feel good, and it amuses me, and that’s all that matters to yours truly, the world’s most selfish communist.
    … without being called names, told what I believe or that the people I vote for just want power while the people they vote for just want what’s best for the country.
    There, however, my Right Honorable Friend goes off the rails. Persons who “proselytize” on the World Wide Web and then protest about being told they’re nuts, think way too highly of themselves. I do not suggest that their high self-regard arises out of some peculiar sense of entitlement, but I wouldn’t bet against it either.
    If I might venture to advise the Right Honorable Marty, let me suggest this: if your sincere desire is to “save” a “country” which includes ME, then consider framing your proselytizing in terms of why your preferred “(Republican) policies” will make MY life, and not just your own, better in some way. Let me warn you, however, that YOUR notion of what MY definition of “better” is may be misguided. I cannot promise to coddle your tender feelings in that case. Not on the World Wide Web, and not in what we laughably call “real life”.
    –TP

  231. Then “the country” will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.
    Yes, that’s about right. And “people like me” will be working for that in the face of profoundly anti-democratic institutions baked into the Constitution, a generation of gerrymandering, and numerous legal efforts on the part of the (R)’s to suppress (D) votes.
    We all have our burden to bear. The (R)’s chose theirs.
    I believe your estimate of the changes the left will make is too conservative.
    You’re entitled to your beliefs, but it’s not in evidence.
    The Green New Deal is the outer limit if what the D’s are asking for. Excluding the guaranteed job thing, it’s infrastructure, public support for higher education and health care, and a change in existing industrial policy toward renewable energy.
    That is as crazy as it gets. And it has way less than universal support among (D)’s.
    You have an entire Republican party. You can’t come up with something better than this?
    It’s worse than that, actually. Other folks *were* on offer, and Trump was chosen from among them.
    Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it’ll be an own goal.

  232. Then “the country” will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.
    Yes, that’s about right. And “people like me” will be working for that in the face of profoundly anti-democratic institutions baked into the Constitution, a generation of gerrymandering, and numerous legal efforts on the part of the (R)’s to suppress (D) votes.
    We all have our burden to bear. The (R)’s chose theirs.
    I believe your estimate of the changes the left will make is too conservative.
    You’re entitled to your beliefs, but it’s not in evidence.
    The Green New Deal is the outer limit if what the D’s are asking for. Excluding the guaranteed job thing, it’s infrastructure, public support for higher education and health care, and a change in existing industrial policy toward renewable energy.
    That is as crazy as it gets. And it has way less than universal support among (D)’s.
    You have an entire Republican party. You can’t come up with something better than this?
    It’s worse than that, actually. Other folks *were* on offer, and Trump was chosen from among them.
    Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it’ll be an own goal.

  233. Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it’ll be an own goal.
    I hope that’s what he destroys. I think he’s going to destroy the country. Obviously (with respect to you, russell, who believes in the fortitude of people and their communities, and thank you for that optimism), he won’t destroy all of us. But he’s destroying the government, and we’ll have a lot to rebuild if we manage to take it back. And the government is majestic.

  234. Trump may end up destroying the (R) party. If so, it’ll be an own goal.
    I hope that’s what he destroys. I think he’s going to destroy the country. Obviously (with respect to you, russell, who believes in the fortitude of people and their communities, and thank you for that optimism), he won’t destroy all of us. But he’s destroying the government, and we’ll have a lot to rebuild if we manage to take it back. And the government is majestic.

  235. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions.
    Yeah, sure. You “have to” stand your ground” to defend somebody who combines many of the ugly attributes of Joe Stalin, Bernie Madoff, Ben Tillman, Jay Gould, and Harvey Weinstein.
    Now there is something to be proud of.
    As much as I may criticize the current manifestation going by the name of “The Democratic Party” (of which I am a member), they would never in a thousand years nominate somebody like Donald Trump…He is not just embarrassing, he is a fucking fraud, a crook, congenital liar, an authoritarian, and a narcissistic asshole.
    But you defend this guy to “save the country”?
    Really?
    Really?
    If you ever, and I mean ever, come on to this board and indict lefties because they “believe the ends justify the means” (a favorite McKinney trope) I will simply reply, “Go fuck yourself”.

  236. We have to stand our ground in spite of his constant embarrassing actions.
    Yeah, sure. You “have to” stand your ground” to defend somebody who combines many of the ugly attributes of Joe Stalin, Bernie Madoff, Ben Tillman, Jay Gould, and Harvey Weinstein.
    Now there is something to be proud of.
    As much as I may criticize the current manifestation going by the name of “The Democratic Party” (of which I am a member), they would never in a thousand years nominate somebody like Donald Trump…He is not just embarrassing, he is a fucking fraud, a crook, congenital liar, an authoritarian, and a narcissistic asshole.
    But you defend this guy to “save the country”?
    Really?
    Really?
    If you ever, and I mean ever, come on to this board and indict lefties because they “believe the ends justify the means” (a favorite McKinney trope) I will simply reply, “Go fuck yourself”.

  237. Here’s what Marty apparently want to “save the country from”:
    A reasonable national health care policy that is easily accessible and available to all regardless of income.
    A woman’s right to chose to carry a pregnancy to term or not.
    A more liberal and rational immigration policy coupled with a path to citizenship for those who entered our country without Marty’s approval.
    Public policies that would not only encourage, but actually reduce vast disparities of wealth and income, as opposed to policies explicitly designed to favor the wealthy and powerful.
    Public policies that would severely punish verifiable acts of racism.
    Now me, I am an extremist outlier. I opine that private property is essentially a form of theft. But the policies that Marty opposes, listed above, are pretty mild beer if you ask me.

  238. Here’s what Marty apparently want to “save the country from”:
    A reasonable national health care policy that is easily accessible and available to all regardless of income.
    A woman’s right to chose to carry a pregnancy to term or not.
    A more liberal and rational immigration policy coupled with a path to citizenship for those who entered our country without Marty’s approval.
    Public policies that would not only encourage, but actually reduce vast disparities of wealth and income, as opposed to policies explicitly designed to favor the wealthy and powerful.
    Public policies that would severely punish verifiable acts of racism.
    Now me, I am an extremist outlier. I opine that private property is essentially a form of theft. But the policies that Marty opposes, listed above, are pretty mild beer if you ask me.

  239. Then “the country” will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.
    Would it be rude to point this out?
    “The country” did vote against. By some 3 million votes in 2016. And by something over 8.5 million votes in 2018. Unfortunately, their desire to save the country doesn’t appear to have succeeded. Yet.

  240. Then “the country” will vote against my preferences and my desire to save the country will have failed. Their desire to save the country will have succeeded.
    Would it be rude to point this out?
    “The country” did vote against. By some 3 million votes in 2016. And by something over 8.5 million votes in 2018. Unfortunately, their desire to save the country doesn’t appear to have succeeded. Yet.

  241. “The country” did vote against. By some 3 million votes in 2016.
    Similarly in 2000 “the country” voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush. It is important to not let this fact go down the memory hole.
    GWB was elected 5-4 by a partisan Supreme Court.

  242. “The country” did vote against. By some 3 million votes in 2016.
    Similarly in 2000 “the country” voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush. It is important to not let this fact go down the memory hole.
    GWB was elected 5-4 by a partisan Supreme Court.

  243. It was them snooty city folks not down-to-earth country that voted for them elitist fops. Going by the acre there is no question who the o’erwhemlming favorite always was.
    Old Trump Donald may not have a farm but real estate comes close enough for him to be esteemed proper country folk. An lookin at how he swings his golf club, ye see that he is far more familiar with a hoe. Didn’t ye hear that he spend hundreds of thousands of $$$ on hoes? An them media puffs try to make that look dirty. Tilling the land is dirty ye ignorant townies but in a honest way ye’ll never grasp.
    Hm, where did I put them hayseeds again? Did one of ye popinjays palm them?

  244. It was them snooty city folks not down-to-earth country that voted for them elitist fops. Going by the acre there is no question who the o’erwhemlming favorite always was.
    Old Trump Donald may not have a farm but real estate comes close enough for him to be esteemed proper country folk. An lookin at how he swings his golf club, ye see that he is far more familiar with a hoe. Didn’t ye hear that he spend hundreds of thousands of $$$ on hoes? An them media puffs try to make that look dirty. Tilling the land is dirty ye ignorant townies but in a honest way ye’ll never grasp.
    Hm, where did I put them hayseeds again? Did one of ye popinjays palm them?

  245. By some 3 million votes in 2016.
    3 million is the difference between votes for Clinton and votes for Trump.
    The difference between votes for Trump and votes for not-Trump was more like 10 million.

  246. By some 3 million votes in 2016.
    3 million is the difference between votes for Clinton and votes for Trump.
    The difference between votes for Trump and votes for not-Trump was more like 10 million.

  247. Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million. It’s always losers that complain about the rules.

  248. Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million. It’s always losers that complain about the rules.

  251. Wether 3 million (Trump) or 500.000 (Bush), I would be careful with these type of arguments.
    Elevating a razor thin majority to something like “the country” is inherently dangerous, whoever does it. It excludes a large part of the voters from the political process and doing this while proclaiming the winners to represent “the will of the people” is a key populist tactic. Another danger is that it can lead to the dismantling of the representative elements of democracy. Finally, just because the majority wants something, doesn’t mean it’s right.
    Granted, I have a UK perspective and having been excluded from “the people” for the past 3 years makes me particularly critical of such views. (not that I’m a fan of FPTP or the electoral college for that matter).

  252. Wether 3 million (Trump) or 500.000 (Bush), I would be careful with these type of arguments.
    Elevating a razor thin majority to something like “the country” is inherently dangerous, whoever does it. It excludes a large part of the voters from the political process and doing this while proclaiming the winners to represent “the will of the people” is a key populist tactic. Another danger is that it can lead to the dismantling of the representative elements of democracy. Finally, just because the majority wants something, doesn’t mean it’s right.
    Granted, I have a UK perspective and having been excluded from “the people” for the past 3 years makes me particularly critical of such views. (not that I’m a fan of FPTP or the electoral college for that matter).

  253. It’s not all bad news – a significant majority of Republican voters believe that climate change should be taught in schools:
    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439962-poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-believe-climate-change-should-be
    (Though only half of them say its effects should be discussed…)
    And following the credible roadmap to zero carbon emissions published recently, there’s another rational proposal towards a global approach for the rest of the environment:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-04-life-earth-billion-a-year-solution.html
    As far as protecting our future is concerned, it remains imperative to kick Trump out of office in 2020.
    Marty’s inchoate fears of social democracy don’t even register on the scale.

  254. It’s not all bad news – a significant majority of Republican voters believe that climate change should be taught in schools:
    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439962-poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-believe-climate-change-should-be
    (Though only half of them say its effects should be discussed…)
    And following the credible roadmap to zero carbon emissions published recently, there’s another rational proposal towards a global approach for the rest of the environment:
    https://phys.org/news/2019-04-life-earth-billion-a-year-solution.html
    As far as protecting our future is concerned, it remains imperative to kick Trump out of office in 2020.
    Marty’s inchoate fears of social democracy don’t even register on the scale.

  255. the party of Conspicuous Patriotism and Traditional Family Values is surprisingly quick to find ways to excuse the traitorous Russia-coddling, porn-star-fucking, daughter-lusting, serial-bankrupting, vote-losing, serial-divorcee.
    that’s the best part of Trumpism – the mad dash by “conservatives” to abandon everything the GOP previously claimed to stand for just so they can support this pathetic compromised ignoramus. it’s all gone. all those years of Bible-thumping and flag-waving and Constitution-fetishism to build the reputation of being the party of God and country and rule of law: they just flushed it down Trump’s golden toilet.
    and in reality, they’d get their precious justices and their xenophobia and myriad small-minded bigotries from literally any other Republican – without Trump’s “constant embarrassing actions”, too. there’s nothing special about Trump. none of his successes in office are due to him – they’re just the what the office provides for. any Republican would have the same outcomes. but no. they’re so committed to not ever admitting that a liberal was right about anything that they’re going to let the crass criminal clown Trump continue to embarrass them and the country, while destroying their own party’s carefully-constructed brand, rather than drop him and let Pence deliver the goodies.
    “hard choices”? no, the choice is trivially simple. impeach Trump, then let Pence run things. you lose nothing. you even get to go back to pretending to care about the rule of law! let the moralizer absolve you of your association with the adulterer.

  256. the party of Conspicuous Patriotism and Traditional Family Values is surprisingly quick to find ways to excuse the traitorous Russia-coddling, porn-star-fucking, daughter-lusting, serial-bankrupting, vote-losing, serial-divorcee.
    that’s the best part of Trumpism – the mad dash by “conservatives” to abandon everything the GOP previously claimed to stand for just so they can support this pathetic compromised ignoramus. it’s all gone. all those years of Bible-thumping and flag-waving and Constitution-fetishism to build the reputation of being the party of God and country and rule of law: they just flushed it down Trump’s golden toilet.
    and in reality, they’d get their precious justices and their xenophobia and myriad small-minded bigotries from literally any other Republican – without Trump’s “constant embarrassing actions”, too. there’s nothing special about Trump. none of his successes in office are due to him – they’re just the what the office provides for. any Republican would have the same outcomes. but no. they’re so committed to not ever admitting that a liberal was right about anything that they’re going to let the crass criminal clown Trump continue to embarrass them and the country, while destroying their own party’s carefully-constructed brand, rather than drop him and let Pence deliver the goodies.
    “hard choices”? no, the choice is trivially simple. impeach Trump, then let Pence run things. you lose nothing. you even get to go back to pretending to care about the rule of law! let the moralizer absolve you of your association with the adulterer.

  259. Power isn’t the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    Marty, would you have voted for Mussolini in 1924 against the Unitary Socialist Party and its allies? If not why not?

  260. Power isn’t the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    Marty, would you have voted for Mussolini in 1924 against the Unitary Socialist Party and its allies? If not why not?

  261. Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million. It’s always losers that complain about the rules.
    Which still doesn’t come close to the 2018 difference now, does it?
    Sometimes it is, indeed, losers who complain about the rules. But then, it wasn’t a Democrat who characterized increasing voter registration as “a power grab.” By which Mitch meant that he knew he’d lose if the rules were followed as written.

  262. Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million. It’s always losers that complain about the rules.
    Which still doesn’t come close to the 2018 difference now, does it?
    Sometimes it is, indeed, losers who complain about the rules. But then, it wasn’t a Democrat who characterized increasing voter registration as “a power grab.” By which Mitch meant that he knew he’d lose if the rules were followed as written.

  265. Seemingly off-topic, but not if consider the corrupt, cheating, election-stealing worldwide “p/conservative” movement a monolithic, coordinated thing.
    Not really seeing monolithic. And while there is some mutual cheering, not seeing much coordination either.
    Except that the Russians are wading in to help wherever they can and however they can. But that’s support, not really coordination. Yet.

  266. Seemingly off-topic, but not if consider the corrupt, cheating, election-stealing worldwide “p/conservative” movement a monolithic, coordinated thing.
    Not really seeing monolithic. And while there is some mutual cheering, not seeing much coordination either.
    Except that the Russians are wading in to help wherever they can and however they can. But that’s support, not really coordination. Yet.

  267. Sapient,
    I have nothing but contempt for people who contributed to [electing Trump], including those who voted third party.
    Me too.
    Voting is not self-expression. It’s about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.
    If you hate Trump, vote for Clinton, and vice versa.

  268. Sapient,
    I have nothing but contempt for people who contributed to [electing Trump], including those who voted third party.
    Me too.
    Voting is not self-expression. It’s about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.
    If you hate Trump, vote for Clinton, and vice versa.

  269. wj, it’s the kind of meddling the US used to love when done by the US to others, so in a sense it’s just desserts. The problem is a double one. Far too many USians can’t drop the notion that it’s OK if the US do it and still too many see no problem when the meddling at home is in one own’s perceived favor.

  270. wj, it’s the kind of meddling the US used to love when done by the US to others, so in a sense it’s just desserts. The problem is a double one. Far too many USians can’t drop the notion that it’s OK if the US do it and still too many see no problem when the meddling at home is in one own’s perceived favor.

  271. Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million.
    4 is less than 10.
    It’s always losers that complain about the rules.
    A thoughtful reply. I guess you showed me!

  272. Votes for Hillary versus votes for not Hillary was 4 million.
    4 is less than 10.
    It’s always losers that complain about the rules.
    A thoughtful reply. I guess you showed me!

  273. Finally, just because the majority wants something, doesn’t mean it’s right.
    There are a significant number of barriers to mob rule baked into the US Constitution and our legal institutions in general.
    Separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights. A bicameral legislature, one house of which is explicitly non-democratic.
    The Electoral College has devolved from the body of elite, informed arbiters of the popular will, to a regime where all of the electors in any given state except two dutifully cast all of their votes for whichever candidate had the most votes in their state. Electors are not chosen for their maturity and wisdom, they are chosen for their loyalty to whatever party they belong to.
    Basically, the Electoral College is a scheme for electing a POTUS by rounding up the popular vote at the state level. Which is not really what was intended, nor does it serve any useful purpose other than making hotel rooms and media buy rates really expensive in “swing states” every four years.
    The POTUS and VPOTUS are the only two national elected positions that are intended to represent all of the people. They should be elected by the people. Not the states, not the electors. The electoral college should go away. It no longer fulfills whatever purpose it was originally created for, and that original purpose is questionable to begin with.

  274. Finally, just because the majority wants something, doesn’t mean it’s right.
    There are a significant number of barriers to mob rule baked into the US Constitution and our legal institutions in general.
    Separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights. A bicameral legislature, one house of which is explicitly non-democratic.
    The Electoral College has devolved from the body of elite, informed arbiters of the popular will, to a regime where all of the electors in any given state except two dutifully cast all of their votes for whichever candidate had the most votes in their state. Electors are not chosen for their maturity and wisdom, they are chosen for their loyalty to whatever party they belong to.
    Basically, the Electoral College is a scheme for electing a POTUS by rounding up the popular vote at the state level. Which is not really what was intended, nor does it serve any useful purpose other than making hotel rooms and media buy rates really expensive in “swing states” every four years.
    The POTUS and VPOTUS are the only two national elected positions that are intended to represent all of the people. They should be elected by the people. Not the states, not the electors. The electoral college should go away. It no longer fulfills whatever purpose it was originally created for, and that original purpose is questionable to begin with.

  275. Welp, wj is a wait-until-we-see-the whites-of-their-eyes kind of guy. %-!
    I don’t know, American paleo-conservatives were all over the old Soviet monolith secretly running the U.S. and Brit government shows from 1920 on, but now 100 years later KGB Putin, p, and the Brexiteers hold hands, cut ribbons, and announce “solidarity” across national borders in clear daylight and it’s “nothing to see here” and, in fact, if you read the spectrum of writers at The American Conservative, from Pat Buchanan on down, with the exception of Larison in most cases, the global right-wing is interlinking arms with Putin and doing vodka shots.
    Who will follow Pompeo, that cuck, as Secretary of State? Alger Hiss Junior?
    I’ve never seen anything like like this switch-o-change-o as a historical spectacle across “the swamp of time”, as Bob Dylan put it.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-extremists-are-training-right-wing-terrorists-from-western-europe
    So which is it, I’m asking the Putin/Buchanan /p/republican Axis, is George Soros a commie plant, meddling Jew, as right-wing vermin held him to be not so awfully long ago, or a Nazi-sympathizing, meddling Jew as right wing vermin also held to be not too long ago or a liberal, capitalist, globalist, meddling Jew, as he is now held in low esteem by the usual vermin right wing suspects, and I include Netanyahu among those latter suspects, across the globe?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2018/03/01/why-populists-hate-george-soros-and-how-it-started/#1793659e13d0
    Well, it’s the usual populist, right-wing, bottom line murderous crap throughout the eons: Soros is a Jew .. period.
    The other adjectives are mere convenient descriptive plug-ins to further the right-wing, populist conservative conquest of the Other.

  276. Welp, wj is a wait-until-we-see-the whites-of-their-eyes kind of guy. %-!
    I don’t know, American paleo-conservatives were all over the old Soviet monolith secretly running the U.S. and Brit government shows from 1920 on, but now 100 years later KGB Putin, p, and the Brexiteers hold hands, cut ribbons, and announce “solidarity” across national borders in clear daylight and it’s “nothing to see here” and, in fact, if you read the spectrum of writers at The American Conservative, from Pat Buchanan on down, with the exception of Larison in most cases, the global right-wing is interlinking arms with Putin and doing vodka shots.
    Who will follow Pompeo, that cuck, as Secretary of State? Alger Hiss Junior?
    I’ve never seen anything like like this switch-o-change-o as a historical spectacle across “the swamp of time”, as Bob Dylan put it.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-extremists-are-training-right-wing-terrorists-from-western-europe
    So which is it, I’m asking the Putin/Buchanan /p/republican Axis, is George Soros a commie plant, meddling Jew, as right-wing vermin held him to be not so awfully long ago, or a Nazi-sympathizing, meddling Jew as right wing vermin also held to be not too long ago or a liberal, capitalist, globalist, meddling Jew, as he is now held in low esteem by the usual vermin right wing suspects, and I include Netanyahu among those latter suspects, across the globe?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2018/03/01/why-populists-hate-george-soros-and-how-it-started/#1793659e13d0
    Well, it’s the usual populist, right-wing, bottom line murderous crap throughout the eons: Soros is a Jew .. period.
    The other adjectives are mere convenient descriptive plug-ins to further the right-wing, populist conservative conquest of the Other.

  281. Welp, wj is a wait-until-we-see-the whites-of-their-eyes kind of guy.
    More like I see a distinction between being soul-mates and actually working in coordination. Soul mates I will grant you. It’s the rest that I don’t see evidence for.

  282. Welp, wj is a wait-until-we-see-the whites-of-their-eyes kind of guy.
    More like I see a distinction between being soul-mates and actually working in coordination. Soul mates I will grant you. It’s the rest that I don’t see evidence for.

  285. Minor quibble, JDT, the Brexiteers are not the British government, but merely a large subset thereof.
    Otherwise we’d already have left.

  286. Minor quibble, JDT, the Brexiteers are not the British government, but merely a large subset thereof.
    Otherwise we’d already have left.

  287. Voting is not self-expression. It’s about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.
    What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far. Furthermore the actual outcomes is more often than not a drift to the right, so you’re getting screwed in the long run as well.
    This problem only comes up because of the 2-party system in the US and (for the most part) the UK – coalition governments are actually the norm in many successful democracies making the issue less relevant there.

  288. Voting is not self-expression. It’s about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.
    What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far. Furthermore the actual outcomes is more often than not a drift to the right, so you’re getting screwed in the long run as well.
    This problem only comes up because of the 2-party system in the US and (for the most part) the UK – coalition governments are actually the norm in many successful democracies making the issue less relevant there.

  289. What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far.
    I would say that, at that point, the question becomes: Is one of the two substantially worse than the other? If not, then a third party may be a rational choice. But if one is substantially worse, then the rational choice is to vote for the less bad candidate. It certainly is not a happy choice, but sometimes “the alternatives are worse” is something that must be recognized.

  290. What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far.
    I would say that, at that point, the question becomes: Is one of the two substantially worse than the other? If not, then a third party may be a rational choice. But if one is substantially worse, then the rational choice is to vote for the less bad candidate. It certainly is not a happy choice, but sometimes “the alternatives are worse” is something that must be recognized.

  291. “Voting is not self-expression. It’s about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.
    If you hate Trump, vote for Clinton, and vice versa.”
    I accept this for myself–I vote lesser evil. But I don’t accept it as a reason to browbeat others. Democrats have been using this argument online for many years now and I think it has a problem–it puts all the moral responsibility on the voter and none on the two political parties or the politicians. All the politician or the party has to do is be less bad than the other side and then it becomes everyone’s absolute moral duty to vote for them.
    And then the argument gets extended a little further–you can’t criticize them very much either. Or at all. Or run against them in primaries. Etc…
    So getting back to myself–I have zero interest in third parties and will vote lesser evil, but if I am going to be self-righteous on some subject, and of course I am, it’s going to be about something other than a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive (as opposed to a chore you do to oppose the other person who is even worse.)

  292. “Voting is not self-expression. It’s about choosing political leaders. Voters have an obligation to everyone else to act rationally.
    If you hate Trump, vote for Clinton, and vice versa.”
    I accept this for myself–I vote lesser evil. But I don’t accept it as a reason to browbeat others. Democrats have been using this argument online for many years now and I think it has a problem–it puts all the moral responsibility on the voter and none on the two political parties or the politicians. All the politician or the party has to do is be less bad than the other side and then it becomes everyone’s absolute moral duty to vote for them.
    And then the argument gets extended a little further–you can’t criticize them very much either. Or at all. Or run against them in primaries. Etc…
    So getting back to myself–I have zero interest in third parties and will vote lesser evil, but if I am going to be self-righteous on some subject, and of course I am, it’s going to be about something other than a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive (as opposed to a chore you do to oppose the other person who is even worse.)

  295. novakant,
    What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far.
    Well, that depends on the core principles involved, I’d say. I can imagine some that would convince me the third-party vote was fine, but I have a hard time seeing any such at play in recent elections. What core principle caused Nader voters to prefer Nader to Gore, or Bush for that matter? Why Jill Stein?
    Donald,
    Criticizing self-righteousness is all well and good, but may I suggest you turn your attention to third-party voters. You’ll find plenty there.

  296. novakant,
    What if both candidates / parties violate one or more of your core principles? Forcing someone to betray these is hard for obvious reasons and a utilitarian calculus only goes so far.
    Well, that depends on the core principles involved, I’d say. I can imagine some that would convince me the third-party vote was fine, but I have a hard time seeing any such at play in recent elections. What core principle caused Nader voters to prefer Nader to Gore, or Bush for that matter? Why Jill Stein?
    Donald,
    Criticizing self-righteousness is all well and good, but may I suggest you turn your attention to third-party voters. You’ll find plenty there.

  299. Byomtov—
    The self righteousness part wasn’t the point—on that my view is that almost everyone ( definitely including me ) who is caught up in arguing about politics becomes self righteous. We just manifest it in different ways on different issues.
    My point was that the argument that we have to vote for one of the two main parties places all the responsibility on the voters and none on the candidate, except not to be as bad as the other side. We owe the candidate our vote. They owe us nothing, except to be less bad than the other side. I think it is in reality an ideological argument in favor of the status quo disguised as a civic virtue argument, even though I happen to agree that third party voting in our system doesn’t seem to accomplish anything useful.

  300. Byomtov—
    The self righteousness part wasn’t the point—on that my view is that almost everyone ( definitely including me ) who is caught up in arguing about politics becomes self righteous. We just manifest it in different ways on different issues.
    My point was that the argument that we have to vote for one of the two main parties places all the responsibility on the voters and none on the candidate, except not to be as bad as the other side. We owe the candidate our vote. They owe us nothing, except to be less bad than the other side. I think it is in reality an ideological argument in favor of the status quo disguised as a civic virtue argument, even though I happen to agree that third party voting in our system doesn’t seem to accomplish anything useful.

  305. an armed society is a polite society
    But ONLY if there are no consequences for shooting someone who is rude. Most places, rudeness is not considered an appropriate capital offense. YMMV

  306. an armed society is a polite society
    But ONLY if there are no consequences for shooting someone who is rude. Most places, rudeness is not considered an appropriate capital offense. YMMV

  313. One thing to be said in favour of impeachment is that it would force the compulsive liar to testify under oath.

  314. One thing to be said in favour of impeachment is that it would force the compulsive liar to testify under oath.

  315. Nigel: Really? I don’t recall Nixon ever testifying during his impeachment trial. I’m not sure Congress could compel him to. But, of course, IANAL.

  316. Nigel: Really? I don’t recall Nixon ever testifying during his impeachment trial. I’m not sure Congress could compel him to. But, of course, IANAL.

  321. a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive
    even the worst politicians try to make voting for them attractive.
    the problem is that we all have our own definition of “attractive”, and no politician can satisfy everyone’s definition.

  322. a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive
    even the worst politicians try to make voting for them attractive.
    the problem is that we all have our own definition of “attractive”, and no politician can satisfy everyone’s definition.

  323. a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive
    I think that if Democratic Party candidates ask Republican-leaning voters to support them, in order to save democracy in the USA, the candidates should in return eschew policies which those voters hate. I agree with Marty that he cannot be expected to vote for socialism.
    I suggest the “Angela Merkel test”. If Ms Merkel would be comfortable with a policy position, then it should be unobjectionable to reasonable Republicans. Or we could make it the “Merkel-May test” – Theresa May has to be comfortable with it too.
    That’s not very restrictive: it allows for universal healthcare, a 45% top income tax rate, early abortion effectively on demand, and some restrictions on gun ownership.
    If Marty thinks that Merkel and May are socialists, then he is not a reasonable Republican. Are there any?

  324. a theory of how one is supposed to vote for politicians while politicians have zero responsibility to take positions that make voting for them attractive
    I think that if Democratic Party candidates ask Republican-leaning voters to support them, in order to save democracy in the USA, the candidates should in return eschew policies which those voters hate. I agree with Marty that he cannot be expected to vote for socialism.
    I suggest the “Angela Merkel test”. If Ms Merkel would be comfortable with a policy position, then it should be unobjectionable to reasonable Republicans. Or we could make it the “Merkel-May test” – Theresa May has to be comfortable with it too.
    That’s not very restrictive: it allows for universal healthcare, a 45% top income tax rate, early abortion effectively on demand, and some restrictions on gun ownership.
    If Marty thinks that Merkel and May are socialists, then he is not a reasonable Republican. Are there any?

  325. You underestimate how much Angie has become a symbol for what is wrong with Europe on the US Right (and parts of the Euopean Right by now too). Utterly pragmatic and not a proponent of a total refugee and Muslim ban, both a no-no. And like Obama she gets painted as a tyrant. There are whole books of editorial cartoons with her as Frederick the Great, Bismarck or Hitler (a favorite of British tabloids afaik).
    Until now she successfully took the lessons of her mentor and predecessor to heart and thus avoided numerous stabs in the back (most from her nominal Bavarian allies) but she knows that her time is up and is willing to leave on her own terms (after the next election). I fear she is a dying breed among the European conservatives.

  326. You underestimate how much Angie has become a symbol for what is wrong with Europe on the US Right (and parts of the Euopean Right by now too). Utterly pragmatic and not a proponent of a total refugee and Muslim ban, both a no-no. And like Obama she gets painted as a tyrant. There are whole books of editorial cartoons with her as Frederick the Great, Bismarck or Hitler (a favorite of British tabloids afaik).
    Until now she successfully took the lessons of her mentor and predecessor to heart and thus avoided numerous stabs in the back (most from her nominal Bavarian allies) but she knows that her time is up and is willing to leave on her own terms (after the next election). I fear she is a dying breed among the European conservatives.

  329. What Hartmut points out re Merkel’s portrayal by the enemies to her right is the highly effective and malign and poisonous conservative puke funnel, now a worldwide coordinated always on-script scourge.
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/obama-smears-shouldve-taught-democrats-to-defend-ilhan-omar.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=di
    At some point, the antidote will be discovered.
    I mean, it has been discovered but decent folk won’t use it.

  330. What Hartmut points out re Merkel’s portrayal by the enemies to her right is the highly effective and malign and poisonous conservative puke funnel, now a worldwide coordinated always on-script scourge.
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/obama-smears-shouldve-taught-democrats-to-defend-ilhan-omar.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=di
    At some point, the antidote will be discovered.
    I mean, it has been discovered but decent folk won’t use it.

  331. At some point, the antidote will be discovered.
    I mean, it has been discovered but decent folk won’t use it.
    Anti-vaxers we will have always with us. 😉

  332. At some point, the antidote will be discovered.
    I mean, it has been discovered but decent folk won’t use it.
    Anti-vaxers we will have always with us. 😉

  335. Looking over today’s news, now that the information in the (redacted) Mueller report has been reviewed, it appears that Democrats are settling into two groups on the question of impeachment.
    On one hand, we have those who want to move on impeachment RIGHT NOW!
    On the other hand, we have those who want to hold investigative hearings first, and get all their ducks in a row, before starting formal impeachment proceedings.
    My sense is that it’s going to happen. The only questions are when, and how solidly the case will be built before acting. Not because anyone expects that the Senate will vote based on the facts. But because there are differing views about the damage Republicans in Congress will suffer at the polls under the different scenarios.

  336. Looking over today’s news, now that the information in the (redacted) Mueller report has been reviewed, it appears that Democrats are settling into two groups on the question of impeachment.
    On one hand, we have those who want to move on impeachment RIGHT NOW!
    On the other hand, we have those who want to hold investigative hearings first, and get all their ducks in a row, before starting formal impeachment proceedings.
    My sense is that it’s going to happen. The only questions are when, and how solidly the case will be built before acting. Not because anyone expects that the Senate will vote based on the facts. But because there are differing views about the damage Republicans in Congress will suffer at the polls under the different scenarios.

  337. Different topic. John Thullen implied that most of the writers at American Conservative are sort of nasty, Larison excluded. I partly disagree. Some are pretty bad (Buchanan). Some are a mixed bag, good on some days and/or topics, bad on others (from my pov). But some are great.
    Which is a lead up to this article. No, it’s not anything deep and I’m not making a point with it that anyone here would find disagreeable. Just pointing to a good piece–
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-other-side-of-allahu-akbar/

  338. Different topic. John Thullen implied that most of the writers at American Conservative are sort of nasty, Larison excluded. I partly disagree. Some are pretty bad (Buchanan). Some are a mixed bag, good on some days and/or topics, bad on others (from my pov). But some are great.
    Which is a lead up to this article. No, it’s not anything deep and I’m not making a point with it that anyone here would find disagreeable. Just pointing to a good piece–
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-other-side-of-allahu-akbar/

  339. My judgement on the TAC stable of writers was general.
    They do run interesting stuff besides strictly political subjects that I enjoy, including the article, Donald, you link to, which I read this morning.
    I may even comment my congratulations to that writer on his thread.
    I read Rod Dreher, but he drives me crazy above and beyond my bedrock disagreements with him, similar to how financial “guru” Jim Cramer drives me around the bend.
    Talk about nattering nabobs.
    Some interesting news:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mckean-defects-to-democratic-party
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hogan-renews-primary-buzz-wake-mueller-report
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-transition-staffer-makes-case-for-impeachment-based-on-mueller-findings
    Now this:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/netanyahu-golan-settlement-trump-1287655
    After a thorough evacuation of all human life in that settlement, along with such animals the inhabitants may possess, that settlement should be razed before p’s feces brand can be affixed to it.
    Otherwise, I will start an online cash drive to recruit money from right wing, Alt-right America to build a monument to Vlad Putin on the Washington Mall, which depicts him as the architect of the p tax cuts to draw in money from mainstream republicans as well. I’ll make up a claim that we’ll scrap the MLK monument and put Putin in its place to secure racist, bigoted millions for the project, because the more shit that you make up in America, the more successful a guy can be.
    Also:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-massive-resistance
    I hold to my prediction that this catastrophe will end in the penthouse of Mar-a-Lago as p and his wingmen and wingwomen are taken into custody and ousted from our government by force and in shackles, with significant violence required by the arresting authorities to gain access to and secure the building and its perimeter from the filth who will kill to save him.

  340. My judgement on the TAC stable of writers was general.
    They do run interesting stuff besides strictly political subjects that I enjoy, including the article, Donald, you link to, which I read this morning.
    I may even comment my congratulations to that writer on his thread.
    I read Rod Dreher, but he drives me crazy above and beyond my bedrock disagreements with him, similar to how financial “guru” Jim Cramer drives me around the bend.
    Talk about nattering nabobs.
    Some interesting news:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mckean-defects-to-democratic-party
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hogan-renews-primary-buzz-wake-mueller-report
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-transition-staffer-makes-case-for-impeachment-based-on-mueller-findings
    Now this:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/23/netanyahu-golan-settlement-trump-1287655
    After a thorough evacuation of all human life in that settlement, along with such animals the inhabitants may possess, that settlement should be razed before p’s feces brand can be affixed to it.
    Otherwise, I will start an online cash drive to recruit money from right wing, Alt-right America to build a monument to Vlad Putin on the Washington Mall, which depicts him as the architect of the p tax cuts to draw in money from mainstream republicans as well. I’ll make up a claim that we’ll scrap the MLK monument and put Putin in its place to secure racist, bigoted millions for the project, because the more shit that you make up in America, the more successful a guy can be.
    Also:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-massive-resistance
    I hold to my prediction that this catastrophe will end in the penthouse of Mar-a-Lago as p and his wingmen and wingwomen are taken into custody and ousted from our government by force and in shackles, with significant violence required by the arresting authorities to gain access to and secure the building and its perimeter from the filth who will kill to save him.

  345. Pro Bono, I have to ask, you are in the UK, right? When was the last time you were in the US?
    Just pointing to a good piece
    It’s remarkable how your view of people changes when you actually meet them.

  346. Pro Bono, I have to ask, you are in the UK, right? When was the last time you were in the US?
    Just pointing to a good piece
    It’s remarkable how your view of people changes when you actually meet them.

  349. Regarding Pro Bono’s 10:01, I’d also note that Sanders is sufficiently attached to property rights to assert his copyright on a book which made him a millionaire.
    That he’d have been willing to pay significantly more tax on his earnings hardly makes him a communist…

  350. Regarding Pro Bono’s 10:01, I’d also note that Sanders is sufficiently attached to property rights to assert his copyright on a book which made him a millionaire.
    That he’d have been willing to pay significantly more tax on his earnings hardly makes him a communist…

  351. Instead of the Jasons, we now have JASON in charge with his finger on everything nuclear holocaust-related.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/23/trump-had-a-very-smart-uncle/
    Not Charles-in-Charge, JASON-in-Charge.
    All those not incinerated before November 2020 get a big tax cut to stimulate a buy-in on global megadeath from the usual fucking vermin American suspects.
    This move was demanded by Putin. His man in Washington spent 90 minutes learning all there is know about nuclear weapons technology, remember. He conducted war games between his peas and mashed potatoes from his high chair perch and made explosion noises with his filthy republican mouth.
    As always, the damned peas won.
    Also this, which is directly related to the American Christian Right’s hunger for the End Days … see the very sneaky creep toward nuclear proliferation and annihilation above.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48031045
    That Golan Heights settlement, after all of the human inhabitants are evacuated, along with their pets, and livestock, must be razed BEFORE p gets his feces brand all over it.
    I’m sticking by my prediction that this catastrophe will end with p and his wingmen, wingwomen, and wingchildren hold up in the penthouse of Mar-a-Lago, where they have been attempting to dictate U.S. gummint for months after refusing to leave the Office of the Presidency as U.S. Special Forces (the pro-p members of whom will be dismissed or executed) fight their way thru the armed p dingbats along the perimeter of that overpriced hospitality monstrosity, scale the walls, belay from the roof, and take floor after floor and take our country back.
    The assorted corpses of all of the various militia groups we’ve heard from these many vermin conservative years, some of whom will later be identified as highly-trained Soviet and Saudi agents smuggled into the country to keep p in power will lay dead three-deep in the hallways.
    Sebastian Gorka will be found in a fetal position in the freight elevator with a diaper-full, whimpering for Daddy.
    The other personalities we have grown to love will require lengthy forensics to identify, given the carnage.
    Hannity, maybe Pence, will go missing, natch.
    Those types never fully drink the poison, their eyes being on the next vermin right-wing grift after granted new identities and radical plastic surgery by the deep deep conservative state.
    If you guys met me in person, and a few have, you’d think, gee, he SEEMS perfectly normal.
    You should write a bestselling trash fiction novel about such a thing, John!
    Why, when writing reality is so much more accurate?
    A long read, and have a barf bag close by, as you learn what it is to be an American:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48031045

  352. Instead of the Jasons, we now have JASON in charge with his finger on everything nuclear holocaust-related.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/23/trump-had-a-very-smart-uncle/
    Not Charles-in-Charge, JASON-in-Charge.
    All those not incinerated before November 2020 get a big tax cut to stimulate a buy-in on global megadeath from the usual fucking vermin American suspects.
    This move was demanded by Putin. His man in Washington spent 90 minutes learning all there is know about nuclear weapons technology, remember. He conducted war games between his peas and mashed potatoes from his high chair perch and made explosion noises with his filthy republican mouth.
    As always, the damned peas won.
    Also this, which is directly related to the American Christian Right’s hunger for the End Days … see the very sneaky creep toward nuclear proliferation and annihilation above.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48031045
    That Golan Heights settlement, after all of the human inhabitants are evacuated, along with their pets, and livestock, must be razed BEFORE p gets his feces brand all over it.
    I’m sticking by my prediction that this catastrophe will end with p and his wingmen, wingwomen, and wingchildren hold up in the penthouse of Mar-a-Lago, where they have been attempting to dictate U.S. gummint for months after refusing to leave the Office of the Presidency as U.S. Special Forces (the pro-p members of whom will be dismissed or executed) fight their way thru the armed p dingbats along the perimeter of that overpriced hospitality monstrosity, scale the walls, belay from the roof, and take floor after floor and take our country back.
    The assorted corpses of all of the various militia groups we’ve heard from these many vermin conservative years, some of whom will later be identified as highly-trained Soviet and Saudi agents smuggled into the country to keep p in power will lay dead three-deep in the hallways.
    Sebastian Gorka will be found in a fetal position in the freight elevator with a diaper-full, whimpering for Daddy.
    The other personalities we have grown to love will require lengthy forensics to identify, given the carnage.
    Hannity, maybe Pence, will go missing, natch.
    Those types never fully drink the poison, their eyes being on the next vermin right-wing grift after granted new identities and radical plastic surgery by the deep deep conservative state.
    If you guys met me in person, and a few have, you’d think, gee, he SEEMS perfectly normal.
    You should write a bestselling trash fiction novel about such a thing, John!
    Why, when writing reality is so much more accurate?
    A long read, and have a barf bag close by, as you learn what it is to be an American:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48031045

  357. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/our-neoconfederate-court
    There will an additional question on the Census forms when I have my way.
    With armed followup depending on the answers.
    I worked for the Census Bureau during the 2010 Census.
    I now advise the Erick Erickson, that filth, gambit for all true Americans.
    The census taker can talk to the business end of my wife’s shotgun.
    Fuck you, Republicans. Shove yer gummint up yer fundaments.

  358. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/our-neoconfederate-court
    There will an additional question on the Census forms when I have my way.
    With armed followup depending on the answers.
    I worked for the Census Bureau during the 2010 Census.
    I now advise the Erick Erickson, that filth, gambit for all true Americans.
    The census taker can talk to the business end of my wife’s shotgun.
    Fuck you, Republicans. Shove yer gummint up yer fundaments.

  361. I ask because of this:
    I think that if Democratic Party candidates ask Republican-leaning voters to support them, in order to save democracy in the USA, the candidates should in return eschew policies which those voters hate. I agree with Marty that he cannot be expected to vote for socialism.
    First, I should say that IMO people should vote for whoever they like. I have absolutely no issue with Marty’s – or anyone’s – decision to vote for neither Clinton nor Trump. Or, anyone, if there is nobody on the ballot they would care to vote for.
    If Clinton had won, we would be thanking Marty for voting third party and denying Trump his otherwise reliable (R) vote.
    That said, the “socialism” Marty would hate to vote for would, in the UK, be sensible, right of center, plain old everyday governance. It would be considered a rudimentary program for keeping the lights on.
    The (D)’s should present their position and people should vote for it if they like. I don’t see that pandering to folks like Marty – no disrespect intended – by watering down their positions is going to lead anywhere useful.
    We already have people running for national and other offices who represent Marty’s (as an example, not trying to single him out) point of view. We don’t need more.

  362. I ask because of this:
    I think that if Democratic Party candidates ask Republican-leaning voters to support them, in order to save democracy in the USA, the candidates should in return eschew policies which those voters hate. I agree with Marty that he cannot be expected to vote for socialism.
    First, I should say that IMO people should vote for whoever they like. I have absolutely no issue with Marty’s – or anyone’s – decision to vote for neither Clinton nor Trump. Or, anyone, if there is nobody on the ballot they would care to vote for.
    If Clinton had won, we would be thanking Marty for voting third party and denying Trump his otherwise reliable (R) vote.
    That said, the “socialism” Marty would hate to vote for would, in the UK, be sensible, right of center, plain old everyday governance. It would be considered a rudimentary program for keeping the lights on.
    The (D)’s should present their position and people should vote for it if they like. I don’t see that pandering to folks like Marty – no disrespect intended – by watering down their positions is going to lead anywhere useful.
    We already have people running for national and other offices who represent Marty’s (as an example, not trying to single him out) point of view. We don’t need more.

  365. Did you miss the mild irony in Pro Bono’s post, russell ?
    Apparently, yes.
    Apologies Pro Bono. The last few years have deranged my satire-o-meter.

  366. Did you miss the mild irony in Pro Bono’s post, russell ?
    Apparently, yes.
    Apologies Pro Bono. The last few years have deranged my satire-o-meter.

  367. The last few years have deranged my satire-o-meter.
    It’s a challenge for everyone. What would have been over-the-top satire a few years ago now constitutes official White House announcements.

  368. The last few years have deranged my satire-o-meter.
    It’s a challenge for everyone. What would have been over-the-top satire a few years ago now constitutes official White House announcements.

  369. Whatever happened to “Drop Dead, Yank!” and “We’ll have fighter jets escort Air Force One out of our airspace!” in answer to sub-American louts?
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-suggests-uk-spied-on-him-for-obamawith-absolutely-no-evidence
    And conservative Brit chest-pounders talk about their nationalist pride. Sheesh!
    Whatever happened to “Hey, STFU, Dummy!” in answer to sub-American louts demanding the undemandable?
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-gets-gentle-reassurance-from-twitter-chief-jack-dorsey-over-follower-count-in-white-house-meeting?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
    Gentle reassurance? And victimized conservatives whine about emasculated men over at TAC? What a cuck! What does the latter think is going to happen, Twitter might lose a little market share?
    Grow a pair, Dorsey!
    Did I get pretty close to how a*shole conservatives express themselves?
    Or should I do it with a sort of low-echelon Jersey Mafia lilt in the accent, or maybe go full-Confederate good-ol-boy drawl demanding my slaves not have access to birth control? How bout a rootin-tootin Montana tough hombre, narrow-eyed militia threat low in the throat, while flicking the safety off on my sidearm?
    Or maybe just a flat-of-the-hand stifling a yawn a la Tacitus/Trevino to express the utter tiresomeness of even lowering oneself to entertain for a single second the ravings of this republican lout.

  370. Whatever happened to “Drop Dead, Yank!” and “We’ll have fighter jets escort Air Force One out of our airspace!” in answer to sub-American louts?
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-suggests-uk-spied-on-him-for-obamawith-absolutely-no-evidence
    And conservative Brit chest-pounders talk about their nationalist pride. Sheesh!
    Whatever happened to “Hey, STFU, Dummy!” in answer to sub-American louts demanding the undemandable?
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-gets-gentle-reassurance-from-twitter-chief-jack-dorsey-over-follower-count-in-white-house-meeting?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
    Gentle reassurance? And victimized conservatives whine about emasculated men over at TAC? What a cuck! What does the latter think is going to happen, Twitter might lose a little market share?
    Grow a pair, Dorsey!
    Did I get pretty close to how a*shole conservatives express themselves?
    Or should I do it with a sort of low-echelon Jersey Mafia lilt in the accent, or maybe go full-Confederate good-ol-boy drawl demanding my slaves not have access to birth control? How bout a rootin-tootin Montana tough hombre, narrow-eyed militia threat low in the throat, while flicking the safety off on my sidearm?
    Or maybe just a flat-of-the-hand stifling a yawn a la Tacitus/Trevino to express the utter tiresomeness of even lowering oneself to entertain for a single second the ravings of this republican lout.

  371. “With Absolutely No Evidence, Trump Suggests U.K. Spied on Him For Obama.”
    You gotta admit, it’s a . . . unique . . . way to respond to an invitation from the Queen for a state visit.
    Serve him right if the invitation got withdrawn.

  372. “With Absolutely No Evidence, Trump Suggests U.K. Spied on Him For Obama.”
    You gotta admit, it’s a . . . unique . . . way to respond to an invitation from the Queen for a state visit.
    Serve him right if the invitation got withdrawn.

  373. From a comment thread at TAC (yes, I like very little of their act, but I read all of it, mainly for the book suggestions; the article Donald linked to the other day was pretty good), including a quote from Nigel’s link above citing the p campaign functionary making the case in the op ed for impeachment:
    “This is an op-ed piece, decidedly so because the author, J.W. Verret, writes in first-person. With that, in the best tradition of journalistic due diligence, he builds his case from the beginning, and offers an eyes-wide-open perspective on both his conclusions and the consequences he will face for publicly airing them.
    He is a lawyer, and has extensive experience, so if after reading the entire piece readers decide to not trust him, I can have no response to that other than his words:
    ‘I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.
    The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.'”

  374. From a comment thread at TAC (yes, I like very little of their act, but I read all of it, mainly for the book suggestions; the article Donald linked to the other day was pretty good), including a quote from Nigel’s link above citing the p campaign functionary making the case in the op ed for impeachment:
    “This is an op-ed piece, decidedly so because the author, J.W. Verret, writes in first-person. With that, in the best tradition of journalistic due diligence, he builds his case from the beginning, and offers an eyes-wide-open perspective on both his conclusions and the consequences he will face for publicly airing them.
    He is a lawyer, and has extensive experience, so if after reading the entire piece readers decide to not trust him, I can have no response to that other than his words:
    ‘I wanted to share my experience transitioning from Trump team member to pragmatist about Trump to advocate for his impeachment, because I think many other Republicans are starting a similar transition. Politics is a team sport, and if you actively work within a political party, there is some expectation that you will follow orders and rally behind the leader, even when you disagree. There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.
    The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings.'”

  375. You gotta admit, it’s a . . . unique . . . way to respond to an invitation from the Queen for a state visit.
    Serve him right if the invitation got withdrawn.
    Oh, I’m sure the invitation is still “on”, but it should be to a special room in the Tower.

  376. You gotta admit, it’s a . . . unique . . . way to respond to an invitation from the Queen for a state visit.
    Serve him right if the invitation got withdrawn.
    Oh, I’m sure the invitation is still “on”, but it should be to a special room in the Tower.

  377. The Queen has welcomed worse in the past – a Ceausescu stayed visit, for example.
    Some will protest, and the rest of us will politely ignore the whole thing.

  378. The Queen has welcomed worse in the past – a Ceausescu stayed visit, for example.
    Some will protest, and the rest of us will politely ignore the whole thing.

  381. The Queen is very stoical, and will do her duty. She may, however, send subliminal messages. The last time she met Trump she wore a pretty but insignificant green brooch – given to her by the Obamas. And the Queen is not short of impressive jewelry.

  382. The Queen is very stoical, and will do her duty. She may, however, send subliminal messages. The last time she met Trump she wore a pretty but insignificant green brooch – given to her by the Obamas. And the Queen is not short of impressive jewelry.

  385. The Conservative Justices on the SC are just a bunch of political hacks.
    Some of them are, certainly.
    But before getting too worked up, it might be well to wait and see what decision the Court actually hands down. (It wouldn’t be the first time that reading the tea leaves of the oral arguments and questions gave a wrong prediction.) If they decide to ignore the consistent findings of the lower courts, then yes, “political hacks” will be about the kindest thing one can say about them regarding this case.

  386. The Conservative Justices on the SC are just a bunch of political hacks.
    Some of them are, certainly.
    But before getting too worked up, it might be well to wait and see what decision the Court actually hands down. (It wouldn’t be the first time that reading the tea leaves of the oral arguments and questions gave a wrong prediction.) If they decide to ignore the consistent findings of the lower courts, then yes, “political hacks” will be about the kindest thing one can say about them regarding this case.

  389. If they decide to ignore the consistent findings of the lower courts…
    It’s more if they decide to ignore the actual text of the constitution.
    And agreed, it’s still up in the air, but the signs aren’t good.

  390. If they decide to ignore the consistent findings of the lower courts…
    It’s more if they decide to ignore the actual text of the constitution.
    And agreed, it’s still up in the air, but the signs aren’t good.

  391. the signs aren’t good
    I agree, but reading the transcript I concluded that Roberts, at least, is not prepared to just roll over for Trump.
    If he does, and he well might, then we can safely say that SCOTUS lacks any legitimacy as a court of law, and has become just one more participant in a right-wing coup.

  392. the signs aren’t good
    I agree, but reading the transcript I concluded that Roberts, at least, is not prepared to just roll over for Trump.
    If he does, and he well might, then we can safely say that SCOTUS lacks any legitimacy as a court of law, and has become just one more participant in a right-wing coup.

  393. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    By the time we get to 2021, disagreeing about what color the Capital should be painted will delegitimize the Congress.
    I’m pretty sure whatever they decide they will retain their legitimacy.

  394. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    By the time we get to 2021, disagreeing about what color the Capital should be painted will delegitimize the Congress.
    I’m pretty sure whatever they decide they will retain their legitimacy.

  395. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    Obviously it doesn’t anticipate “illegal” since no such condition existed at the time.
    As for “refusing to answer”, the methodology has evolved over the years. There has always been an undercount of some kind, because inevitably some people fail to be asked and some fail to answer.
    A problem arises when a change is made to deliberately discourage some groups from answering. There are processes and procedures in place to test proposed changes, precisely to assure that doesn’t happen. In this case, those procedures were not followed. And the reasons for not following them were, demonstrably, falsified.

  396. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    Obviously it doesn’t anticipate “illegal” since no such condition existed at the time.
    As for “refusing to answer”, the methodology has evolved over the years. There has always been an undercount of some kind, because inevitably some people fail to be asked and some fail to answer.
    A problem arises when a change is made to deliberately discourage some groups from answering. There are processes and procedures in place to test proposed changes, precisely to assure that doesn’t happen. In this case, those procedures were not followed. And the reasons for not following them were, demonstrably, falsified.

  399. Marty: By the time we get to 2021, disagreeing about what color the Capital should be painted will delegitimize the Congress.
    I admit it: I do not understand the meaning of the above sentence. Can anybody help me? Anybody? Marty?
    –TP

  400. Marty: By the time we get to 2021, disagreeing about what color the Capital should be painted will delegitimize the Congress.
    I admit it: I do not understand the meaning of the above sentence. Can anybody help me? Anybody? Marty?
    –TP

  401. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    As it very clearly includes both citizens and non citizens in the requirement to count, then yes.
    And can you explain what you mean by “illegal” in this context ?
    In terms of law, rather that political talking points.

  402. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    As it very clearly includes both citizens and non citizens in the requirement to count, then yes.
    And can you explain what you mean by “illegal” in this context ?
    In terms of law, rather that political talking points.

  403. I guess Marty is referring to all government buildings in DC being shiny white.
    I’d not be opposed to a Minoan/Mycenean color scheme applied to some (at night this could be done with projectors, so no actual paint job would be necessary).

  404. I guess Marty is referring to all government buildings in DC being shiny white.
    I’d not be opposed to a Minoan/Mycenean color scheme applied to some (at night this could be done with projectors, so no actual paint job would be necessary).

  407. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    Then I would defer to the original intent and the plain text of the passage in question.
    (LOLOLOLOLOL…I’ve waited years to say that.)

  408. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    Then I would defer to the original intent and the plain text of the passage in question.
    (LOLOLOLOLOL…I’ve waited years to say that.)

  409. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    This is simply an emanation in search of a penumbra.

  410. I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.
    This is simply an emanation in search of a penumbra.

  413. Apologies Pro Bono
    Thank you russell, but no need. If I fail to make myself understood to a reasonable person, it’s on me.
    Meanwhile, the Republican Party, despite almost always losing the popular vote, has succeeded in appointing a highly partisan Supreme Court so far right that John Roberts – John Roberts – is the swing vote. And I’ve never heard a Republican express the slightest embarrassment at that.

  414. Apologies Pro Bono
    Thank you russell, but no need. If I fail to make myself understood to a reasonable person, it’s on me.
    Meanwhile, the Republican Party, despite almost always losing the popular vote, has succeeded in appointing a highly partisan Supreme Court so far right that John Roberts – John Roberts – is the swing vote. And I’ve never heard a Republican express the slightest embarrassment at that.

  415. I believe, we are fighting for what’s best for the country and having to make a much harder choice than any Democrat.
    But many of us, me included, think that the means you are using are so destructive that talk of “what’s best” is nonsense, unless you believe that destroying democracy is in its best interest.
    You have every right to argue for and vote your policy preferences. But the means now being used to establish them are essentially an anti-democratic coup.

  416. I believe, we are fighting for what’s best for the country and having to make a much harder choice than any Democrat.
    But many of us, me included, think that the means you are using are so destructive that talk of “what’s best” is nonsense, unless you believe that destroying democracy is in its best interest.
    You have every right to argue for and vote your policy preferences. But the means now being used to establish them are essentially an anti-democratic coup.

  423. I managed to extract the URL from your broken link to get to your comment, if that makes you feel any better.

  424. I managed to extract the URL from your broken link to get to your comment, if that makes you feel any better.

  425. Nigel, yes I was referring to antiquity but the preclassic era (and in particular the pre-dark age) seems to have been even more abundant in colour with geometric and figural paintings on almost any wall.
    I also prefer black-figure vase painting to classical red-figure.
    If we go colour, classical is boooring! Archaic is hip!
    But I am open to compromise: the GOP wing gets an Assyrian scheme while the Dems can chose anything Greek. The common areas have to be Minoan though.

  426. Nigel, yes I was referring to antiquity but the preclassic era (and in particular the pre-dark age) seems to have been even more abundant in colour with geometric and figural paintings on almost any wall.
    I also prefer black-figure vase painting to classical red-figure.
    If we go colour, classical is boooring! Archaic is hip!
    But I am open to compromise: the GOP wing gets an Assyrian scheme while the Dems can chose anything Greek. The common areas have to be Minoan though.

  429. What does it say that, in a dispute between the NRA President and their CEO, one finds oneself aligning with Oliver North? As the lesser evil, of course. But still….

  430. What does it say that, in a dispute between the NRA President and their CEO, one finds oneself aligning with Oliver North? As the lesser evil, of course. But still….

  431. A cautionary tale. Long read, but there be snap quizzes on the fly:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/george-packer-pax-americana-richard-holbrooke/586042/
    Long excerpt:
    “Another place where the American century ended was Bosnia.
    Twenty years after Dayton, five years after Holbrooke died when his aorta tore open during a meeting in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office, a woman in Sarajevo named Aida began to experience insomnia. Though she had lived through the entire siege, she never counted herself among the hundreds of thousands of Bosnians with post-traumatic stress disorder, but now, two decades after the war, she lay awake night after night, unable to take her eyes off the American presidential campaign on TV. Something about the people at Donald Trump’s rallies was deeply familiar to Aida—their clothes, their faces, their teeth, the men’s mustaches, the women’s hair and makeup, the illogic of their grievances, their rage, their need for an enemy. She knew these people, and as she watched them her heartbeat raced, her breathing turned rapid and shallow. She began having flashbacks, not to the war but to the years just before it, when things once unacceptable even to think suddenly became commonplace to say, until every boundary of decency was erased. Moments in the American campaign brought up uncanny counterparts from those years in the Balkans. Late one night, during the Republican National Convention, Aida suddenly heard the voices of 1 million Serbs in the streets of Belgrade shouting for the head of a Kosovar leader—“Arrest Vllasi! Arrest Vllasi!”—while Milošević cupped his ear and goaded them: “I can’t hear you!” In Cleveland they were chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!”
    Aida knew where it would all lead, and she tried to warn her American friends that Trump was going to win. They found this hilarious, especially when she offered them a refuge in her country, in her house—a hiding place in Bosnia after the shit hit the fan in America and her Bay Area friends realized that the other side had all the weapons. Trump’s victory inspired no “I told you so”s from Aida. After all, she had refused to see her own war coming.”
    p and the conservative nationalist movement must be disappeared.

  432. A cautionary tale. Long read, but there be snap quizzes on the fly:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/george-packer-pax-americana-richard-holbrooke/586042/
    Long excerpt:
    “Another place where the American century ended was Bosnia.
    Twenty years after Dayton, five years after Holbrooke died when his aorta tore open during a meeting in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office, a woman in Sarajevo named Aida began to experience insomnia. Though she had lived through the entire siege, she never counted herself among the hundreds of thousands of Bosnians with post-traumatic stress disorder, but now, two decades after the war, she lay awake night after night, unable to take her eyes off the American presidential campaign on TV. Something about the people at Donald Trump’s rallies was deeply familiar to Aida—their clothes, their faces, their teeth, the men’s mustaches, the women’s hair and makeup, the illogic of their grievances, their rage, their need for an enemy. She knew these people, and as she watched them her heartbeat raced, her breathing turned rapid and shallow. She began having flashbacks, not to the war but to the years just before it, when things once unacceptable even to think suddenly became commonplace to say, until every boundary of decency was erased. Moments in the American campaign brought up uncanny counterparts from those years in the Balkans. Late one night, during the Republican National Convention, Aida suddenly heard the voices of 1 million Serbs in the streets of Belgrade shouting for the head of a Kosovar leader—“Arrest Vllasi! Arrest Vllasi!”—while Milošević cupped his ear and goaded them: “I can’t hear you!” In Cleveland they were chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!”
    Aida knew where it would all lead, and she tried to warn her American friends that Trump was going to win. They found this hilarious, especially when she offered them a refuge in her country, in her house—a hiding place in Bosnia after the shit hit the fan in America and her Bay Area friends realized that the other side had all the weapons. Trump’s victory inspired no “I told you so”s from Aida. After all, she had refused to see her own war coming.”
    p and the conservative nationalist movement must be disappeared.

  433. Crooked lockemup nutballs North and LaPierre are accusing each other of various theft and extortion attempts at the Only We Are True AmericaNRA.
    Now, I think each, who are presumably armed at all times to interdict just these types of criminal behavior in the normal everyday goings of life, and the ensuing impoliteness, should try and get the first shot (to goddamned kill each other) in, as they advise the, uh, citizenry to do in similar situations, particularly when set upon with armed force, and are ya tellin me they both forgot to wear sidearms in this case?
    Sez right in the handbook and they did a secret handshake to make it a blood oath.
    But look, both are still standing unharmed.
    Ya know why? They left their guns on the kitchen counter at home where their grand kids are holding the babysitter hostage in the bathroom.
    So, no guns, ipso fatso, Edith, no firearm injuries during those occasions of peak anger and betrayal.
    Fuck them.

  434. Crooked lockemup nutballs North and LaPierre are accusing each other of various theft and extortion attempts at the Only We Are True AmericaNRA.
    Now, I think each, who are presumably armed at all times to interdict just these types of criminal behavior in the normal everyday goings of life, and the ensuing impoliteness, should try and get the first shot (to goddamned kill each other) in, as they advise the, uh, citizenry to do in similar situations, particularly when set upon with armed force, and are ya tellin me they both forgot to wear sidearms in this case?
    Sez right in the handbook and they did a secret handshake to make it a blood oath.
    But look, both are still standing unharmed.
    Ya know why? They left their guns on the kitchen counter at home where their grand kids are holding the babysitter hostage in the bathroom.
    So, no guns, ipso fatso, Edith, no firearm injuries during those occasions of peak anger and betrayal.
    Fuck them.

  437. Sorry. Packer just annoys me. That whole genre annoys me— the one where some bureaucrat with at best a very mixed record is portrayed as some heroic figure.
    The point that nationalism and ethnic hatred are bad things and that we have these problems here I agree with.

  438. Sorry. Packer just annoys me. That whole genre annoys me— the one where some bureaucrat with at best a very mixed record is portrayed as some heroic figure.
    The point that nationalism and ethnic hatred are bad things and that we have these problems here I agree with.

  439. Donald, I get your objections to Packer.
    My opinions of his stuff over the years are at best uneven.
    I’m not sure though how you write about Bosnia and Serbia during the Clinton years without placing Holbrooke at the center, although Holbrooke, as Packer points out, had a stymied diplomatic career as a result of his arrogance and other percieved character flaws and was controversial throughout.
    While I’m at it, since your read TAC regularly, I get a little giddy in the gills when so many of their writers throw in adoringly with grand (in retrospect) historical movements, as if they were there and suffered along with. Their religious and philosophical maunderings strike me as suffering from “extreme heaviosity” to steal from Woody Allen, and I think Packer does a bit of that too.
    It’s the “Tacitus complex”, self-important world-ranging views from a guy with a keyboard, as if he is the real item addressing us from some time in the reign of Nero.
    Get over yourselves.
    TAC’s latest obsession with the “symbolism” of the tragic Notre Dame fire and how the French should rebuild the spire are ripe with martyred self-importance and victimhood, particularly Dreher, who believes, hysterically (not ha ha, but whackadoodle) that he alone is preventing the arches of worldwide Christendom from collapsing from the weight and depredations of “liquid modernity”.
    Many of their writers are a bit jealous of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus, perhaps longing to take their places, although if they learned historically that one of the thieves was LGBT, whoa, hold on Nelly, can we get some burning at the take action going here too.
    I go there mainly for the reading suggestions and to imagine punching Buchanan in his florid face.
    Related to the long quote from the Bosnian woman above:
    https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/04/27/guest-links-trumps-rhetoric-rise-anti-semitism-fox-news-suddenly-cuts-commercial/223579
    FOX must have their broadcasting license revoked.
    Pure anti-Semitic cowardice in defense of the lout p.
    That’s my contribution to the Tacitus complex.
    YMMV.

  440. Donald, I get your objections to Packer.
    My opinions of his stuff over the years are at best uneven.
    I’m not sure though how you write about Bosnia and Serbia during the Clinton years without placing Holbrooke at the center, although Holbrooke, as Packer points out, had a stymied diplomatic career as a result of his arrogance and other percieved character flaws and was controversial throughout.
    While I’m at it, since your read TAC regularly, I get a little giddy in the gills when so many of their writers throw in adoringly with grand (in retrospect) historical movements, as if they were there and suffered along with. Their religious and philosophical maunderings strike me as suffering from “extreme heaviosity” to steal from Woody Allen, and I think Packer does a bit of that too.
    It’s the “Tacitus complex”, self-important world-ranging views from a guy with a keyboard, as if he is the real item addressing us from some time in the reign of Nero.
    Get over yourselves.
    TAC’s latest obsession with the “symbolism” of the tragic Notre Dame fire and how the French should rebuild the spire are ripe with martyred self-importance and victimhood, particularly Dreher, who believes, hysterically (not ha ha, but whackadoodle) that he alone is preventing the arches of worldwide Christendom from collapsing from the weight and depredations of “liquid modernity”.
    Many of their writers are a bit jealous of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus, perhaps longing to take their places, although if they learned historically that one of the thieves was LGBT, whoa, hold on Nelly, can we get some burning at the take action going here too.
    I go there mainly for the reading suggestions and to imagine punching Buchanan in his florid face.
    Related to the long quote from the Bosnian woman above:
    https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/04/27/guest-links-trumps-rhetoric-rise-anti-semitism-fox-news-suddenly-cuts-commercial/223579
    FOX must have their broadcasting license revoked.
    Pure anti-Semitic cowardice in defense of the lout p.
    That’s my contribution to the Tacitus complex.
    YMMV.

  441. I agree with most of that, John. But if one is going to write about Holbrooke, tell the bad as well as the good. And I doubt his motives even in Yugoslavia were that pure, given his actions elsewhere.
    On TAC, you are right about the self dramatization of some of the writers. This is a white American conservative Christian thing. It really is true that Christians in some other countries are suffering from often murderous persecution, but Christians here sometimes like to playact about such things. A Syrian Christian worried about Islamic jihadists is in a slightly different situation from somebody who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

  442. I agree with most of that, John. But if one is going to write about Holbrooke, tell the bad as well as the good. And I doubt his motives even in Yugoslavia were that pure, given his actions elsewhere.
    On TAC, you are right about the self dramatization of some of the writers. This is a white American conservative Christian thing. It really is true that Christians in some other countries are suffering from often murderous persecution, but Christians here sometimes like to playact about such things. A Syrian Christian worried about Islamic jihadists is in a slightly different situation from somebody who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

  443. It seems a bit chancy to discuss “purity of motive” regarding others. Some do have impure motives. But others merely have motives which are different from one’s own.
    It is possible for someone’s motives to be objectionable, but for them to be acting consistently, and not hypocritically, in pursuit of them.
    I would say that impure motives would be correctly imputed to those who claim one set of motives, which actually pursuing other ends.
    I am not sufficiently familiar with Holbrooke to speak to which category he falls into. But I think it worthwhile to avoid being sloppy about how we describe his shortcomings.

  444. It seems a bit chancy to discuss “purity of motive” regarding others. Some do have impure motives. But others merely have motives which are different from one’s own.
    It is possible for someone’s motives to be objectionable, but for them to be acting consistently, and not hypocritically, in pursuit of them.
    I would say that impure motives would be correctly imputed to those who claim one set of motives, which actually pursuing other ends.
    I am not sufficiently familiar with Holbrooke to speak to which category he falls into. But I think it worthwhile to avoid being sloppy about how we describe his shortcomings.

  445. Well, strike the discussion of motives then, but Holbrooke has a poor record on East Timor and the Philippines.
    Different topic. I am familiar with David Bentley Hart in other contexts ( arguing for both Christianity and universalism) , but was slightly surprised and pleased to see this piece in the NYT defending socialism. His sarcasm is sometimes a bit too much ( and a bit pompous) but I think he hits the target here.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/socialism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

  446. Well, strike the discussion of motives then, but Holbrooke has a poor record on East Timor and the Philippines.
    Different topic. I am familiar with David Bentley Hart in other contexts ( arguing for both Christianity and universalism) , but was slightly surprised and pleased to see this piece in the NYT defending socialism. His sarcasm is sometimes a bit too much ( and a bit pompous) but I think he hits the target here.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/socialism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

  447. That is a good piece, Donald, and goes on getting better until its coruscating conclusion. I try to read most of the NYT every day, but missed this. Thank you for pointing it out.

  448. That is a good piece, Donald, and goes on getting better until its coruscating conclusion. I try to read most of the NYT every day, but missed this. Thank you for pointing it out.

  449. Here‘s an interesting take on what legislation (as opposed to investigations) Congress should pursue as a result of the Mueller Report. That’s on the merits of the suggested laws.
    And from a political perspective, it could make for some interesting challenges. For example, it is currently illegal for a campaign to share things like polling data and campaign strategy with US PACs and other independent political action groups. But apparently it isn’t illegal to share it with foreign governments or groups.
    So which members of Congress will vote to continue to allow foreigners to act with respect to our elections in ways Americans cannot? Or will they vote to make it illegal . . . even though their hero Trump did exactly that? Rock. Hard place.

  450. Here‘s an interesting take on what legislation (as opposed to investigations) Congress should pursue as a result of the Mueller Report. That’s on the merits of the suggested laws.
    And from a political perspective, it could make for some interesting challenges. For example, it is currently illegal for a campaign to share things like polling data and campaign strategy with US PACs and other independent political action groups. But apparently it isn’t illegal to share it with foreign governments or groups.
    So which members of Congress will vote to continue to allow foreigners to act with respect to our elections in ways Americans cannot? Or will they vote to make it illegal . . . even though their hero Trump did exactly that? Rock. Hard place.

  451. Or will they vote to make it illegal . . . even though their hero Trump did exactly that? Rock. Hard place.
    Since when has the party of God, country, sexual purity, and anti-Communism been bothered by a little hypocrisy?

  452. Or will they vote to make it illegal . . . even though their hero Trump did exactly that? Rock. Hard place.
    Since when has the party of God, country, sexual purity, and anti-Communism been bothered by a little hypocrisy?

  453. This, from Bentley Hart’s NYT op-ed, writing of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:
    (though, really, she comes across as someone who could look past a face of even the purest suet if she thought she glimpsed a healthy soul behind it).
    I’ll be stealing that.
    And, yeah, re the term “socialism”, America looks up its own ass and sees witches.

  454. This, from Bentley Hart’s NYT op-ed, writing of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:
    (though, really, she comes across as someone who could look past a face of even the purest suet if she thought she glimpsed a healthy soul behind it).
    I’ll be stealing that.
    And, yeah, re the term “socialism”, America looks up its own ass and sees witches.

  455. The senate will simply not vote on it, so no need to go on record. Problem solved from the GOP POV.
    But I would not be surprised at all, should they start a new investigation (or 10) into alleged Dem collusion with foreign entities right before the next election.

  456. The senate will simply not vote on it, so no need to go on record. Problem solved from the GOP POV.
    But I would not be surprised at all, should they start a new investigation (or 10) into alleged Dem collusion with foreign entities right before the next election.

  461. I thought the problem was that they DIDN’T melt into the fabric of American life.
    So?
    When apprehensions of illegal immigrants were down, that was proof that Trump’s approach was working. Now that they are up, that is proof that Trump’s approach is working. If you’re looking for consistency from Trump and his fans, you’ve come to the wrong store.

  462. I thought the problem was that they DIDN’T melt into the fabric of American life.
    So?
    When apprehensions of illegal immigrants were down, that was proof that Trump’s approach was working. Now that they are up, that is proof that Trump’s approach is working. If you’re looking for consistency from Trump and his fans, you’ve come to the wrong store.

  463. The Out-of-Towners finally get the upper hand. Soon, folks who live, work, and rent in American home towns will be priced out and herded into tent encampments or living in their Uber vehicles.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/marriott-to-take-on-airbnb-in-booming-home-rental-market/ar-BBWoLGt
    America, the full of shit, needs to be revised.
    Violently.
    The Hometowners will be the sequel.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzQC1uNWqYA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjotXvRI0w

  464. The Out-of-Towners finally get the upper hand. Soon, folks who live, work, and rent in American home towns will be priced out and herded into tent encampments or living in their Uber vehicles.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/marriott-to-take-on-airbnb-in-booming-home-rental-market/ar-BBWoLGt
    America, the full of shit, needs to be revised.
    Violently.
    The Hometowners will be the sequel.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzQC1uNWqYA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjotXvRI0w

  465. So which members of Congress will vote to continue to allow foreigners to act with respect to our elections in ways Americans cannot?
    Democrats will/would. no Republicans will because doing so would be an admission that Trump did something wrong and that the Dems have a valid complaint.
    and, well, we know how that goes.

  466. So which members of Congress will vote to continue to allow foreigners to act with respect to our elections in ways Americans cannot?
    Democrats will/would. no Republicans will because doing so would be an admission that Trump did something wrong and that the Dems have a valid complaint.
    and, well, we know how that goes.

  471. Just wondering: Did anyone here watch “Occupied”, the Norwegian series (two seasons, beginning in 2015)? Available on Netflix.
    It’s about a Russian coup in Norway. Apparently, Putin didn’t like it much. A third season was announced, but not sure when it’s happening.
    I would love for people to watch it, and then discuss. Thanks.

  472. Just wondering: Did anyone here watch “Occupied”, the Norwegian series (two seasons, beginning in 2015)? Available on Netflix.
    It’s about a Russian coup in Norway. Apparently, Putin didn’t like it much. A third season was announced, but not sure when it’s happening.
    I would love for people to watch it, and then discuss. Thanks.

  475. Sounds an unlikely premise, sapient:
    Norway is occupied by Russia on behalf of the European Union, due to the fact that the newly elected environmental friendly Norwegian government has stopped the all important oil- and gas-production in the North Sea….
    I would have thought that Putin would enjoy the concomitant rise in the price of gas rather a lot.

  476. Sounds an unlikely premise, sapient:
    Norway is occupied by Russia on behalf of the European Union, due to the fact that the newly elected environmental friendly Norwegian government has stopped the all important oil- and gas-production in the North Sea….
    I would have thought that Putin would enjoy the concomitant rise in the price of gas rather a lot.

  479. If Norway were to cease production overnight, Putin could sit back happily and count the extra money coming in for their oil and gas exports.
    If we’re considering bizarre scenarios, there’d be more chance of his sending military aid to Norway to fend off an EU takeover…

  480. If Norway were to cease production overnight, Putin could sit back happily and count the extra money coming in for their oil and gas exports.
    If we’re considering bizarre scenarios, there’d be more chance of his sending military aid to Norway to fend off an EU takeover…

  481. Clearly, the invasion would be a strategic move by Putin, to secure a supply of Trolls.

  482. Clearly, the invasion would be a strategic move by Putin, to secure a supply of Trolls.

  485. Remember this guy. Since his days in the Reagan Adminstration, he’s called for the impeachment of EVERYONE, including the Presidential dogs.
    No, not this time. Who da guessed? The number of fellatrixes, female and male, p and his thugs keep on retainer to keep Fein, Graham, and 60 million Americans in line has got to be legion.
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unseemly-censurable-but-not-impeachable/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein

  486. Remember this guy. Since his days in the Reagan Adminstration, he’s called for the impeachment of EVERYONE, including the Presidential dogs.
    No, not this time. Who da guessed? The number of fellatrixes, female and male, p and his thugs keep on retainer to keep Fein, Graham, and 60 million Americans in line has got to be legion.
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unseemly-censurable-but-not-impeachable/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein

  489. there are folks who love Trump because he’s Trump. big loud obnoxious ass who says the quiet parts loud. he’s their kind of fun. the porn stars and golden toilet are lagniappe, kind of a bonus.
    and there are folks who don’t love Trump, but who aren’t particularly bothered by him, because tax cuts and deregulation. that’s their understanding of what made and makes America great, and if he makes that happen they don’t much care about the details.
    next year we will see if those two camps, taken together, are approximately more than half of the people who show up to vote.
    spend your money, your time, your vote, and your person if need be, to get in the way of that. and best of luck to all.

  490. there are folks who love Trump because he’s Trump. big loud obnoxious ass who says the quiet parts loud. he’s their kind of fun. the porn stars and golden toilet are lagniappe, kind of a bonus.
    and there are folks who don’t love Trump, but who aren’t particularly bothered by him, because tax cuts and deregulation. that’s their understanding of what made and makes America great, and if he makes that happen they don’t much care about the details.
    next year we will see if those two camps, taken together, are approximately more than half of the people who show up to vote.
    spend your money, your time, your vote, and your person if need be, to get in the way of that. and best of luck to all.

  491. I’d say your second group is more accurately defined by “tax cuts for them“. Which is important because the numbers who actually saw a tax cut are tiny. (The number who got at least a tiny cut is larger. But “tiny,” as in unnoticable, is the operative word.) That larger group might like a tax cut. But as far as they can see, Trump didn’t deliver for them.

  492. I’d say your second group is more accurately defined by “tax cuts for them“. Which is important because the numbers who actually saw a tax cut are tiny. (The number who got at least a tiny cut is larger. But “tiny,” as in unnoticable, is the operative word.) That larger group might like a tax cut. But as far as they can see, Trump didn’t deliver for them.

  493. But as far as they can see, Trump didn’t deliver for them.
    of course that’s only relevant if they’re looking. and the endless Cletus Safaris tell me a lot of people are in love with imaginary Trump and don’t really care much about real life Trump.

  494. But as far as they can see, Trump didn’t deliver for them.
    of course that’s only relevant if they’re looking. and the endless Cletus Safaris tell me a lot of people are in love with imaginary Trump and don’t really care much about real life Trump.

  495. Cletus Safaris. ObWi continues to enlarge my vocabulary in hitherto unimaginable ways.

  496. Cletus Safaris. ObWi continues to enlarge my vocabulary in hitherto unimaginable ways.

  497. “Which is important because the numbers who actually saw a tax cut are tiny”
    This is crap. Most of my family got this tiny tax cut you speak of, and they all noticed it. I didnt actually get much of a cut, some, not complaining.
    It’s always interesting, if you want to tax the lower income groups there is a huge objection due to the relative importance of that money to them. But give a tax cut and it’s a tiny unnoticeable amount.

  498. “Which is important because the numbers who actually saw a tax cut are tiny”
    This is crap. Most of my family got this tiny tax cut you speak of, and they all noticed it. I didnt actually get much of a cut, some, not complaining.
    It’s always interesting, if you want to tax the lower income groups there is a huge objection due to the relative importance of that money to them. But give a tax cut and it’s a tiny unnoticeable amount.

  499. It’s always interesting, if you want to tax the lower income groups there is a huge objection due to the relative importance of that money to them. But give a tax cut and it’s a tiny unnoticeable amount.
    That depends on the numbers. What people like me usually object to are the stupid “flat tax” proposals that are trotted out every so often, though they seem to have been at least someone of a fad. You don’t hear about them as much these days.
    Long story short, what some people object to is taking the same percentage of everyone’s income, no matter how large or small that income is, and saying it’s “fair” simply because everyone pays the same percentage.
    So, no, it’s not always interesting.

  500. It’s always interesting, if you want to tax the lower income groups there is a huge objection due to the relative importance of that money to them. But give a tax cut and it’s a tiny unnoticeable amount.
    That depends on the numbers. What people like me usually object to are the stupid “flat tax” proposals that are trotted out every so often, though they seem to have been at least someone of a fad. You don’t hear about them as much these days.
    Long story short, what some people object to is taking the same percentage of everyone’s income, no matter how large or small that income is, and saying it’s “fair” simply because everyone pays the same percentage.
    So, no, it’s not always interesting.

  503. No hsh, I have no idea what you personally object to. But anytime, any time, there is a proposal to raise taxes across the board that discussion ensues.

  504. No hsh, I have no idea what you personally object to. But anytime, any time, there is a proposal to raise taxes across the board that discussion ensues.

  507. Most of my family got this tiny tax cut you speak of, and they all noticed it.
    So your family is well off. Glad to hear they are doing well — that is, better than most.

  508. Most of my family got this tiny tax cut you speak of, and they all noticed it.
    So your family is well off. Glad to hear they are doing well — that is, better than most.

  509. No hsh, I have no idea what you personally object to. But anytime, any time, there is a proposal to raise taxes across the board that discussion ensues.
    Well, you do, because I just told you.
    But, again, it depends on the numbers. And if you think lower-income people already pay too much (particularly relative to higher-income people) you’re going to object to an across-the-board tax increase, at least if it doesn’t take the existing inequities into account.
    If there were some dire fiscal circumstance, I’d probably accept a small increase at the bottom if there were a commensurate increase at the top, given the marginal utility of money, which is at the heart of the discussion.
    In any case, don’t pretend that you can’t give a poorer person a meager tax cut, simply because they don’t make much to begin with. Pretending, say, $50 over the course of year should make someone happy when Daddy Warbucks gets 10,000 times that much is what I think we’re talking about.

  510. No hsh, I have no idea what you personally object to. But anytime, any time, there is a proposal to raise taxes across the board that discussion ensues.
    Well, you do, because I just told you.
    But, again, it depends on the numbers. And if you think lower-income people already pay too much (particularly relative to higher-income people) you’re going to object to an across-the-board tax increase, at least if it doesn’t take the existing inequities into account.
    If there were some dire fiscal circumstance, I’d probably accept a small increase at the bottom if there were a commensurate increase at the top, given the marginal utility of money, which is at the heart of the discussion.
    In any case, don’t pretend that you can’t give a poorer person a meager tax cut, simply because they don’t make much to begin with. Pretending, say, $50 over the course of year should make someone happy when Daddy Warbucks gets 10,000 times that much is what I think we’re talking about.

  511. “The Joint Committee on Taxation — Congress’s nonpartisan team of tax analysts — found that every income group would see a tax cut on average. So did the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank that was sharply critical of the law. In fact, that group went even further: In a December 2017 analysis, it found that every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019.”
    Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut: Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.

  512. “The Joint Committee on Taxation — Congress’s nonpartisan team of tax analysts — found that every income group would see a tax cut on average. So did the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank that was sharply critical of the law. In fact, that group went even further: In a December 2017 analysis, it found that every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019.”
    Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut: Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.

  515. Thanks, Marty, good to know. I just observe that national polling numbers suggest that your family is the exception. Of course, the polls could be off, for any of a variety of reasons….

  516. Thanks, Marty, good to know. I just observe that national polling numbers suggest that your family is the exception. Of course, the polls could be off, for any of a variety of reasons….

  517. Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut
    Face It: I (Definitely) Didn’t.
    amazing thing about averages – they aren’t universal.
    instead, we got hit hard by the new caps on mortgage interest and state & local tax deductions.
    whatever change we might have seen on our monthly pay stubs was more than swallowed by the loss of those deductions.

  518. Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut
    Face It: I (Definitely) Didn’t.
    amazing thing about averages – they aren’t universal.
    instead, we got hit hard by the new caps on mortgage interest and state & local tax deductions.
    whatever change we might have seen on our monthly pay stubs was more than swallowed by the loss of those deductions.

  519. No one got $50.
    I’m sure plenty of people got roughly that much in a tax cut. But the exact number’s not really the issue (which is what the “say” is for in the sentence – a number pulled out of the air for the sake of argument). Maybe it’s $10 or maybe it’s $250. Whatever. The masters of the universe got the most out of it, as usual.
    I’d love to read CharlesWT’s link, but it’s blocked.
    I got a tax cut, but it’s going to go away very rapidly as my kids age out of the doubled Child Tax Credit. Standard deduction obviated what used to be itemized deductions (more or less a break-even), but the personal exemption went away. First kid hits 17 next year, so a $2K jump right there. Bye-bye, tax cut. Hello, periodic and large tax increases.

  520. No one got $50.
    I’m sure plenty of people got roughly that much in a tax cut. But the exact number’s not really the issue (which is what the “say” is for in the sentence – a number pulled out of the air for the sake of argument). Maybe it’s $10 or maybe it’s $250. Whatever. The masters of the universe got the most out of it, as usual.
    I’d love to read CharlesWT’s link, but it’s blocked.
    I got a tax cut, but it’s going to go away very rapidly as my kids age out of the doubled Child Tax Credit. Standard deduction obviated what used to be itemized deductions (more or less a break-even), but the personal exemption went away. First kid hits 17 next year, so a $2K jump right there. Bye-bye, tax cut. Hello, periodic and large tax increases.

  521. I’d love to read CharlesWT’s link, but it’s blocked.
    You may be able to see the article if you open the link in a private(FireFox) or incognito(Chrome) window.

  522. I’d love to read CharlesWT’s link, but it’s blocked.
    You may be able to see the article if you open the link in a private(FireFox) or incognito(Chrome) window.

  523. Some folks got a tax cut, some folks’ taxes went up. It depends on where you live and how much you make.
    And all of the folks who got a little bump this year should make the most of it, because the tax cut blew a great big freaking hole in the federal budget. So all of the things the feds pay for, that all of those folks use, are going to go unfunded or underfunded.
    Own goal.
    Enjoy your tax cut!

  524. Some folks got a tax cut, some folks’ taxes went up. It depends on where you live and how much you make.
    And all of the folks who got a little bump this year should make the most of it, because the tax cut blew a great big freaking hole in the federal budget. So all of the things the feds pay for, that all of those folks use, are going to go unfunded or underfunded.
    Own goal.
    Enjoy your tax cut!

  525. I gave myself a noticeable tax cut for 2018, by the simple expedient of reducing my income substantially. Had I maintained my 2017 income (by aggressively pursuing new gigs) I’d certainly be in cleek’s position.
    What Marty will never get through his head is that his “working poor/lower middle class” relatives are getting ripped off by the rich, not by “welfare queens” or “immigrants”. (To be fair, the richest man I know personally is an immigrant.) Marty will continue to support He, Trump’s “(Republican) policies” no matter what, because “tax cuts”. Also, anti-choice judges.
    What galls me most is something I mentioned before: to turn the 1040 into a “postcard”, Republicans made the IRS move a bunch of lines from it to separate “schedules”. I had to file more separate pieces of paper (at least one of them in order to enter a single number that used to be a line item on the 1040) than I ever did before. The Republican “base” is a bunch of saps.
    –TP

  526. I gave myself a noticeable tax cut for 2018, by the simple expedient of reducing my income substantially. Had I maintained my 2017 income (by aggressively pursuing new gigs) I’d certainly be in cleek’s position.
    What Marty will never get through his head is that his “working poor/lower middle class” relatives are getting ripped off by the rich, not by “welfare queens” or “immigrants”. (To be fair, the richest man I know personally is an immigrant.) Marty will continue to support He, Trump’s “(Republican) policies” no matter what, because “tax cuts”. Also, anti-choice judges.
    What galls me most is something I mentioned before: to turn the 1040 into a “postcard”, Republicans made the IRS move a bunch of lines from it to separate “schedules”. I had to file more separate pieces of paper (at least one of them in order to enter a single number that used to be a line item on the 1040) than I ever did before. The Republican “base” is a bunch of saps.
    –TP

  527. In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.

  528. In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.

  529. So, do Republicans lie when they proclaim that those other OECD countries are socialist hellholes from which “capital” and “rich people” flee to find refuge in the US?
    –TP

  530. So, do Republicans lie when they proclaim that those other OECD countries are socialist hellholes from which “capital” and “rich people” flee to find refuge in the US?
    –TP

  535. In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.
    What do you mean by this? I only ask because I’ve seen people suggest that the US has a very progressive tax structure based on how much people at different income levels pay, rather than how the brackets are structured. In other words, because we have highly concentrated income, people at the top pay a lot more than people in the middle or at the bottom. But that would be the case even with a flat (not at all progressive!) tax structure, simply because of the concentration of income at the top.

  536. In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.
    What do you mean by this? I only ask because I’ve seen people suggest that the US has a very progressive tax structure based on how much people at different income levels pay, rather than how the brackets are structured. In other words, because we have highly concentrated income, people at the top pay a lot more than people in the middle or at the bottom. But that would be the case even with a flat (not at all progressive!) tax structure, simply because of the concentration of income at the top.

  537. “Since 2013, New World Wealth, a research outfit based in South Africa, has been tracking millionaire migrations by culling property records, visa programs, news media reports and information from travel agents and others who cater to the wealthy. In a global population of 15 million people each worth more than $1 million in net assets, nearly 100,000 changed their country of residence last year.
    …
    Equally surprising was the lack of change in the United States, where the arrival of a billionaire president did not seem to attract or repel millionaires. A net total of 9,000 millionaires migrated to the United States last year, but they represent a drop in the ocean of five million American millionaires.”
    The Millionaires Are Fleeing. Maybe You Should, Too.: (June 2, 2018)

  538. “Since 2013, New World Wealth, a research outfit based in South Africa, has been tracking millionaire migrations by culling property records, visa programs, news media reports and information from travel agents and others who cater to the wealthy. In a global population of 15 million people each worth more than $1 million in net assets, nearly 100,000 changed their country of residence last year.
    …
    Equally surprising was the lack of change in the United States, where the arrival of a billionaire president did not seem to attract or repel millionaires. A net total of 9,000 millionaires migrated to the United States last year, but they represent a drop in the ocean of five million American millionaires.”
    The Millionaires Are Fleeing. Maybe You Should, Too.: (June 2, 2018)

  539. That’s one impressively misleading headline!
    In fact, as the article makes plain, millionaires are NOT fleeing . . . from the US. From a couple of cited other countries, yes. And mostly, it appears, to Canada, Australia, and the UAE. But the US has a small (percentage wise) inflow of millionaires. So possibly, just possibly, the climate here is not so dire as some alarmists on the right would have us believe.

  540. That’s one impressively misleading headline!
    In fact, as the article makes plain, millionaires are NOT fleeing . . . from the US. From a couple of cited other countries, yes. And mostly, it appears, to Canada, Australia, and the UAE. But the US has a small (percentage wise) inflow of millionaires. So possibly, just possibly, the climate here is not so dire as some alarmists on the right would have us believe.

  541. A bit dated, but probably not much has changed overall in the interim.
    “Other countries have higher tax rates than the U.S. but manage to be less progressive overall. How can this be? The answer is that the rate structure alone doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the progressivity of a country’s tax system. The top rates kick in at much lower income levels in Europe than in the United States, making E.U. tax codes more regressive than ours.”
    Taxation, American Style: The U.S. tax code is more progressive and European than you think. (May 2012)

  542. A bit dated, but probably not much has changed overall in the interim.
    “Other countries have higher tax rates than the U.S. but manage to be less progressive overall. How can this be? The answer is that the rate structure alone doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the progressivity of a country’s tax system. The top rates kick in at much lower income levels in Europe than in the United States, making E.U. tax codes more regressive than ours.”
    Taxation, American Style: The U.S. tax code is more progressive and European than you think. (May 2012)

  543. No matter how low taxes go, millionaires flee.
    Not matter how high taxes go, millionaires seem to stay put.

  544. No matter how low taxes go, millionaires flee.
    Not matter how high taxes go, millionaires seem to stay put.

  553. In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.
    In spite of the last 40 years, I’m 22 years old.

  554. In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.
    In spite of the last 40 years, I’m 22 years old.

  555. No one got $50
    If that’s supposed to mean that everyone got more than that: they didn’t. A few percent in each income group got a tax increase. That rises to about 30% of the lower income groups getting a tax increase by 2027.
    But not to worry, at least the very rich will be even richer. And by the time the bad stuff happens – lots of poor people paying more tax, and the increased debt hurting the economy – Trump will be gone and you’ll be able to blame a D president.

  556. No one got $50
    If that’s supposed to mean that everyone got more than that: they didn’t. A few percent in each income group got a tax increase. That rises to about 30% of the lower income groups getting a tax increase by 2027.
    But not to worry, at least the very rich will be even richer. And by the time the bad stuff happens – lots of poor people paying more tax, and the increased debt hurting the economy – Trump will be gone and you’ll be able to blame a D president.

  557. A pretty good back of envelope analysis if the 2018 tax cut.
    If you are making the national average of about $60k, live someplace with low state and local taxes, and have a couple of kids you can claim, you probably saw about $2k.
    Which is pretty nice.
    Adjust as needed for all factors mentioned. If you’re working poor or lower middle, you may have gotten a little bump, but probably not a number with a comma in it.
    Balance that against the overall (R) program and see if you’re ahead, or not.
    I paid more this year, but it doesn’t bug me all that much, because I generally don’t bitch about paying taxes.
    Enjoy your tax cut. You’re welcome.

  558. A pretty good back of envelope analysis if the 2018 tax cut.
    If you are making the national average of about $60k, live someplace with low state and local taxes, and have a couple of kids you can claim, you probably saw about $2k.
    Which is pretty nice.
    Adjust as needed for all factors mentioned. If you’re working poor or lower middle, you may have gotten a little bump, but probably not a number with a comma in it.
    Balance that against the overall (R) program and see if you’re ahead, or not.
    I paid more this year, but it doesn’t bug me all that much, because I generally don’t bitch about paying taxes.
    Enjoy your tax cut. You’re welcome.

  559. Republicans always favor lower taxes.
    Republicans always favor lower wages.
    Therefore, their perfect society is composed of a few very rich, and a mass of trolls who pay little, if any in the way of taxes, but only getting paid $3.25/hr. + tips.
    Throw in a government that does nothing. Paradise.

  560. Republicans always favor lower taxes.
    Republicans always favor lower wages.
    Therefore, their perfect society is composed of a few very rich, and a mass of trolls who pay little, if any in the way of taxes, but only getting paid $3.25/hr. + tips.
    Throw in a government that does nothing. Paradise.

  561. A more up-to-date link.
    “The world’s wealthy are increasingly on the move.
    About 108,000 millionaires migrated across borders last year, a 14 percent increase from the prior year, and more than double the level in 2013, according to Johannesburg-based New World Wealth. Australia, U.S. and Canada are the top destinations, according to the research firm, while China and Russia are the biggest losers. The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.”
    Millionaires Flee Their Homelands as Tensions Rise and Taxes Bite: Global wealth migration increased 14% last year, study finds (April 30, 2019)

  562. A more up-to-date link.
    “The world’s wealthy are increasingly on the move.
    About 108,000 millionaires migrated across borders last year, a 14 percent increase from the prior year, and more than double the level in 2013, according to Johannesburg-based New World Wealth. Australia, U.S. and Canada are the top destinations, according to the research firm, while China and Russia are the biggest losers. The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.”
    Millionaires Flee Their Homelands as Tensions Rise and Taxes Bite: Global wealth migration increased 14% last year, study finds (April 30, 2019)

  565. “The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.”
    So the reduction in tax rates, regulatory cutbacks, and union busting in Great Britain beginning with the Thatcher era and continuing thru later conservative governance has done nothing to satisfy millionaires and billionaires and convince them to stay put?
    In America, William Howard Taft proposed federal and individual income taxes, if I have my history right.
    Two percent for the individual tax rate.
    That rose to above 90% at the high marginal rate, with other marginal rates following along and state and local taxes taxes rose as well, and I’d like to see a graph of the millions of millionaires since then who fled the country only to miss the greatest income- and wealth-producing engine … America … the world has ever seen over the next 100-plus years.
    You could lower the high marginal rate to 0.5% percent or institute a flat tax and the sniveling from the rich, and its enabling by conservative political filth will show not one iota of abatement.
    Norquist, Mulvaney, Moore, Cain and the rest of em will never shut the fuck up about their tax “burden.”
    p will still hide his income tax returns because he will still be paying nothing, probably by criminal means.
    Pig shit.
    Fuck off.

  566. “The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.”
    So the reduction in tax rates, regulatory cutbacks, and union busting in Great Britain beginning with the Thatcher era and continuing thru later conservative governance has done nothing to satisfy millionaires and billionaires and convince them to stay put?
    In America, William Howard Taft proposed federal and individual income taxes, if I have my history right.
    Two percent for the individual tax rate.
    That rose to above 90% at the high marginal rate, with other marginal rates following along and state and local taxes taxes rose as well, and I’d like to see a graph of the millions of millionaires since then who fled the country only to miss the greatest income- and wealth-producing engine … America … the world has ever seen over the next 100-plus years.
    You could lower the high marginal rate to 0.5% percent or institute a flat tax and the sniveling from the rich, and its enabling by conservative political filth will show not one iota of abatement.
    Norquist, Mulvaney, Moore, Cain and the rest of em will never shut the fuck up about their tax “burden.”
    p will still hide his income tax returns because he will still be paying nothing, probably by criminal means.
    Pig shit.
    Fuck off.

  567. The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.
    Of course, Brexit might well be a bigger deal than taxation. Especially as it is the new issue, whereas taxation has been much as it is now for some time. Bit hard to tell with out disaggregating the two.

  568. The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.
    Of course, Brexit might well be a bigger deal than taxation. Especially as it is the new issue, whereas taxation has been much as it is now for some time. Bit hard to tell with out disaggregating the two.

  569. “Bit hard to tell with out disaggregating the two.:
    I am absolutely certain the data completely supports my POV. No need to sort it out.

  570. “Bit hard to tell with out disaggregating the two.:
    I am absolutely certain the data completely supports my POV. No need to sort it out.

  571. “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
    – Barr, yesterday, moaning about how unfairly his client has been treated
    also yesterday, NYT:
    The Trump team’s efforts to draw attention to the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, which is already yielding coverage in conservative media, has been led partly by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who served as a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Giuliani’s involvement raises questions about whether Mr. Trump is endorsing an effort to push a foreign government to proceed with a case that could hurt a political opponent at home.
    ht/BJ

  572. “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
    – Barr, yesterday, moaning about how unfairly his client has been treated
    also yesterday, NYT:
    The Trump team’s efforts to draw attention to the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, which is already yielding coverage in conservative media, has been led partly by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who served as a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Giuliani’s involvement raises questions about whether Mr. Trump is endorsing an effort to push a foreign government to proceed with a case that could hurt a political opponent at home.
    ht/BJ

  579. “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
    – Barr, yesterday
    “Lock her up!”
    Good times.

  580. “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
    – Barr, yesterday
    “Lock her up!”
    Good times.

  581. What does everybody think about Comey’s piece in today’s NYT?
    Personally, I thought it an exact description, in every particular, of the Trump effect on those around him, although obviously self-serving. I also found myself wishing he hadn’t used the soul-devouring metaphor because he would be accused of over-dramatising, then second-thought that anybody accusing him of over-dramatising wouldn’t agree with his characterisation anyway, so it doesn’t matter. What think the ObWitterati?

  582. What does everybody think about Comey’s piece in today’s NYT?
    Personally, I thought it an exact description, in every particular, of the Trump effect on those around him, although obviously self-serving. I also found myself wishing he hadn’t used the soul-devouring metaphor because he would be accused of over-dramatising, then second-thought that anybody accusing him of over-dramatising wouldn’t agree with his characterisation anyway, so it doesn’t matter. What think the ObWitterati?

  583. I think that most of those around Trump (those who have been appointed by him) were already soulless.

  584. I think that most of those around Trump (those who have been appointed by him) were already soulless.

  585. GFtNC: It had a creepy sort of authenticity.
    I could see the same happening to me discussing Fed interest rate policy over tequila shooters with Charles WT.

  586. GFtNC: It had a creepy sort of authenticity.
    I could see the same happening to me discussing Fed interest rate policy over tequila shooters with Charles WT.

  587. 1. Millionaire emigration and capital flight are two different things.
    2. I did not get a tax cut, AFAICT, mostly because of the new limit on SALT deductions, an act of pure spite, IMO, on the part of the GOP.
    I think MA should put a tax on college students from red states.

  588. 1. Millionaire emigration and capital flight are two different things.
    2. I did not get a tax cut, AFAICT, mostly because of the new limit on SALT deductions, an act of pure spite, IMO, on the part of the GOP.
    I think MA should put a tax on college students from red states.

  591. “I think MA should put a tax on college students from red states.”
    Only the ones that they don’t reprogram into the VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.
    So a huge increase in tuition for Harvard MBAs. Free tuition for Queer Studies majors.

  592. “I think MA should put a tax on college students from red states.”
    Only the ones that they don’t reprogram into the VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.
    So a huge increase in tuition for Harvard MBAs. Free tuition for Queer Studies majors.

  595. a basic, yes/no question:
    did Barr actually read the damned report?
    No. It would have been a waste of his time, which was much better spent preparing prevarication.

  596. a basic, yes/no question:
    did Barr actually read the damned report?
    No. It would have been a waste of his time, which was much better spent preparing prevarication.

  599. I think controlling our borders is just ducky, but why control them only one way? Why not charge an arm and a leg to leave?
    More on Ben Wittes’ contrition here.

  600. I think controlling our borders is just ducky, but why control them only one way? Why not charge an arm and a leg to leave?
    More on Ben Wittes’ contrition here.

  601. Wittes is a good and basically honorable guy who is nostalgic for the days of reasonable conservative (R)s.
    That is approximately the same as being Charlie Brown holding the football for Lucille Van Pelt.
    Ike is dead. He was reincarnated as Barack Obama, but the (R)’s somehow failed to see the resemblance.
    Wake up and smell the coffee, Ben.

  602. Wittes is a good and basically honorable guy who is nostalgic for the days of reasonable conservative (R)s.
    That is approximately the same as being Charlie Brown holding the football for Lucille Van Pelt.
    Ike is dead. He was reincarnated as Barack Obama, but the (R)’s somehow failed to see the resemblance.
    Wake up and smell the coffee, Ben.

  603. Ike is dead. He was reincarnated as Barack Obama, but the (R)’s somehow failed to see the resemblance.
    Oh, I expect they did see the resemblance. They are, these days, the heirs of the Dixiecrats after all. And they saw Obama the same way their predecessors saw Eisenhower after he sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

  604. Ike is dead. He was reincarnated as Barack Obama, but the (R)’s somehow failed to see the resemblance.
    Oh, I expect they did see the resemblance. They are, these days, the heirs of the Dixiecrats after all. And they saw Obama the same way their predecessors saw Eisenhower after he sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

  605. The Charlie Brown analogy if fairly apt, except that it appears he is beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.
    And regarding the link to comments on his article, I think this misses the point:
    “And yet in this meritocratic thing of ours announcing yourself as a sucker gives you more credibility than being right all along…”
    ‘I told you so’ is far less likely to persuade the hitherto unpersuaded than a respected member of their own set admitting that they were suckered too.

  606. The Charlie Brown analogy if fairly apt, except that it appears he is beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.
    And regarding the link to comments on his article, I think this misses the point:
    “And yet in this meritocratic thing of ours announcing yourself as a sucker gives you more credibility than being right all along…”
    ‘I told you so’ is far less likely to persuade the hitherto unpersuaded than a respected member of their own set admitting that they were suckered too.

  607. That’s all good, Nigel, and I certainly hope that Wittes’ conservative bona fides make his argument that much more persuasive.
    All of that said, Barr’s resume should make his present behavior utterly unsurprising, to anyone. I appreciate Wittes’ candor, but I also recognize that the willingness of folks like him to extend the benefit of the doubt to people like Barr is what makes it possible for them to continue to damage the nation.
    From point of view of constitutional republican governance, the current situation is a catastrophe, and deserves to be considered and treated as such. This is not specifically about policy, it is about the utter corruption of governance.
    It’s not a time for extending the benefit of the doubt. Good faith is not in evidence and should not be assumed.

  608. That’s all good, Nigel, and I certainly hope that Wittes’ conservative bona fides make his argument that much more persuasive.
    All of that said, Barr’s resume should make his present behavior utterly unsurprising, to anyone. I appreciate Wittes’ candor, but I also recognize that the willingness of folks like him to extend the benefit of the doubt to people like Barr is what makes it possible for them to continue to damage the nation.
    From point of view of constitutional republican governance, the current situation is a catastrophe, and deserves to be considered and treated as such. This is not specifically about policy, it is about the utter corruption of governance.
    It’s not a time for extending the benefit of the doubt. Good faith is not in evidence and should not be assumed.

  609. I don’t disagree with any of that, at all.
    It’s just that excoriating people for taking too long to see what’s been staring them in the face for a long time isn’t necessarily smart politics.

  610. I don’t disagree with any of that, at all.
    It’s just that excoriating people for taking too long to see what’s been staring them in the face for a long time isn’t necessarily smart politics.

  611. It’s not a time for extending the benefit of the doubt. Good faith is not in evidence and should not be assumed.
    sic transit gloria mundi.
    And that’s not by any means a criticism of russell, or even a disagreement, merely a comment on the fact that when one of the most reasonable, fair-minded people in the world takes this view, we are in dangerous times indeed.

  612. It’s not a time for extending the benefit of the doubt. Good faith is not in evidence and should not be assumed.
    sic transit gloria mundi.
    And that’s not by any means a criticism of russell, or even a disagreement, merely a comment on the fact that when one of the most reasonable, fair-minded people in the world takes this view, we are in dangerous times indeed.

  613. What is the point of the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt?
    Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA. (The many-pronged attack on voting rights and opportunities is especially on my mind after a recent saga in Waterville, Maine, where the registrations of students and faculty at Colby College were challenged. Hearteningly, the challengers lost that one, but not until after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent, and hundreds of person-hours wasted.)
    That the big new bugaboo word is “socialism” would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high. (We have seen the effects of this I-wish-it-were-as-stupid-as-it-seems propaganda exercise right here at ObWi.) I don’t know why they didn’t just cut to the chase and start demonizing the word “democracy” and be done with it.
    I can’t say it better than Hart said it in the link Donald gave us a few days ago, so I’ll just repeat the link.
    And — wrs.

  614. What is the point of the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt?
    Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA. (The many-pronged attack on voting rights and opportunities is especially on my mind after a recent saga in Waterville, Maine, where the registrations of students and faculty at Colby College were challenged. Hearteningly, the challengers lost that one, but not until after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent, and hundreds of person-hours wasted.)
    That the big new bugaboo word is “socialism” would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high. (We have seen the effects of this I-wish-it-were-as-stupid-as-it-seems propaganda exercise right here at ObWi.) I don’t know why they didn’t just cut to the chase and start demonizing the word “democracy” and be done with it.
    I can’t say it better than Hart said it in the link Donald gave us a few days ago, so I’ll just repeat the link.
    And — wrs.

  615. “You still don’t know what you are dealing with, do you”*
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g
    This sentence from a Daily Kos piece:
    “Donald Trump refused to talk to Robert Mueller about Vladimir Putin. Trump was happy to talk to Putin about Mueller.”
    The 2020 Presidential election will be the third Presidential election stolen by the brazen Republican Party and its massively tentacled and organized malign conservative movement during the 21st century. Even in the event of a Democratic victory in 2020, the corrupt infrastructure … the Supreme Court and William Barr at p’s private law firm now residing on permanent retainer in the building that once housed the U.S. Justice Department .. is in place to support p’s refusal of any transition from him in the White House and the Republican Party in control of the U.S. Government.
    There’s only one fucking way out of this.
    Formal round-the-clock firing squads after re-institution of the rule of law will probably be a luxurious pipe dream, if history is any kind of messy guide regarding how these things go.
    *LGM used this image yesterday, so I’m willing to give them a hat tip. But, I’ve been using it here for years in the same context. Brilliant minds etc., etc. haw haw.

  616. “You still don’t know what you are dealing with, do you”*
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g
    This sentence from a Daily Kos piece:
    “Donald Trump refused to talk to Robert Mueller about Vladimir Putin. Trump was happy to talk to Putin about Mueller.”
    The 2020 Presidential election will be the third Presidential election stolen by the brazen Republican Party and its massively tentacled and organized malign conservative movement during the 21st century. Even in the event of a Democratic victory in 2020, the corrupt infrastructure … the Supreme Court and William Barr at p’s private law firm now residing on permanent retainer in the building that once housed the U.S. Justice Department .. is in place to support p’s refusal of any transition from him in the White House and the Republican Party in control of the U.S. Government.
    There’s only one fucking way out of this.
    Formal round-the-clock firing squads after re-institution of the rule of law will probably be a luxurious pipe dream, if history is any kind of messy guide regarding how these things go.
    *LGM used this image yesterday, so I’m willing to give them a hat tip. But, I’ve been using it here for years in the same context. Brilliant minds etc., etc. haw haw.

  617. Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    Again, no disagreement. Only a slight question about the definition of “their”

  618. Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    Again, no disagreement. Only a slight question about the definition of “their”

  619. Loose talk costs lives. I should have said
    A slight question about who all is included in “their”….

  620. Loose talk costs lives. I should have said
    A slight question about who all is included in “their”….

  621. Only a slight question about the definition of “their”
    Start with McConnell himself, and his enablers in the Senate, like my own state’s Susan “I have concerns about that” Collins.
    Add the entire Clickbait apparatus, with Putin underwriting the enterprise.
    Throw in R state legislatures gerrymandering and trying tirelessly to undermine abortion rights, gay rights, voting rights, you name it.
    For good measure, take into account the # of black Americans in prison (fewer than before, but still vastly disproportional), and for that matter the # of white Americans who would be perfectly happy to see democracy go the way of the woolly mammoth if that’s what it took to make sure brown people, Muslims, and other undesirables knew their place.
    I could go on, but it’s my favorite week of the year here in the north country, and I’ve spent the whole week (month) (year so far) with my nose buried in data management slog, so I’m going outside.
    *****
    Seeing that we cross-posted, all I can say is that it is beyond my patience and resources to say “who all” is included. But it doesn’t take that many if you’re willing to subvert not only longstanding norms and unwritten rules but the rule of law itself. Which reminds me, did I forget to mention Barr?

  622. Only a slight question about the definition of “their”
    Start with McConnell himself, and his enablers in the Senate, like my own state’s Susan “I have concerns about that” Collins.
    Add the entire Clickbait apparatus, with Putin underwriting the enterprise.
    Throw in R state legislatures gerrymandering and trying tirelessly to undermine abortion rights, gay rights, voting rights, you name it.
    For good measure, take into account the # of black Americans in prison (fewer than before, but still vastly disproportional), and for that matter the # of white Americans who would be perfectly happy to see democracy go the way of the woolly mammoth if that’s what it took to make sure brown people, Muslims, and other undesirables knew their place.
    I could go on, but it’s my favorite week of the year here in the north country, and I’ve spent the whole week (month) (year so far) with my nose buried in data management slog, so I’m going outside.
    *****
    Seeing that we cross-posted, all I can say is that it is beyond my patience and resources to say “who all” is included. But it doesn’t take that many if you’re willing to subvert not only longstanding norms and unwritten rules but the rule of law itself. Which reminds me, did I forget to mention Barr?

  623. I agree totally with your list, Janie. That list apart, I only exclude those poor saps who have been voting R and are a) too ignorant or b) too susceptible to propaganda to see what it is they are signing up for, i.e. the explicit and transparent destruction of democracy in the USA. As you have hinted, there is plenty of that around, and unfortunately (as Nigel, and wj, have often said) you need some of those to finally see the light and to vote accordingly, if the US is not to end up in the kind of civil war some of our posters talk about.

  624. I agree totally with your list, Janie. That list apart, I only exclude those poor saps who have been voting R and are a) too ignorant or b) too susceptible to propaganda to see what it is they are signing up for, i.e. the explicit and transparent destruction of democracy in the USA. As you have hinted, there is plenty of that around, and unfortunately (as Nigel, and wj, have often said) you need some of those to finally see the light and to vote accordingly, if the US is not to end up in the kind of civil war some of our posters talk about.

  625. destroy democracy in the USA.
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes. A way of life that may or may not have ever actually existed, and to the degree that it ever did, wasn’t actually all that great, at least not for everybody.
    They want to stand athwart history and yell “stop”.
    The problem is, history doesn’t give a sh*t. So it’s a losing game. And nobody likes to lose, so they will gladly take legitimate representative government down with them if that’s what it takes to hold on to whatever the hell it is they think they are preserving.
    I appreciate the general conservative inclination to not rush into things, to make changes thoughtfully, with due consideration of side effects and unwanted results.
    But “not rushing” has to at least keep up with events. Otherwise you have lost the game. You are no longer making thoughtful choices, you are just reacting to things that you cannot control or, likely, understand.
    But hell yeah, the (R)’s appear to be on the way to burning it all down before they will give a fucking inch.
    Inches will be taken, nonetheless. Not because we’re all going to rise up with our guns and pitchforks and torches, although some of that may go on. But because things change, and you either change with them, or you get run over. Full stop.
    If folks want to get run over, that’s their prerogative. Quit taking the rest of us with you.

  626. destroy democracy in the USA.
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes. A way of life that may or may not have ever actually existed, and to the degree that it ever did, wasn’t actually all that great, at least not for everybody.
    They want to stand athwart history and yell “stop”.
    The problem is, history doesn’t give a sh*t. So it’s a losing game. And nobody likes to lose, so they will gladly take legitimate representative government down with them if that’s what it takes to hold on to whatever the hell it is they think they are preserving.
    I appreciate the general conservative inclination to not rush into things, to make changes thoughtfully, with due consideration of side effects and unwanted results.
    But “not rushing” has to at least keep up with events. Otherwise you have lost the game. You are no longer making thoughtful choices, you are just reacting to things that you cannot control or, likely, understand.
    But hell yeah, the (R)’s appear to be on the way to burning it all down before they will give a fucking inch.
    Inches will be taken, nonetheless. Not because we’re all going to rise up with our guns and pitchforks and torches, although some of that may go on. But because things change, and you either change with them, or you get run over. Full stop.
    If folks want to get run over, that’s their prerogative. Quit taking the rest of us with you.

  627. …a recent saga in Waterville, Maine, where the registrations of students and faculty at Colby College were challenged. Hearteningly, the challengers lost that one, but not until after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent, and hundreds of person-hours wasted.
    Perhaps I am misreading the linked article. But it sounded like the $25K in costs included both the registration challenges and other challenges to the plastic bag ban referendum. And, in this case, the motivation didn’t seem to be partisanship so much as unhappiness over the vote on a single specific issue.

  628. …a recent saga in Waterville, Maine, where the registrations of students and faculty at Colby College were challenged. Hearteningly, the challengers lost that one, but not until after many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent, and hundreds of person-hours wasted.
    Perhaps I am misreading the linked article. But it sounded like the $25K in costs included both the registration challenges and other challenges to the plastic bag ban referendum. And, in this case, the motivation didn’t seem to be partisanship so much as unhappiness over the vote on a single specific issue.

  629. Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    …
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes. A way of life that may or may not have ever actually existed, and to the degree that it ever did, wasn’t actually all that great, at least not for everybody.
    They want to stand athwart history and yell “stop”.
    Gotta agree with Russell here. The big donors, as a group, might be happy to replace democracy. But their voters don’t want that. All they want is to roll back the Voting Rights Act, so they can largely restrict voting to “people like them.” A fine distinction, I admit. But an important one if the goal is to change some minds.

  630. Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    …
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes. A way of life that may or may not have ever actually existed, and to the degree that it ever did, wasn’t actually all that great, at least not for everybody.
    They want to stand athwart history and yell “stop”.
    Gotta agree with Russell here. The big donors, as a group, might be happy to replace democracy. But their voters don’t want that. All they want is to roll back the Voting Rights Act, so they can largely restrict voting to “people like them.” A fine distinction, I admit. But an important one if the goal is to change some minds.

  631. wj, I don’t want to get into one of our patented quibbling matches, but where did I say anything about “partisanship” as a motivation?
    There was a vote. They lost. They didn’t convince voters on the merits, so they tried to get people they thought probably voted against them off the voting rolls.
    What is creating a big expensive ruckus because of your “unhappiness over the vote on a single issue” if not disgruntlement with democracy itself?

  632. wj, I don’t want to get into one of our patented quibbling matches, but where did I say anything about “partisanship” as a motivation?
    There was a vote. They lost. They didn’t convince voters on the merits, so they tried to get people they thought probably voted against them off the voting rolls.
    What is creating a big expensive ruckus because of your “unhappiness over the vote on a single issue” if not disgruntlement with democracy itself?

  633. Janie, fair enough. I was misled (I think) because the topic of the moment was these kinds of actions for raw partisan ends — specifically to hold on to power in spite of having lost majority status. Apologies.

  634. Janie, fair enough. I was misled (I think) because the topic of the moment was these kinds of actions for raw partisan ends — specifically to hold on to power in spite of having lost majority status. Apologies.

  635. To clarify: I take “partisanship” to mean D/R. What we’re talking about is what kind of country we want to live in, which to me supersedes the question of parties, even though there’s a lot of overlap.
    And as for “important … if the goal is to change some minds,” I am tired of hearing that, which is a big reason why i’ve been mostly staying away from here. Mostly it means “calm down and shut up,” and I’ve had just about enough of that in my life.

  636. To clarify: I take “partisanship” to mean D/R. What we’re talking about is what kind of country we want to live in, which to me supersedes the question of parties, even though there’s a lot of overlap.
    And as for “important … if the goal is to change some minds,” I am tired of hearing that, which is a big reason why i’ve been mostly staying away from here. Mostly it means “calm down and shut up,” and I’ve had just about enough of that in my life.

  637. Apologies in turn, wj, but I really have had more than enough of “calm down and shut up” in my life, and I don’t have the patience to put up with it here.
    Anyhow, I don’t see a lot of percentage in trying to chip away at the opinions of people who can’t see through the criminal in the White House without my help.

  638. Apologies in turn, wj, but I really have had more than enough of “calm down and shut up” in my life, and I don’t have the patience to put up with it here.
    Anyhow, I don’t see a lot of percentage in trying to chip away at the opinions of people who can’t see through the criminal in the White House without my help.

  641. I don’t see a lot of percentage in trying to chip away at the opinions of people who can’t see through the criminal in the White House without my help.
    Certainly a lot of people are a lost cause. But considering how narrowly some recent elections have been decided, it seems worthwhile to put a little effort to changing even a relatively small number. Although, admittedly, putting that same effort into increasing turnout might be more worthwhile.
    P.S. If what I said came across as “calm down and shut up”, I really need to work on my phrasing.

  642. I don’t see a lot of percentage in trying to chip away at the opinions of people who can’t see through the criminal in the White House without my help.
    Certainly a lot of people are a lost cause. But considering how narrowly some recent elections have been decided, it seems worthwhile to put a little effort to changing even a relatively small number. Although, admittedly, putting that same effort into increasing turnout might be more worthwhile.
    P.S. If what I said came across as “calm down and shut up”, I really need to work on my phrasing.

  643. I really need to work on my phrasing.
    It’s pretty inevitable that if you tell people they’re doin’ it ‘rong, some people’s buttons are going to be pushed. I have been on both sides of that dynamic over the years.
    “Putting that same effort” into fighting gerrymandering and disenfranchisement would also be worthwhile; that’s a fairly immediate need, with possibly near-term results. I don’t see trying to convince true believers as a likely to give good return investment compared to a long list of other ways of spending time/money.

  644. I really need to work on my phrasing.
    It’s pretty inevitable that if you tell people they’re doin’ it ‘rong, some people’s buttons are going to be pushed. I have been on both sides of that dynamic over the years.
    “Putting that same effort” into fighting gerrymandering and disenfranchisement would also be worthwhile; that’s a fairly immediate need, with possibly near-term results. I don’t see trying to convince true believers as a likely to give good return investment compared to a long list of other ways of spending time/money.

  645. As a simple and practical suggestion, both Common Cause and the League of Women Voters do good work in the area of voters rights.
    Either organization will welcome your money or your time. You do not need to be a woman to participate in the League of Women Voters.

  646. As a simple and practical suggestion, both Common Cause and the League of Women Voters do good work in the area of voters rights.
    Either organization will welcome your money or your time. You do not need to be a woman to participate in the League of Women Voters.

  647. More generally on the topic of influencing people and events: fundamentally I believe that we don’t have a clue. “We” meaning human beings.
    A lot has been written about what used to be called “global warming” and now is called “climate change” in a framework that assumes that if only “we” had made different choices, and if only some people weren’t so benighted or stubborn or greedy, we could have averted that disaster.
    I’m not at all sure of that. I think “we” have about as much chance of influencing events at that scale as we do of changing the course of a hurricane, or shielding the earth from a nearby gamma ray burst.
    This is in part because our conscious motivations are the tip of the iceberg of what drives us. The idea that everything we do is out of conscious, rationally determined motives is an illusion, and the idea that we can consciously influence other people’s choices and decisions is proportionately that much more more fantastic. (This is the “I can’t even get my kids to stop squabbling, WTF do you expect me to do about Bosnia?” POV.)
    People at ObWi have, even fairly recently, observed that after years and years of hanging out here, and with some store of goodwill built up by long acquaintance and the sense of being part of some sort of pixellated community, almost no one has convinced anyone of anything. How much less so, with strangers? And maybe even less so with people close to us in real life.
    If this sounds fatalistic, I’ll counter it with a passage from Mary Doria Russell’s “Children of God,” the second of her two “Jesuits in space” novels. Two female Jana’ata, a sentient predator species now almost extinct, are alone on a mountain. Ha’anala, the younger of the two and a sort of “Moses of her people,” is in despair. Suukmel is the elder of the two.

    “Go back down the mountain, my heart,” Suukmel advised serenely. “Listen to Isaac’s music again. Remember what you thought when you first heard it. Know that if we are children of one God, we can make ourselves one family in time.”
    “And if God is just a song?” Ha’anala asked, alone and frightened.
    Suukmel did not answer for a while. Finally she said, “Our task is the same.”

  648. More generally on the topic of influencing people and events: fundamentally I believe that we don’t have a clue. “We” meaning human beings.
    A lot has been written about what used to be called “global warming” and now is called “climate change” in a framework that assumes that if only “we” had made different choices, and if only some people weren’t so benighted or stubborn or greedy, we could have averted that disaster.
    I’m not at all sure of that. I think “we” have about as much chance of influencing events at that scale as we do of changing the course of a hurricane, or shielding the earth from a nearby gamma ray burst.
    This is in part because our conscious motivations are the tip of the iceberg of what drives us. The idea that everything we do is out of conscious, rationally determined motives is an illusion, and the idea that we can consciously influence other people’s choices and decisions is proportionately that much more more fantastic. (This is the “I can’t even get my kids to stop squabbling, WTF do you expect me to do about Bosnia?” POV.)
    People at ObWi have, even fairly recently, observed that after years and years of hanging out here, and with some store of goodwill built up by long acquaintance and the sense of being part of some sort of pixellated community, almost no one has convinced anyone of anything. How much less so, with strangers? And maybe even less so with people close to us in real life.
    If this sounds fatalistic, I’ll counter it with a passage from Mary Doria Russell’s “Children of God,” the second of her two “Jesuits in space” novels. Two female Jana’ata, a sentient predator species now almost extinct, are alone on a mountain. Ha’anala, the younger of the two and a sort of “Moses of her people,” is in despair. Suukmel is the elder of the two.

    “Go back down the mountain, my heart,” Suukmel advised serenely. “Listen to Isaac’s music again. Remember what you thought when you first heard it. Know that if we are children of one God, we can make ourselves one family in time.”
    “And if God is just a song?” Ha’anala asked, alone and frightened.
    Suukmel did not answer for a while. Finally she said, “Our task is the same.”

  649. From another angle, we might contemplate the butterfly effect in light of the fact that the effect is unpredictable (not to mention unintended by the butterfly), and also that there are billions if not trillions of butterflies flitting about, triggering or contributing to effects both large and small.

  650. From another angle, we might contemplate the butterfly effect in light of the fact that the effect is unpredictable (not to mention unintended by the butterfly), and also that there are billions if not trillions of butterflies flitting about, triggering or contributing to effects both large and small.

  651. People at ObWi have, even fairly recently, observed that after years and years of hanging out here, and with some store of goodwill built up by long acquaintance and the sense of being part of some sort of pixellated community, almost no one has convinced anyone of anything.
    I feel like my opinions have changed on a variety of issues over the years. Partly, I like to think, in response to new information. But this is where the new information frequently came from.

  652. People at ObWi have, even fairly recently, observed that after years and years of hanging out here, and with some store of goodwill built up by long acquaintance and the sense of being part of some sort of pixellated community, almost no one has convinced anyone of anything.
    I feel like my opinions have changed on a variety of issues over the years. Partly, I like to think, in response to new information. But this is where the new information frequently came from.

  653. Also, hsh has said in the past that his opinion has been changed twice (!), and that one of those times it was changed by Janie.

  654. Also, hsh has said in the past that his opinion has been changed twice (!), and that one of those times it was changed by Janie.

  655. heir aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    …
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes.
    I think the Republican party operates on two levels: the politician/big donor level and the voter level.
    The politician/big donors want to turn the US into a one=party kleptocracy. They want to end representative government.
    The people who vote R have a variety of motives all selfish, but most do not want a kleptocracy.

  656. heir aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    …
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes.
    I think the Republican party operates on two levels: the politician/big donor level and the voter level.
    The politician/big donors want to turn the US into a one=party kleptocracy. They want to end representative government.
    The people who vote R have a variety of motives all selfish, but most do not want a kleptocracy.

  657. I don’t see trying to convince true believers as a likely to give good return investment compared to a long list of other ways of spending time/money.
    Agreed, but it’s not the true believers at issue. It’s the sliver of the electorate that do change their vote from cycle to cycle.
    I was arguing it was counterproductive to excoriate people who publicly and at length admit that they were wrong. It’s not going to make any difference to the believers, but how is it going to help persuade the non tribal ?
    I’m no fan of Wittes, and it exasperates me as well when someone belatedly admits what’s been obvious to me for a long time. But in political wars, the concessions of your opponents should be welcomed, not dismissed.
    The New Yorker has a good article from last year discussing cognitive bias and tribalism which is relevant, and rather depressing:
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

  658. I don’t see trying to convince true believers as a likely to give good return investment compared to a long list of other ways of spending time/money.
    Agreed, but it’s not the true believers at issue. It’s the sliver of the electorate that do change their vote from cycle to cycle.
    I was arguing it was counterproductive to excoriate people who publicly and at length admit that they were wrong. It’s not going to make any difference to the believers, but how is it going to help persuade the non tribal ?
    I’m no fan of Wittes, and it exasperates me as well when someone belatedly admits what’s been obvious to me for a long time. But in political wars, the concessions of your opponents should be welcomed, not dismissed.
    The New Yorker has a good article from last year discussing cognitive bias and tribalism which is relevant, and rather depressing:
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

  659. The problem is that those ‘concessions’ tend to be a) singular events not indicating a permanant change of mindset and b) always come after the damage is already done. ‘I maybe should not have released the posion gas. Sorry! Hm, I think I should press that red button marked ‘nuclear armageddon’ next. What could go wrong? Ooopsie! Hm, what about this lever here?’

  660. The problem is that those ‘concessions’ tend to be a) singular events not indicating a permanant change of mindset and b) always come after the damage is already done. ‘I maybe should not have released the posion gas. Sorry! Hm, I think I should press that red button marked ‘nuclear armageddon’ next. What could go wrong? Ooopsie! Hm, what about this lever here?’

  661. A fair point, and I don’t expect Wittes to cease being a conservative any time soon. But the way he talks about Trump is hardly an isolated concession.
    And change is possible when people actually look into what they’re arguing about…
    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201905050026.html
    However, meeting with and hearing Okinawans led him to doubt what he was thinking.
    For example, he went to the Takae district of Higashi in Okinawa Prefecture to argue against protesters who were holding a sit-in there to oppose construction of helipads for U.S. forces.
    Then, in contrary to rightists’ claims, he found that none of the protesters were receiving daily allowances and that there were no South Koreans or Chinese.
    He was also touched by the protestors’ remarks that they wanted to protect their daily lives. Such remarks went “beyond my assumptions,” he admitted.
    He became aware that he was reading only information that supported his own opinions….

  662. A fair point, and I don’t expect Wittes to cease being a conservative any time soon. But the way he talks about Trump is hardly an isolated concession.
    And change is possible when people actually look into what they’re arguing about…
    http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201905050026.html
    However, meeting with and hearing Okinawans led him to doubt what he was thinking.
    For example, he went to the Takae district of Higashi in Okinawa Prefecture to argue against protesters who were holding a sit-in there to oppose construction of helipads for U.S. forces.
    Then, in contrary to rightists’ claims, he found that none of the protesters were receiving daily allowances and that there were no South Koreans or Chinese.
    He was also touched by the protestors’ remarks that they wanted to protect their daily lives. Such remarks went “beyond my assumptions,” he admitted.
    He became aware that he was reading only information that supported his own opinions….

  663. That the big new bugaboo word is “socialism” would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high.
    It would help if people on the left would drop the “democratic socialism” label and adopt “social democracy” instead.

  664. That the big new bugaboo word is “socialism” would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high.
    It would help if people on the left would drop the “democratic socialism” label and adopt “social democracy” instead.

  665. change is possible when people actually look into what they’re arguing about…
    Now you’re talking about a really small demographic. If it’s 1% of the population I’d be amazed.

  666. change is possible when people actually look into what they’re arguing about…
    Now you’re talking about a really small demographic. If it’s 1% of the population I’d be amazed.

  667. I’m pretty sure you’re right, russell.
    But opinions change over time on a larger scale, as we’ve seen with climate change.

  668. I’m pretty sure you’re right, russell.
    But opinions change over time on a larger scale, as we’ve seen with climate change.

  669. If I recall accurately, I believe McKinney’s mind was changed by Jesurgislac, along with other influences, regarding the issue of accepting the legalization of gay marriage.
    Slartibartfast may not have altered his bedrock positions on the issues, but he definitely was, or became over time, a great listener of opposing views.
    And, by the way, Slart’s almost total silence since p was “elected” in 2016 is, IMHO, the most eloquent witness to the travesty we are undergoing in this country.
    Sebastian is similar, but with a different cast of mind, perhaps legalistic, which is in no way a criticism, but which I can’t quite describe at the moment. But he engages.
    Hilzoy presented an example of someone who could accommodate a wide array of views in our little salon here, while being cheerfully and eloquently steadfast in her own positions.
    Marty seems to harbor a range of viewpoints not set completely in concrete, but he has this sort of casual eye-poking thing he does, albeit with a sentimental frame of mind, like a victimized Robert E. Lee not accorded the honor of his uniform (yeah, well, look at the uniform!). His heart is in the right place, but his spleen is available as well.
    Tacitus/Trevino had this thing he did in responding to comments of feigning the stifling of a yawn and studying his nails as if deciding whether discomfiting himself from his on-high fainting couch, propped on one elbow, among classical Roman pillows, was worth his trouble, especially if he couldn’t sniff out a couple of five dollar stump-the-band vocabulary sequins with which to dazzle his interlocutors.
    They, with the exception of Tacitus, are made of better stuff than I am.
    But I am not so concerned with the substance of bedrock views on the issues (there’s always room for split-the-difference compromise) …. bear with me, here … but rather the manner in which they are presented.
    Thus the conservative movement’s … speaking generally … absolute, pure certainty that they are unfailingly correct, if not divinely
    inspired, which places all argument in a polity on questionable footing, and their institution of resolute measures … signed no-tax pledges, altering long-standing informal practices of governance, which have served as the lubricants required to live among one another as political/economic beings … to foreclose all opposition in the exercise of governance is what motivates my rage.
    I grew up around guns and it never occurred to me that banning the assortment of firearms folks kept for hunting and some self-protection would be a thing .. until the NRA and assorted crazy people decided that carrying in public, now even openly all manner of military-grade weaponry, was going to be the new demand, and on top of that seancing the “intentions” of people who lived 240 years ago who knew nothing about the technological advances in firearm deadliness and in any event are no longer available to change their minds …. all of this without compromise and accompanied by threats of using those weapons to ultimately get their way.
    So, now, this is my counter offer under these new rules: Fuck you! You get nothing. You leave with LESS than you had before.
    Now I am going to take ALL of your guns away, assholes, including your kids’ squirt guns. You’d better shoot me now, Liberty, because before I take your weapon, I’ll shoot YOU with it, because I don’t like your all-or-nothing attitude or the look on your mug that comes with it. STFU.
    Falling back on a sports analogy, I enjoy competing in a hard-fought by-the-rules baseball game. But if the opposing team wants to turn it into a spikes-up, high and hard chin music endeavor, you’ve taken on the wrong guy and I’ve played on teams who think the same way and we were happy to match whatever stiff-necked low down, trash-talking shit you want to deal, and do it better.
    At some point I don’t care about winning any longer, I want to hurt and humiliate the other team. Hell, if we have to forfeit the game just to prove the opposition are a bunch of sanctimonious assholes, bring it on.
    Put me in a room with p. I won’t be emerging in a hypnotic trance (I’m HYPnoTIZED) wearing worn knee pads the better to grovel in, to tell you how much I love the guy and how nice he was to me, and pledge undying loyalty to him.
    No, you can make your way into the room through the busted up furniture and fetch p a hankie to staunch the hemorrhaging from his florid, arrogant face.
    I don’t want to civilly debate Grover Norquist. I wanna fight him with a 2-by-4 with a couple of nails sticking out the business end. Because those are HIS terms.
    Go ahead, fire on Fort Sumter because you have a sentimental attachment to the indoor slaves. Now I’m picturing clearing the benches, smashing the water coolers, and burning Atlanta to the ground.
    Not to mention mixing my metaphors.
    Otherwise, I’m incredibly easy to get along with.
    Also, WRS, whatever he said last.
    And that goes for the rest of ya, too.

  670. If I recall accurately, I believe McKinney’s mind was changed by Jesurgislac, along with other influences, regarding the issue of accepting the legalization of gay marriage.
    Slartibartfast may not have altered his bedrock positions on the issues, but he definitely was, or became over time, a great listener of opposing views.
    And, by the way, Slart’s almost total silence since p was “elected” in 2016 is, IMHO, the most eloquent witness to the travesty we are undergoing in this country.
    Sebastian is similar, but with a different cast of mind, perhaps legalistic, which is in no way a criticism, but which I can’t quite describe at the moment. But he engages.
    Hilzoy presented an example of someone who could accommodate a wide array of views in our little salon here, while being cheerfully and eloquently steadfast in her own positions.
    Marty seems to harbor a range of viewpoints not set completely in concrete, but he has this sort of casual eye-poking thing he does, albeit with a sentimental frame of mind, like a victimized Robert E. Lee not accorded the honor of his uniform (yeah, well, look at the uniform!). His heart is in the right place, but his spleen is available as well.
    Tacitus/Trevino had this thing he did in responding to comments of feigning the stifling of a yawn and studying his nails as if deciding whether discomfiting himself from his on-high fainting couch, propped on one elbow, among classical Roman pillows, was worth his trouble, especially if he couldn’t sniff out a couple of five dollar stump-the-band vocabulary sequins with which to dazzle his interlocutors.
    They, with the exception of Tacitus, are made of better stuff than I am.
    But I am not so concerned with the substance of bedrock views on the issues (there’s always room for split-the-difference compromise) …. bear with me, here … but rather the manner in which they are presented.
    Thus the conservative movement’s … speaking generally … absolute, pure certainty that they are unfailingly correct, if not divinely
    inspired, which places all argument in a polity on questionable footing, and their institution of resolute measures … signed no-tax pledges, altering long-standing informal practices of governance, which have served as the lubricants required to live among one another as political/economic beings … to foreclose all opposition in the exercise of governance is what motivates my rage.
    I grew up around guns and it never occurred to me that banning the assortment of firearms folks kept for hunting and some self-protection would be a thing .. until the NRA and assorted crazy people decided that carrying in public, now even openly all manner of military-grade weaponry, was going to be the new demand, and on top of that seancing the “intentions” of people who lived 240 years ago who knew nothing about the technological advances in firearm deadliness and in any event are no longer available to change their minds …. all of this without compromise and accompanied by threats of using those weapons to ultimately get their way.
    So, now, this is my counter offer under these new rules: Fuck you! You get nothing. You leave with LESS than you had before.
    Now I am going to take ALL of your guns away, assholes, including your kids’ squirt guns. You’d better shoot me now, Liberty, because before I take your weapon, I’ll shoot YOU with it, because I don’t like your all-or-nothing attitude or the look on your mug that comes with it. STFU.
    Falling back on a sports analogy, I enjoy competing in a hard-fought by-the-rules baseball game. But if the opposing team wants to turn it into a spikes-up, high and hard chin music endeavor, you’ve taken on the wrong guy and I’ve played on teams who think the same way and we were happy to match whatever stiff-necked low down, trash-talking shit you want to deal, and do it better.
    At some point I don’t care about winning any longer, I want to hurt and humiliate the other team. Hell, if we have to forfeit the game just to prove the opposition are a bunch of sanctimonious assholes, bring it on.
    Put me in a room with p. I won’t be emerging in a hypnotic trance (I’m HYPnoTIZED) wearing worn knee pads the better to grovel in, to tell you how much I love the guy and how nice he was to me, and pledge undying loyalty to him.
    No, you can make your way into the room through the busted up furniture and fetch p a hankie to staunch the hemorrhaging from his florid, arrogant face.
    I don’t want to civilly debate Grover Norquist. I wanna fight him with a 2-by-4 with a couple of nails sticking out the business end. Because those are HIS terms.
    Go ahead, fire on Fort Sumter because you have a sentimental attachment to the indoor slaves. Now I’m picturing clearing the benches, smashing the water coolers, and burning Atlanta to the ground.
    Not to mention mixing my metaphors.
    Otherwise, I’m incredibly easy to get along with.
    Also, WRS, whatever he said last.
    And that goes for the rest of ya, too.

  671. change is possible when people actually look into what they’re arguing about…
    …
    Now you’re talking about a really small demographic. If it’s 1% of the population I’d be amazed.
    In a lot of cases, sure. But consider a counter example: a couple of decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable for the vast majority of the population. A couple of decades before that, just engaging in gay sex was a felony in most of the country. But today?
    Not only is gay marriage legal everywhere, a substantial majority of the population agrees that it ought to be legal. The trogdolyts who still freek out about it are a shrinking minority — and they know it. It is even possible for a gay man to run for President, and be accepted as a serious candidate. Maybe not a likely winner, but it won’t astound if he manages to make it on to the ticket.
    That’s some enormous mind changing. On a topic that people were seriously emotional about. And it happened, to pretty much everybodies’ surprise, in a very few years total.
    Is it likely to happen on other fronts as well? Perhaps not. But I think it’s a mistake to ignore the evidence that it can happen.

  672. change is possible when people actually look into what they’re arguing about…
    …
    Now you’re talking about a really small demographic. If it’s 1% of the population I’d be amazed.
    In a lot of cases, sure. But consider a counter example: a couple of decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable for the vast majority of the population. A couple of decades before that, just engaging in gay sex was a felony in most of the country. But today?
    Not only is gay marriage legal everywhere, a substantial majority of the population agrees that it ought to be legal. The trogdolyts who still freek out about it are a shrinking minority — and they know it. It is even possible for a gay man to run for President, and be accepted as a serious candidate. Maybe not a likely winner, but it won’t astound if he manages to make it on to the ticket.
    That’s some enormous mind changing. On a topic that people were seriously emotional about. And it happened, to pretty much everybodies’ surprise, in a very few years total.
    Is it likely to happen on other fronts as well? Perhaps not. But I think it’s a mistake to ignore the evidence that it can happen.

  673. I have long since abandoned the notion I would change a mind here. The things I would care about changing require more nuance and, frankly, a starting point that we are trying for the most part to accomplish the same things. Neither of those happen here.
    My eye poking, done other places to conservatives, is basically an attempt to draw some bounds of reality when, imo, the hyper partisanship steps over the bounds of reality.
    It’s not GoT we’re watching here. Trump doesnt want to be emperor, Pelosi same.
    No one on the playing field is trying to destroy our democracy, some policy ideas could, but it’s not anyone’s intent.
    No one has the intent to keep poor people poor, there are times when the realities are used for political advantage on both sides.
    The defining assumption that the other side is either discussing in bad faith, evil or just stupid prevents any actual idea exchange.
    Intelligent people wont put up with the crap, they just go away. I’m often not that smart. But there is literally no one left here to have a real discussion with, except for an occasional eye poke I wont bother, and I was it.
    Between the hateful screeds, the name calling and the dismissive self righteousness (Enjoy your tax cut) there’s not much to do except a little eye poking.
    SSDD

  674. I have long since abandoned the notion I would change a mind here. The things I would care about changing require more nuance and, frankly, a starting point that we are trying for the most part to accomplish the same things. Neither of those happen here.
    My eye poking, done other places to conservatives, is basically an attempt to draw some bounds of reality when, imo, the hyper partisanship steps over the bounds of reality.
    It’s not GoT we’re watching here. Trump doesnt want to be emperor, Pelosi same.
    No one on the playing field is trying to destroy our democracy, some policy ideas could, but it’s not anyone’s intent.
    No one has the intent to keep poor people poor, there are times when the realities are used for political advantage on both sides.
    The defining assumption that the other side is either discussing in bad faith, evil or just stupid prevents any actual idea exchange.
    Intelligent people wont put up with the crap, they just go away. I’m often not that smart. But there is literally no one left here to have a real discussion with, except for an occasional eye poke I wont bother, and I was it.
    Between the hateful screeds, the name calling and the dismissive self righteousness (Enjoy your tax cut) there’s not much to do except a little eye poking.
    SSDD

  675. No one on the playing field is trying to destroy our democracy, some policy ideas could, but it’s not anyone’s intent.
    there are a lot of people on the field who find the ideals of democracy annoying obstacles that stand in the way of their true goal: the accumulation of wealth and power.
    Trump, for one. he is no patriot, no idealogue. he has no commitment to the ideals of democracy. he would destroy our democracy in a second, if he thought he could hold onto his money in the aftermath. the fact that the government is too big for him to control completely is the only reason he hasn’t tried.
    but the GOP enthusiastically supports him. top to bottom.

  676. No one on the playing field is trying to destroy our democracy, some policy ideas could, but it’s not anyone’s intent.
    there are a lot of people on the field who find the ideals of democracy annoying obstacles that stand in the way of their true goal: the accumulation of wealth and power.
    Trump, for one. he is no patriot, no idealogue. he has no commitment to the ideals of democracy. he would destroy our democracy in a second, if he thought he could hold onto his money in the aftermath. the fact that the government is too big for him to control completely is the only reason he hasn’t tried.
    but the GOP enthusiastically supports him. top to bottom.

  677. No one on the playing field is trying to destroy our democracy
    Mitch McConnell.
    I don’t include Trump because I don’t think he understands it well enough to intend one thing or another.
    Plus, gerrymandering. Plus, sustained and repeated efforts to suppress voting by people who tend to vote (D).
    That’s all real stuff, nobody’s making it up.
    the dismissive self righteousness (Enjoy your tax cut)
    “Enjoy your tax cut” us shorthand for “it breaks my fucking heart that nobody sees the value of things done by public sector, for the common good, anymore. At least not enough to make any personal sacrifice to make it happen”.
    Because it wasn’t always that way.
    don’t know if that’s more or less self righteous, but it is shorter to type.
    It is somewhat dismissive in that it assumes that a thoughtful discussion of that topic is not on offer. Apologies if that’s unfair, unfortunately I’ve grown jaded.
    Are you open to proposals to raise raxes? On anything or anyone?
    there’s not much to do except a little eye poking.
    The downside of holding a minority position is that you have to dig your way through 18 tons of assumptions about what you’re trying to say before your actual point will be heard.
    You can do that, or poke folks in the eye, but probably not both.

  678. No one on the playing field is trying to destroy our democracy
    Mitch McConnell.
    I don’t include Trump because I don’t think he understands it well enough to intend one thing or another.
    Plus, gerrymandering. Plus, sustained and repeated efforts to suppress voting by people who tend to vote (D).
    That’s all real stuff, nobody’s making it up.
    the dismissive self righteousness (Enjoy your tax cut)
    “Enjoy your tax cut” us shorthand for “it breaks my fucking heart that nobody sees the value of things done by public sector, for the common good, anymore. At least not enough to make any personal sacrifice to make it happen”.
    Because it wasn’t always that way.
    don’t know if that’s more or less self righteous, but it is shorter to type.
    It is somewhat dismissive in that it assumes that a thoughtful discussion of that topic is not on offer. Apologies if that’s unfair, unfortunately I’ve grown jaded.
    Are you open to proposals to raise raxes? On anything or anyone?
    there’s not much to do except a little eye poking.
    The downside of holding a minority position is that you have to dig your way through 18 tons of assumptions about what you’re trying to say before your actual point will be heard.
    You can do that, or poke folks in the eye, but probably not both.

  679. there’s not much to do except a little eye poking.
    This is, IMO, not merely unproductive but actively counterproductive. Whether it is Marty or Mr Thullen. Possibly relieving to the feelings, but unlikely in the extreme to accomplish anything resembling persuasion.

  680. there’s not much to do except a little eye poking.
    This is, IMO, not merely unproductive but actively counterproductive. Whether it is Marty or Mr Thullen. Possibly relieving to the feelings, but unlikely in the extreme to accomplish anything resembling persuasion.

  681. “My eye poking, done other places to conservatives, is basically an attempt to draw some bounds of reality when, imo, the hyper partisanship steps over the bounds of reality.”
    Are you telling us that with your conservative contacts you tried to draw some non-hyper partisan bounds of reality regarding Hillary Clinton.
    What, that she didn’t murder Vince Foster? Did you have to fake your reasonableness to calm them down.
    Marty, you are not the purely objective non-partisan bureau of standards refereeing center of C-SPAN political equilibrium.
    There is one phone line for conservatives and one phone line for liberals. There’s a phone line for the mushy middle, true, but you don’t know the area code.
    I’d like it more, not that it matters outside of our cage matches here (just so you know, none of this is important enough to be personal) if you threw obvious bombs from the other side of the fence where your partisan feet reside, rather than hopping up to your perch on the DMZ fence, after leashing the dog you allege you do not have in these fights, to and tut-tutting some here, including me, for getting carried away.
    What I do isn’t quite fair engagement-wise, I admit, which is to argue vehemently at the conservative political establishment … McConnell, p, FOX News … by yelling at the few conservatives here.
    I must think one of you is going to call up McConnell and company and tell them the crazy person at OBWI thinks they’ve crossed a line and to cease and desist, or else.
    I’m not so concerned with changing minds, including mine, because all, or nearly all, of the possibly mind-changeable conservatives, see RINOs throughout the political establishment and infrastructure who might be open to an appeal have been purposefully sidelined and purged by the true believers who swear blood oaths to stand athwart and NEVER change their minds or votes.
    And I’m not interested in arguing with conservatives who MIGHT change their minds from their extreme positions on, say, abortion, or treating STDs, to pick an issue out of the hat (maybe launder the hat), because their daughter or wife happened to require an abortion to save her life or because she was raped, or their son caught the cooties because he couldn’t resist getting his wick wet, or because either one of them got scragged on a shoot-out on a city street.
    If you (not you, Marty, all of those other yous) will only consider changing policy or moderating a view because, unbelievably, a loved one happens to be up against a reality the rest of the human race experiences daily, then you forfeit the right to in any way govern a polity because you have a severe empathy deficit unless it’s your very own personal puppy falling into a meat grinder.

  682. “My eye poking, done other places to conservatives, is basically an attempt to draw some bounds of reality when, imo, the hyper partisanship steps over the bounds of reality.”
    Are you telling us that with your conservative contacts you tried to draw some non-hyper partisan bounds of reality regarding Hillary Clinton.
    What, that she didn’t murder Vince Foster? Did you have to fake your reasonableness to calm them down.
    Marty, you are not the purely objective non-partisan bureau of standards refereeing center of C-SPAN political equilibrium.
    There is one phone line for conservatives and one phone line for liberals. There’s a phone line for the mushy middle, true, but you don’t know the area code.
    I’d like it more, not that it matters outside of our cage matches here (just so you know, none of this is important enough to be personal) if you threw obvious bombs from the other side of the fence where your partisan feet reside, rather than hopping up to your perch on the DMZ fence, after leashing the dog you allege you do not have in these fights, to and tut-tutting some here, including me, for getting carried away.
    What I do isn’t quite fair engagement-wise, I admit, which is to argue vehemently at the conservative political establishment … McConnell, p, FOX News … by yelling at the few conservatives here.
    I must think one of you is going to call up McConnell and company and tell them the crazy person at OBWI thinks they’ve crossed a line and to cease and desist, or else.
    I’m not so concerned with changing minds, including mine, because all, or nearly all, of the possibly mind-changeable conservatives, see RINOs throughout the political establishment and infrastructure who might be open to an appeal have been purposefully sidelined and purged by the true believers who swear blood oaths to stand athwart and NEVER change their minds or votes.
    And I’m not interested in arguing with conservatives who MIGHT change their minds from their extreme positions on, say, abortion, or treating STDs, to pick an issue out of the hat (maybe launder the hat), because their daughter or wife happened to require an abortion to save her life or because she was raped, or their son caught the cooties because he couldn’t resist getting his wick wet, or because either one of them got scragged on a shoot-out on a city street.
    If you (not you, Marty, all of those other yous) will only consider changing policy or moderating a view because, unbelievably, a loved one happens to be up against a reality the rest of the human race experiences daily, then you forfeit the right to in any way govern a polity because you have a severe empathy deficit unless it’s your very own personal puppy falling into a meat grinder.

  683. Mr. Thullen?
    Why not Mr. Marty?
    I demand equality of outcomes! For Marty, no less.
    %-)

  684. Mr. Thullen?
    Why not Mr. Marty?
    I demand equality of outcomes! For Marty, no less.
    %-)

  685. Mr. Thullen?
    Why not Mr. Marty?
    Um, because there’s only one Marty (here). While we have multiple Johns from time to time. (Double entendre not intended.)
    Sometimes, approximate overall equivalence is not identity in specific arenas. C’est la vie == political correctness be damned.

  686. Mr. Thullen?
    Why not Mr. Marty?
    Um, because there’s only one Marty (here). While we have multiple Johns from time to time. (Double entendre not intended.)
    Sometimes, approximate overall equivalence is not identity in specific arenas. C’est la vie == political correctness be damned.

  687. John
    I do tell my conservative interlocutors that it is not likely Clinton had Foster killed. I do tell them when I think they have escaped reality.
    I dont sit on a fence, I am certainly a moderate, but not not mushy. I find the sheer level of vehemence and angst here beyond any reasonable reaction to actual events.
    We may not have had worse Presidents, in some ways, but certainly none as despicable personally. McConnell is just the whopping boy because he is in the position he is in, but any Republican, or Democrat in reversed circumstances, would do what hes done. It took him two years to finally blow up the filibuster for judges.
    I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother. Nor with someone who believes contraception is abortion. Those appear to now be the appropriate stances on offer.
    But there, I must be sitting on some muddled fence because I dont want to entertain the ridiculous stances of either parties supporters as rational, or the way they try to enforce those through widespread social bullying by demonizing anyone not on their side.

  688. John
    I do tell my conservative interlocutors that it is not likely Clinton had Foster killed. I do tell them when I think they have escaped reality.
    I dont sit on a fence, I am certainly a moderate, but not not mushy. I find the sheer level of vehemence and angst here beyond any reasonable reaction to actual events.
    We may not have had worse Presidents, in some ways, but certainly none as despicable personally. McConnell is just the whopping boy because he is in the position he is in, but any Republican, or Democrat in reversed circumstances, would do what hes done. It took him two years to finally blow up the filibuster for judges.
    I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother. Nor with someone who believes contraception is abortion. Those appear to now be the appropriate stances on offer.
    But there, I must be sitting on some muddled fence because I dont want to entertain the ridiculous stances of either parties supporters as rational, or the way they try to enforce those through widespread social bullying by demonizing anyone not on their side.

  689. I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother.
    Which is fine, as there are no such people.

  690. I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother.
    Which is fine, as there are no such people.

  691. I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother.
    there can’t be more than … eight ? such people in the entire world. and that’s including serial killers.

  692. I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother.
    there can’t be more than … eight ? such people in the entire world. and that’s including serial killers.

  693. McConnell is just the whopping boy because he is in the position he is in, but any Republican, or Democrat in reversed circumstances, would do what hes done.
    I think this is profoundly wrong. Look what he did about Merrick Garland after Obama nominated him, and then he made it clear before the 2016 election that even if HRC won he would make sure Garland’s nomination stayed stymied. As far as I can see, no other R or D has ever shown such contempt for American democracy.

  694. McConnell is just the whopping boy because he is in the position he is in, but any Republican, or Democrat in reversed circumstances, would do what hes done.
    I think this is profoundly wrong. Look what he did about Merrick Garland after Obama nominated him, and then he made it clear before the 2016 election that even if HRC won he would make sure Garland’s nomination stayed stymied. As far as I can see, no other R or D has ever shown such contempt for American democracy.

  695. One of the good things Andrew Sullivan did while his blog was still live was to host a discussion on the issue – which if I recall correctly, changed his mind.
    Here’s a thread I found:
    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/threads/its-so-personal/
    Striking is that for the parents actually faced with making the decision, whether they were pro choice or pro life often did not determine what their decision was.
    And most refused to judge others, whichever way they decided.

  696. One of the good things Andrew Sullivan did while his blog was still live was to host a discussion on the issue – which if I recall correctly, changed his mind.
    Here’s a thread I found:
    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/threads/its-so-personal/
    Striking is that for the parents actually faced with making the decision, whether they were pro choice or pro life often did not determine what their decision was.
    And most refused to judge others, whichever way they decided.

  697. McConnell is just the whopping boy because he is in the position he is in, but any Republican, or Democrat in reversed circumstances, would do what hes done.
    And yet none of them ever did. Consider, by way of example, Trent Lott. Nobody’s idea of a liberal — recall that he was forced out as majority leader after speaking in praise of voting (“proudly“!) for the Dixiecrats. Yet he didn’t find it necessary to stonewall President Clinton’s judicial nominations. Even though Clinton was hardly beloved of Republicans in Congress.

  698. McConnell is just the whopping boy because he is in the position he is in, but any Republican, or Democrat in reversed circumstances, would do what hes done.
    And yet none of them ever did. Consider, by way of example, Trent Lott. Nobody’s idea of a liberal — recall that he was forced out as majority leader after speaking in praise of voting (“proudly“!) for the Dixiecrats. Yet he didn’t find it necessary to stonewall President Clinton’s judicial nominations. Even though Clinton was hardly beloved of Republicans in Congress.

  699. … it is not likely Clinton had Foster killed …
    Now THERE’S a “moderate” position.
    “It’s fucking nuts to believe Clinton had Foster killed” is what a radical leftie like me would probably say. Which just goes to show you how angst-ridden I am, I guess.
    –TP

  700. … it is not likely Clinton had Foster killed …
    Now THERE’S a “moderate” position.
    “It’s fucking nuts to believe Clinton had Foster killed” is what a radical leftie like me would probably say. Which just goes to show you how angst-ridden I am, I guess.
    –TP

  701. I do like the phrase “whopping boy”. Who knew smartphone keyboards could give forth with inadvertent poetry.
    For whom the boy does whop.

  702. I do like the phrase “whopping boy”. Who knew smartphone keyboards could give forth with inadvertent poetry.
    For whom the boy does whop.

  703. I vote for the GOP, even though I couldnt for Trump ever, because I put my country ahead of even my disgust for him. Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother.
    For a brave, indepentent truth-teller who can poke the eye of either side with his uber-rational ability to “draw the bounds of reality,” it’s amazing how often Marty shows up using the latest R or Clickbait talking point as the stick he brings to poke us with.

  704. I vote for the GOP, even though I couldnt for Trump ever, because I put my country ahead of even my disgust for him. Power isnt the goal, saving the country from Democratic Socialism is.
    I’m not interested in discussing abortion with people happy to kill a child as long as its 1 second before it is born on the fucking whim of the mother.
    For a brave, indepentent truth-teller who can poke the eye of either side with his uber-rational ability to “draw the bounds of reality,” it’s amazing how often Marty shows up using the latest R or Clickbait talking point as the stick he brings to poke us with.

  705. I am certainly a moderate
    LOL, whopping boy. Moderate on what?
    By that measure I am also a moderate, stuck as I am between those who promote the proletarian revolution (like Protestantism, many varieties) and squishes like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

  706. I am certainly a moderate
    LOL, whopping boy. Moderate on what?
    By that measure I am also a moderate, stuck as I am between those who promote the proletarian revolution (like Protestantism, many varieties) and squishes like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

  713. yeah, but you gotta admit: imaginary socialism is still much scarier than actual corruption, treason and lying under oath.

  714. yeah, but you gotta admit: imaginary socialism is still much scarier than actual corruption, treason and lying under oath.

  715. Meanwhile, chez cleek, it is reported that in Ohio an 11 year old girl who was raped and is pregnant is being forced to carry a child to term because of the new “heartbeat” bill. Words fail, particularly when trying to consider those who claim their concern is “the welfare of the child”.

  716. Meanwhile, chez cleek, it is reported that in Ohio an 11 year old girl who was raped and is pregnant is being forced to carry a child to term because of the new “heartbeat” bill. Words fail, particularly when trying to consider those who claim their concern is “the welfare of the child”.

  717. The linked article at chez cleek is short on details, including how far along the 11-year-old’s pregnancy is. Right off the bat, though, the reporter’s assertion that she won’t be allowed to have an abortion because of the new law is suspect, because the new law doesn’t even take effect until July, and it will be challenged in court in any case.
    I won’t be surprised if the child ends up being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, but I hope that if she wants an abortion, she gets help obtaining it, starting with her family and moving outward to anyone who might be willing to support them financially or otherwise. If nothing else, we can still travel within the good old US of A without a passport, and not all states are as benighted as Ohio.

  718. The linked article at chez cleek is short on details, including how far along the 11-year-old’s pregnancy is. Right off the bat, though, the reporter’s assertion that she won’t be allowed to have an abortion because of the new law is suspect, because the new law doesn’t even take effect until July, and it will be challenged in court in any case.
    I won’t be surprised if the child ends up being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, but I hope that if she wants an abortion, she gets help obtaining it, starting with her family and moving outward to anyone who might be willing to support them financially or otherwise. If nothing else, we can still travel within the good old US of A without a passport, and not all states are as benighted as Ohio.

  719. Thank you Janie, that’s good news (about the law not coming into effect til July, if then). I did see that the piece could possibly do with more delving, but was pushed for time, so didn’t bother: my bad. Clearly, though, these sorts of bills are very sinister from the point of view of pro-choicers like myself, and when taken together with a) the fact that the judge has set (admittedly high) bail for her rapist, and b) the recent case where the judge in New York sentenced the school bus driver who raped a 14 year old girl to 10 years probation and no jail time on the basis he “only raped one person”, the straws in the wind about who gets punished, and how, are highly suggestive.

  720. Thank you Janie, that’s good news (about the law not coming into effect til July, if then). I did see that the piece could possibly do with more delving, but was pushed for time, so didn’t bother: my bad. Clearly, though, these sorts of bills are very sinister from the point of view of pro-choicers like myself, and when taken together with a) the fact that the judge has set (admittedly high) bail for her rapist, and b) the recent case where the judge in New York sentenced the school bus driver who raped a 14 year old girl to 10 years probation and no jail time on the basis he “only raped one person”, the straws in the wind about who gets punished, and how, are highly suggestive.

  721. the new law doesn’t even take effect until July,
    just a note: July is less than two months away.

  722. the new law doesn’t even take effect until July,
    just a note: July is less than two months away.

  723. Agree with you on the general points, GftNC.
    July is less than two months away.
    Nevertheless, to assert baldly that she won’t be able to have an abortion because of the new law is either rank stupidity, selective ignorance, or deliberate rabble-rousing, from which side of the debate I can’t even tell. It is simply not true in the bald way in which it was written. The ACLU is already planning to appeal the law, and it beggars belief to think that pro-choice groups won’t step forward to help the girl if her family allows it.
    Again, I won’t be surprised if she ends up not having an abortion. I will be very surprised if there aren’t significant efforts to make the law irrelevant to her situation, within the time frame before the law takes effect.

  724. Agree with you on the general points, GftNC.
    July is less than two months away.
    Nevertheless, to assert baldly that she won’t be able to have an abortion because of the new law is either rank stupidity, selective ignorance, or deliberate rabble-rousing, from which side of the debate I can’t even tell. It is simply not true in the bald way in which it was written. The ACLU is already planning to appeal the law, and it beggars belief to think that pro-choice groups won’t step forward to help the girl if her family allows it.
    Again, I won’t be surprised if she ends up not having an abortion. I will be very surprised if there aren’t significant efforts to make the law irrelevant to her situation, within the time frame before the law takes effect.

  725. if she’s more than 20 weeks in, she can’t get an abortion in OH, no exceptions, regardless of how the heartbeat bill plays out.
    i’d pack up an leave the state.

  726. if she’s more than 20 weeks in, she can’t get an abortion in OH, no exceptions, regardless of how the heartbeat bill plays out.
    i’d pack up an leave the state.

  727. States are supposed to be laboratories for policy on a smaller scale, informing decisions on policy at the national level. I guess people can test out how they like living in Christianist hellholes at the state level.
    I’d go on, but I’ve got babies to kill! (That’s satire, if that isn’t obvious enough for anyone.)

  728. States are supposed to be laboratories for policy on a smaller scale, informing decisions on policy at the national level. I guess people can test out how they like living in Christianist hellholes at the state level.
    I’d go on, but I’ve got babies to kill! (That’s satire, if that isn’t obvious enough for anyone.)

  729. I try to avoid baseless speculation, but I have to wonder who, if anyone, gets a heads up about Trump’s tweets, and if any of those folks shorted the market today.
    Money don’t make itself, y’all!

  730. I try to avoid baseless speculation, but I have to wonder who, if anyone, gets a heads up about Trump’s tweets, and if any of those folks shorted the market today.
    Money don’t make itself, y’all!

  733. 11 year olds, however, are constrained on that front.
    My grandfather was riding the rails when he was 11. What’s the problem?
    /(outraged) sarcasm

  734. 11 year olds, however, are constrained on that front.
    My grandfather was riding the rails when he was 11. What’s the problem?
    /(outraged) sarcasm

  737. Well, this is fun
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html
    Money quote:

    Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

    Note that “each of us” includes some 375 (and counting) prosecutors. Including prosecutors who have worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower! Hard to make a plausible case for partisanship there. (Not that mere plausibility matters to Barr, et al.)

  738. Well, this is fun
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-would-have-been-charged-with-obstruction-were-he-not-president-hundreds-of-former-federal-prosecutors-assert/2019/05/06/e4946a1a-7006-11e9-9f06-5fc2ee80027a_story.html
    Money quote:

    Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

    Note that “each of us” includes some 375 (and counting) prosecutors. Including prosecutors who have worked in every presidential administration since that of Dwight D. Eisenhower! Hard to make a plausible case for partisanship there. (Not that mere plausibility matters to Barr, et al.)

  739. “grifters gonna grift”
    The up side being that every dollar they use to line their own pockets is a dollar that won’t be available to support Trump’s reelection campaign. Or the campaigns of his supporters.

  740. “grifters gonna grift”
    The up side being that every dollar they use to line their own pockets is a dollar that won’t be available to support Trump’s reelection campaign. Or the campaigns of his supporters.

  743. total. exoneration.
    Which is why the White House is calling (loudly!) for the entire, unredacted, report to be published, and the author (Mueller) to testify as soon and as publicly as possible.
    Oh wait….

  744. total. exoneration.
    Which is why the White House is calling (loudly!) for the entire, unredacted, report to be published, and the author (Mueller) to testify as soon and as publicly as possible.
    Oh wait….

  745. There are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors as defined in the article. Close to 400 is a really small number. Despite the optics.

  746. There are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors as defined in the article. Close to 400 is a really small number. Despite the optics.

  747. Close to 400 is a really small number.
    Yes, because hundreds of former prosecutors bother to put forth such unanimous group opinions all the time.
    But you really don’t like Trump!

  748. Close to 400 is a really small number.
    Yes, because hundreds of former prosecutors bother to put forth such unanimous group opinions all the time.
    But you really don’t like Trump!

  749. There are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors as defined in the article. Close to 400 is a really small number.
    How often do any former Federal prosecutors weigh in on a single case on whether the evidence merits an indictment?
    Seriously, does it happen often? Occasionally? Essentially never? It would be helpful to know that before deciding whether this is significant — and I confess that I haven’t a clue. Beyond the fact that I don’t recall hearing of it.

  750. There are tens of thousands of former federal prosecutors as defined in the article. Close to 400 is a really small number.
    How often do any former Federal prosecutors weigh in on a single case on whether the evidence merits an indictment?
    Seriously, does it happen often? Occasionally? Essentially never? It would be helpful to know that before deciding whether this is significant — and I confess that I haven’t a clue. Beyond the fact that I don’t recall hearing of it.

  751. I just was noting the power of the internet petition to make something seem really meaningful. I am amazed constantly at the gullibility of the “smart kids”. You can get 500 people to sign up for just about anything.
    I dont have to like Trump to dislike the flagrant attempts to bring down a sitting US President on any excuse. That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.
    That makes us a banana republic.

  752. I just was noting the power of the internet petition to make something seem really meaningful. I am amazed constantly at the gullibility of the “smart kids”. You can get 500 people to sign up for just about anything.
    I dont have to like Trump to dislike the flagrant attempts to bring down a sitting US President on any excuse. That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.
    That makes us a banana republic.

  753. …there is literally no one left here to have a real discussion with…
    That depends what you want to discuss. There are very many issues we could have a reasonable debate about on here across the range of normal political viewpoints. For example, is Obamacare a good healthcare model, or would it be better to have something more like the German system, or should the USA go for single payer?
    The problem is that the Republican Party nowadays has taken positions well outside what’s reasonably debatable, notwithstanding that otherwise reasonable people like Marty have travelled with them.
    Is it a good idea to torture prisoners?
    Is it a good idea to deprive millions of people of healthcare?
    Is it a good idea to increase the deficit to fund tax cuts for the rich at a time of healthy economic growth?
    Then there are questions about whether you want a proper democracy:
    Is it a good idea to make it difficult for people who support the other side to vote?
    Is it a good idea for a political party to fix electoral boundaries to its own advantage?
    Is it a good idea for a political party which seldom wins the popular vote to pack the Supreme Court with highly partisan judges?
    And questions about the criminal president:
    Is it a good idea for a presidential candidate to welcome electoral assistance from a hostile foreign power?
    Is it a good idea for the resulting president to use his office to obstruct investigation into that assistance?
    Is it a good idea for the president to direct state business to his own companies?
    Is it a good idea for foreign governments and lobbyists to be able to enrich the president through his companies?
    The answer to all this questions is “No”. The only reason why one would give them a moment’s attention is that the second most popular party in the USA, which holds most political power, thinks that the answer is “yes”. Don’t blame us if you can’t get a reasoned debate here about them: adopt rational, humane views instead.

  754. …there is literally no one left here to have a real discussion with…
    That depends what you want to discuss. There are very many issues we could have a reasonable debate about on here across the range of normal political viewpoints. For example, is Obamacare a good healthcare model, or would it be better to have something more like the German system, or should the USA go for single payer?
    The problem is that the Republican Party nowadays has taken positions well outside what’s reasonably debatable, notwithstanding that otherwise reasonable people like Marty have travelled with them.
    Is it a good idea to torture prisoners?
    Is it a good idea to deprive millions of people of healthcare?
    Is it a good idea to increase the deficit to fund tax cuts for the rich at a time of healthy economic growth?
    Then there are questions about whether you want a proper democracy:
    Is it a good idea to make it difficult for people who support the other side to vote?
    Is it a good idea for a political party to fix electoral boundaries to its own advantage?
    Is it a good idea for a political party which seldom wins the popular vote to pack the Supreme Court with highly partisan judges?
    And questions about the criminal president:
    Is it a good idea for a presidential candidate to welcome electoral assistance from a hostile foreign power?
    Is it a good idea for the resulting president to use his office to obstruct investigation into that assistance?
    Is it a good idea for the president to direct state business to his own companies?
    Is it a good idea for foreign governments and lobbyists to be able to enrich the president through his companies?
    The answer to all this questions is “No”. The only reason why one would give them a moment’s attention is that the second most popular party in the USA, which holds most political power, thinks that the answer is “yes”. Don’t blame us if you can’t get a reasoned debate here about them: adopt rational, humane views instead.

  755. You can get 500 people to sign up for just about anything.
    Certainly, demonstrably, true. Sad to say.
    But 500 ex-federal prosecutors? On a professional/expert opinion regarding a potential case?
    Let’s face it, the 500 you can get to endorse just about anything are, routinely, not the sharpest knives in the drawer. This seems, at least on the surface, a rather different circumstance.

  756. You can get 500 people to sign up for just about anything.
    Certainly, demonstrably, true. Sad to say.
    But 500 ex-federal prosecutors? On a professional/expert opinion regarding a potential case?
    Let’s face it, the 500 you can get to endorse just about anything are, routinely, not the sharpest knives in the drawer. This seems, at least on the surface, a rather different circumstance.

  757. Joe Schmoe commits obstruction of justice and it takes a single .. that’s one … public prosecutor to try the case and twelve, in some states, six jurors to convict the schmuck.
    Joe Schmoe: You’re breaking my balls over here. You’re telling me ONE, that’s ONE prosecutor thinks I’m guilty and a dozen amateurs, some of whom could hardly stay awake during the proceedings, agreed with him. And half of them were white! I demand 400 retrials in 400 different jurisdictions and we’ll see if they can replicate this travesty of justice? Someone get me the Attorney General of the United States on the blower to represent me for free!”
    Judge: “Mr Schmoe, I appreciate your courtroom antics, but who do you think you are, the President of the United States? That’s 30 more days added to your sentence for thinking you are above the law. Now, bailiff, GET THIS PILE OF WASTED HUMAN POTENTIAL OUT OF MY COURTROOM!”
    Look Marty, ONE general counsel …. that’s 1/400th of the prosecutors surveyed in the p case …. at the FBI thought Hillary Clinton should have faced charges regarding the server and the emails:
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was
    That’ll be good enough for Lindsay Graham.
    What say you?
    “That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.”
    This banana republic needs a fast-moving and savage coup.
    If Hillary Clinton had become President, p and the Republican Party on a Capitol Hill promised to start a FAST-moving coup and her impeachment the day of her Inauguration.
    However, by the time they got the hearings and trial off and running, a conservative, with accessories to the crime, because you can get 500 people to sign up to shoot the “c&nt”, or Barack Obama, the n&gger Muslim, at just about any p political rally, would have shot her in the head with one of their precious fucking weapons.
    The celebrations in the streets by conservative vermin, 400 times 200,000 of the filth, count ’em, would have been banana worthy.
    You might have been able to calm them down.

  758. Joe Schmoe commits obstruction of justice and it takes a single .. that’s one … public prosecutor to try the case and twelve, in some states, six jurors to convict the schmuck.
    Joe Schmoe: You’re breaking my balls over here. You’re telling me ONE, that’s ONE prosecutor thinks I’m guilty and a dozen amateurs, some of whom could hardly stay awake during the proceedings, agreed with him. And half of them were white! I demand 400 retrials in 400 different jurisdictions and we’ll see if they can replicate this travesty of justice? Someone get me the Attorney General of the United States on the blower to represent me for free!”
    Judge: “Mr Schmoe, I appreciate your courtroom antics, but who do you think you are, the President of the United States? That’s 30 more days added to your sentence for thinking you are above the law. Now, bailiff, GET THIS PILE OF WASTED HUMAN POTENTIAL OUT OF MY COURTROOM!”
    Look Marty, ONE general counsel …. that’s 1/400th of the prosecutors surveyed in the p case …. at the FBI thought Hillary Clinton should have faced charges regarding the server and the emails:
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was
    That’ll be good enough for Lindsay Graham.
    What say you?
    “That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.”
    This banana republic needs a fast-moving and savage coup.
    If Hillary Clinton had become President, p and the Republican Party on a Capitol Hill promised to start a FAST-moving coup and her impeachment the day of her Inauguration.
    However, by the time they got the hearings and trial off and running, a conservative, with accessories to the crime, because you can get 500 people to sign up to shoot the “c&nt”, or Barack Obama, the n&gger Muslim, at just about any p political rally, would have shot her in the head with one of their precious fucking weapons.
    The celebrations in the streets by conservative vermin, 400 times 200,000 of the filth, count ’em, would have been banana worthy.
    You might have been able to calm them down.

  759. I dont have to like Trump to dislike the flagrant attempts to bring down a sitting US President on any excuse. That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.
    Any excuse? Don’t quit your day job.

  760. I dont have to like Trump to dislike the flagrant attempts to bring down a sitting US President on any excuse. That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.
    Any excuse? Don’t quit your day job.

  761. Here’s some classic coupes for you. Some were slower than others.
    Other kinds of coups include:
    1.) Sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of government power…The Dem investigative push is none of these things.
    2.) A notably successful stroke or move….to be determined. Opinions vary.

  762. Here’s some classic coupes for you. Some were slower than others.
    Other kinds of coups include:
    1.) Sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of government power…The Dem investigative push is none of these things.
    2.) A notably successful stroke or move….to be determined. Opinions vary.

  763. Suppose that He, Trump loses the 2020 election by the same 304 vs 227 EC vote He won 2016 with. And suppose He declares the election was “rigged” and vows to stay in the White House past 20 Jan 2021.
    Does anybody here doubt that Moderate Marty would be telling us, around Christmas and New Year’s 2020, that however despicable He, Trump may be personally, we should chill out and have a reasoned debate on whether He may actually be within His rights? Anybody? Marty?
    –TP

  764. Suppose that He, Trump loses the 2020 election by the same 304 vs 227 EC vote He won 2016 with. And suppose He declares the election was “rigged” and vows to stay in the White House past 20 Jan 2021.
    Does anybody here doubt that Moderate Marty would be telling us, around Christmas and New Year’s 2020, that however despicable He, Trump may be personally, we should chill out and have a reasoned debate on whether He may actually be within His rights? Anybody? Marty?
    –TP

  765. That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.
    That makes us a banana republic.
    You don’t appear to know what either a coup or a banana republic are.

  766. That’s called what I’ve called it for two years, a slow moving coup.
    That makes us a banana republic.
    You don’t appear to know what either a coup or a banana republic are.

  767. WRS.
    And thirdly, it’s not a particularly slow moving investigation, compared to either Watergate or the Clinton sex case.

  768. WRS.
    And thirdly, it’s not a particularly slow moving investigation, compared to either Watergate or the Clinton sex case.

  769. Marty?
    When he loses the election he wont have the ability to “refuse” to leave. If he tried he should be arrested for whatever felony that would be, treason maybe?
    Jesus you people. Do you think there is ANY way he could actually refuse to turn over power? Is there any credible notion that the military would defend him in that endeavor? The FBI maybe?
    That’s as ridiculous as any conspiracy theory ever.

  770. Marty?
    When he loses the election he wont have the ability to “refuse” to leave. If he tried he should be arrested for whatever felony that would be, treason maybe?
    Jesus you people. Do you think there is ANY way he could actually refuse to turn over power? Is there any credible notion that the military would defend him in that endeavor? The FBI maybe?
    That’s as ridiculous as any conspiracy theory ever.

  771. Be that as it may, he’s sure as hell trying it on. Not in 2020, now.
    Mueller’s investigation interfered with his first two years, so he wants a mulligan. He wants us to tack two years on to the back end to make up for it.

  772. Be that as it may, he’s sure as hell trying it on. Not in 2020, now.
    Mueller’s investigation interfered with his first two years, so he wants a mulligan. He wants us to tack two years on to the back end to make up for it.

  773. So? Think hes gonna get that? Let’s all hyperventilate over some buffoons purposeful tweaking our nose. Or just realize hes trying to get your goat. If he is.
    I mean, hes not actuslly said anything about getting two more years as far as I’ve heard. But I havent really seen all the tweets I’m sure. I actually took it when I first heard about it as preparing for reelection.

  774. So? Think hes gonna get that? Let’s all hyperventilate over some buffoons purposeful tweaking our nose. Or just realize hes trying to get your goat. If he is.
    I mean, hes not actuslly said anything about getting two more years as far as I’ve heard. But I havent really seen all the tweets I’m sure. I actually took it when I first heard about it as preparing for reelection.

  775. I must agree with Marty that there is no way for Trump to remain in the White House should he lose the election. (That’s “lose” as in lose the Electoral College vote.)
    Which is not to say that he won’t try. Probably not to the point that the Secret Service has to pick him up and physically carry him out the door. But proclaim to his fans that the election was invalid/fraudulent/etc.? Yes, pretty much a certainty. File numerous law suits over the results? That, too.
    Encourage (carefully phrased, to evade actual legal liability) the fans to act to “restore” him to power? Wouldn’t surprise at all. And likely at least a few of them will respond.
    And manage to combine rallies of his fans with solicitation of funds (nominally for his restoration, but actually to line his pockets)? Definitely. Behavior like that is right in his wheel house.
    All that said (and assuming he has lost), on January 20 the new President will be inaugurated . . . whether Trump shows up or not. Power will pass. It may be denounced as the “deep state”, but our institutions will function.

  776. I must agree with Marty that there is no way for Trump to remain in the White House should he lose the election. (That’s “lose” as in lose the Electoral College vote.)
    Which is not to say that he won’t try. Probably not to the point that the Secret Service has to pick him up and physically carry him out the door. But proclaim to his fans that the election was invalid/fraudulent/etc.? Yes, pretty much a certainty. File numerous law suits over the results? That, too.
    Encourage (carefully phrased, to evade actual legal liability) the fans to act to “restore” him to power? Wouldn’t surprise at all. And likely at least a few of them will respond.
    And manage to combine rallies of his fans with solicitation of funds (nominally for his restoration, but actually to line his pockets)? Definitely. Behavior like that is right in his wheel house.
    All that said (and assuming he has lost), on January 20 the new President will be inaugurated . . . whether Trump shows up or not. Power will pass. It may be denounced as the “deep state”, but our institutions will function.

  777. Underestimation.
    Anything is possible with this lout.
    As his personal attorney, the former one before Barr, will tell you thru a prison visit window.

  778. Underestimation.
    Anything is possible with this lout.
    As his personal attorney, the former one before Barr, will tell you thru a prison visit window.

  779. “I mean, hes not actuslly said anything about getting two more years as far as I’ve heard.”
    Scroll down, your are on his feed.
    He has ventriloquists to say it for him.
    The younger Falwell, who needs to fall down a well fatally.
    He’ll say it, just wait.
    Then what will YOU say.
    “He didn’t actually say it, he tweeted it. It’s not the same thing.”

  780. “I mean, hes not actuslly said anything about getting two more years as far as I’ve heard.”
    Scroll down, your are on his feed.
    He has ventriloquists to say it for him.
    The younger Falwell, who needs to fall down a well fatally.
    He’ll say it, just wait.
    Then what will YOU say.
    “He didn’t actually say it, he tweeted it. It’s not the same thing.”

  781. That’s as ridiculous as any conspiracy theory ever.
    Not even close to many, if not most, right wing fantasies, but I will grant you that it most likely is far fetched. I remember the wild eyed theories about Bush not giving up power if he lost in ’04. Pretty silly stuff.
    After the election, Marty claimed that Trump would not “really” change things that much. I tended to agree. He has tried mightily, but will he get away with it? Maybe. The supine acquiescence of the GOpper controlled Senate is a bit of a wild card, but not determinative. Nonetheless, the deterioration of democratic norms is a serious issue, the crackpot judges, the rollback of the regulatory state…and the GOP is OK with this…all the way.
    Throw in the corruption…the perfect storm.
    This is troubling (i.e., we are fucked), and Marty is just OK with it.
    I feel the shitstorm has just begun.
    Again…this struggle is all about naked political power, and who gets to decide who gets what.
    Don’t you EVER forget that, folks.
    Drunk yet again in Seattle.
    Bless you all.

  782. That’s as ridiculous as any conspiracy theory ever.
    Not even close to many, if not most, right wing fantasies, but I will grant you that it most likely is far fetched. I remember the wild eyed theories about Bush not giving up power if he lost in ’04. Pretty silly stuff.
    After the election, Marty claimed that Trump would not “really” change things that much. I tended to agree. He has tried mightily, but will he get away with it? Maybe. The supine acquiescence of the GOpper controlled Senate is a bit of a wild card, but not determinative. Nonetheless, the deterioration of democratic norms is a serious issue, the crackpot judges, the rollback of the regulatory state…and the GOP is OK with this…all the way.
    Throw in the corruption…the perfect storm.
    This is troubling (i.e., we are fucked), and Marty is just OK with it.
    I feel the shitstorm has just begun.
    Again…this struggle is all about naked political power, and who gets to decide who gets what.
    Don’t you EVER forget that, folks.
    Drunk yet again in Seattle.
    Bless you all.

  783. Burn into your hearts people, exactly this: The wingnuts want the goodies. They want to take them away from you.
    This is important.
    They want all the stuff.
    They will not be stopped until they are utterly crushed.
    There is no such thing as a “good” Rupuklican.
    Data point: Have you ever seen the Marty types ever, ever say anything good about any Democrats ever?
    That is a tell.
    It is all about the will to power. Libs need to up their game or they are going to be humiliated.
    Libs need to learn how to say, “Go fuck yourself” and MEAN it.

  784. Burn into your hearts people, exactly this: The wingnuts want the goodies. They want to take them away from you.
    This is important.
    They want all the stuff.
    They will not be stopped until they are utterly crushed.
    There is no such thing as a “good” Rupuklican.
    Data point: Have you ever seen the Marty types ever, ever say anything good about any Democrats ever?
    That is a tell.
    It is all about the will to power. Libs need to up their game or they are going to be humiliated.
    Libs need to learn how to say, “Go fuck yourself” and MEAN it.

  785. There is no such thing as a “good” Rupuklican.
    Data point: Have you ever seen the Marty types ever, ever say anything good about any Democrats ever?
    I will concede that I may well not qualify as a “Marty type”. But I am a (long time) Republican. And I have, on occasion, had good things to say about a number of Democrats. No doubt a little search of the ObWi archives will produce examples.
    So I would submit that this — certainly not unique here — is a serious over-generalization.
    Libs need to learn how to say, “Go fuck yourself” and MEAN it.
    In my personal experience, those on the left have known how to do this for decades. And haven’t exactly been shy about doing so. Not to say that all liberals are willing and able — that, too, would qualify as over-generalization.

  786. There is no such thing as a “good” Rupuklican.
    Data point: Have you ever seen the Marty types ever, ever say anything good about any Democrats ever?
    I will concede that I may well not qualify as a “Marty type”. But I am a (long time) Republican. And I have, on occasion, had good things to say about a number of Democrats. No doubt a little search of the ObWi archives will produce examples.
    So I would submit that this — certainly not unique here — is a serious over-generalization.
    Libs need to learn how to say, “Go fuck yourself” and MEAN it.
    In my personal experience, those on the left have known how to do this for decades. And haven’t exactly been shy about doing so. Not to say that all liberals are willing and able — that, too, would qualify as over-generalization.

  787. So I would submit that this — certainly not unique here — is a serious over-generalization.
    wj aside…nope. On the whole, this is an accurate generalization. The GOP needs to be crushed. Even so-called moderate GOPPERS want to take the stuff.
    All of it.
    You can caterwall all you like about “moderate Republicans”, but that is a misnomer. They (you) support the GOP paradigm.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and climate change.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the distribution of the returns to economic activity.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the need to have government intervention in health care.
    You CAN’T.
    Because there are no such people.
    A position that asserts that those who have power need to keep it is simply wrong.
    It must be opposed.
    Root and branch.

  788. So I would submit that this — certainly not unique here — is a serious over-generalization.
    wj aside…nope. On the whole, this is an accurate generalization. The GOP needs to be crushed. Even so-called moderate GOPPERS want to take the stuff.
    All of it.
    You can caterwall all you like about “moderate Republicans”, but that is a misnomer. They (you) support the GOP paradigm.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and climate change.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the distribution of the returns to economic activity.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the need to have government intervention in health care.
    You CAN’T.
    Because there are no such people.
    A position that asserts that those who have power need to keep it is simply wrong.
    It must be opposed.
    Root and branch.

  789. Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and climate change.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the distribution of the returns to economic activity.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the need to have government intervention in health care.
    You CAN’T.
    Actually, I can.
    Climate change. It’s happening. Mitigation has probably been delayed too long to avoid serious (extremely serious) negative effects. But that’s no reason not to do as much as we can, as soon as may be, to keep things from getting worse. As an aside, it isn’t too early to start serious planning for where we might relocate (and it will have to be relocate) the population of, for example, Bangladesh — since most of their land is going to be under water in a couple of decades.
    The distribution of the returns to economic activity. I would take as a starting point the approach we took during the previous Gilded Age. The overall economy is larger now, and the average person substantially more comfortably fixed than was the case then — admittedly a low bar. Which gives us more possibilities for doing a better job this time around.
    I don’t have a comprehensive approach worked out in my own mind. But clearly having essentially all of the benefits of economic growth go to only a couple of percent of the population is not viable in the long term. How we change that is not entirely obvious, although higher marginal tax rates at the top end may at least remove some of the benefit of (and maybe even the incentive for) drastically skewed incomes. But something a little more enduring than past efforts should be one of the goals.
    The need to have government intervention in health care. I see a couple of areas here. As far as broader availability, I think Obamacare (or the ACA, if one prefers) is a step in the right direction. Not an end point, but a good step. However, as I see it the cost of care is a bigger issue. There is no obvious reason why the cost of care (total spent, not just the cost to the individual) is so much higher here than anywhere else. Which suggests that something, more likely several somethings, in our laws and regulations needs to be rethought. Again, I don’t have a detailed plan of attack . . . but then, I don’t think that was what you were asking after.
    Are there lots of Republicans who see that? Sadly, nowhere near as many as there should be. (Why that has come to be the case is a separate discussion. And one that probably needs to happen, too.) But “fewer than one would wish”, or “not enough to change party policy” (both true), is a long way from “none at all.”

  790. Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and climate change.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the distribution of the returns to economic activity.
    Tell me about moderate GOPPERs and the need to have government intervention in health care.
    You CAN’T.
    Actually, I can.
    Climate change. It’s happening. Mitigation has probably been delayed too long to avoid serious (extremely serious) negative effects. But that’s no reason not to do as much as we can, as soon as may be, to keep things from getting worse. As an aside, it isn’t too early to start serious planning for where we might relocate (and it will have to be relocate) the population of, for example, Bangladesh — since most of their land is going to be under water in a couple of decades.
    The distribution of the returns to economic activity. I would take as a starting point the approach we took during the previous Gilded Age. The overall economy is larger now, and the average person substantially more comfortably fixed than was the case then — admittedly a low bar. Which gives us more possibilities for doing a better job this time around.
    I don’t have a comprehensive approach worked out in my own mind. But clearly having essentially all of the benefits of economic growth go to only a couple of percent of the population is not viable in the long term. How we change that is not entirely obvious, although higher marginal tax rates at the top end may at least remove some of the benefit of (and maybe even the incentive for) drastically skewed incomes. But something a little more enduring than past efforts should be one of the goals.
    The need to have government intervention in health care. I see a couple of areas here. As far as broader availability, I think Obamacare (or the ACA, if one prefers) is a step in the right direction. Not an end point, but a good step. However, as I see it the cost of care is a bigger issue. There is no obvious reason why the cost of care (total spent, not just the cost to the individual) is so much higher here than anywhere else. Which suggests that something, more likely several somethings, in our laws and regulations needs to be rethought. Again, I don’t have a detailed plan of attack . . . but then, I don’t think that was what you were asking after.
    Are there lots of Republicans who see that? Sadly, nowhere near as many as there should be. (Why that has come to be the case is a separate discussion. And one that probably needs to happen, too.) But “fewer than one would wish”, or “not enough to change party policy” (both true), is a long way from “none at all.”

  791. “Scroll down, your are on his feed”
    I am not on his feed. The only time I see a tweet from Trump is when one of my liberal friends feels it necessary to reply to one of his tweets, or it gets quoted somewhere else.

  792. “Scroll down, your are on his feed”
    I am not on his feed. The only time I see a tweet from Trump is when one of my liberal friends feels it necessary to reply to one of his tweets, or it gets quoted somewhere else.

  793. I mean, hes not actuslly said anything about getting two more years as far as I’ve heard
    Tweets and re-tweets.
    And hell no, he’s not gonna get his mulligan.
    And that’s not the point. The point, or my point, is that the president is a colossal dick with zero understanding if the responsibilities of his office.
    He doesn’t “get my goat”, he gets my disrespect and disgust, as do his defenders and supporters.

  794. I mean, hes not actuslly said anything about getting two more years as far as I’ve heard
    Tweets and re-tweets.
    And hell no, he’s not gonna get his mulligan.
    And that’s not the point. The point, or my point, is that the president is a colossal dick with zero understanding if the responsibilities of his office.
    He doesn’t “get my goat”, he gets my disrespect and disgust, as do his defenders and supporters.

  795. I fond it hard to disagree with this logic (though I rate the importance of winning the election rather higher).
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/2020-election-approach-shouldnt-end-impeachment.html
    The challenge Pelosi faces is the same challenge faced by Mueller, and by Eric Holder. Elections matter, and getting out the vote in 2020 matters. But the Rule of Law still matters, and we shouldn’t abandon it because this small problem of Donald Trump might go away in 2020. The fact is that this problem might not go away in 2020, though by then, the argument that obstruction itself is an impeachable offense will have been lost to us. That’s all the more reason to fight for the rule of law today, as if it were sliding away. Because it is sliding away. …

  796. I fond it hard to disagree with this logic (though I rate the importance of winning the election rather higher).
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/2020-election-approach-shouldnt-end-impeachment.html
    The challenge Pelosi faces is the same challenge faced by Mueller, and by Eric Holder. Elections matter, and getting out the vote in 2020 matters. But the Rule of Law still matters, and we shouldn’t abandon it because this small problem of Donald Trump might go away in 2020. The fact is that this problem might not go away in 2020, though by then, the argument that obstruction itself is an impeachable offense will have been lost to us. That’s all the more reason to fight for the rule of law today, as if it were sliding away. Because it is sliding away. …

  797. I would take as a starting point the approach we took during the previous Gilded Age.
    With respect, I find this puzzling. What approach do you refer to?

  798. I would take as a starting point the approach we took during the previous Gilded Age.
    With respect, I find this puzzling. What approach do you refer to?

  799. If Obama, or Clinton, or the other Clinton, had come within 10 miles of pulling any of the crap that Trump pulls, has pulled, or attempts to pull on a nearly daily basis, American conservatives would have shit a brick the size of Montana.
    They are full of crap. They have no regard for this country or what it represents or stands for, no regard for the rule of law, no regard for anything except holding on to power that they cannot sustain through legitimate means.
    There is no thoughtful conversation to have while this crap continues. It’s like trying to have a sensible conversation with someone while they are pissing on your shoes.
    Trump has to go, McConnell has to go, the entire Cabinet has to go. Nunes has to go. Vile racist Steve King has to go.
    For starters.
    Clean your damned house, then maybe there is a conversation to have. In the meantime be glad that liberals and lefties seem less inclined to vent their anger by shooting people than y’all’s nutcases.
    Clean your damned house.

  800. If Obama, or Clinton, or the other Clinton, had come within 10 miles of pulling any of the crap that Trump pulls, has pulled, or attempts to pull on a nearly daily basis, American conservatives would have shit a brick the size of Montana.
    They are full of crap. They have no regard for this country or what it represents or stands for, no regard for the rule of law, no regard for anything except holding on to power that they cannot sustain through legitimate means.
    There is no thoughtful conversation to have while this crap continues. It’s like trying to have a sensible conversation with someone while they are pissing on your shoes.
    Trump has to go, McConnell has to go, the entire Cabinet has to go. Nunes has to go. Vile racist Steve King has to go.
    For starters.
    Clean your damned house, then maybe there is a conversation to have. In the meantime be glad that liberals and lefties seem less inclined to vent their anger by shooting people than y’all’s nutcases.
    Clean your damned house.

  801. As an aside, it isn’t too early to start serious planning for where we might relocate (and it will have to be relocate) the population of, for example, Bangladesh —
    I hear Greenland will be available…

  802. As an aside, it isn’t too early to start serious planning for where we might relocate (and it will have to be relocate) the population of, for example, Bangladesh —
    I hear Greenland will be available…

  803. remember when AG Eric Holder refused to turn over documents to Congress? and the GOP House voted to hold him in contempt? and some House members wrote up articles of impeachment against him?
    oddly! all those Rule Of Law “conservatives” are silent this week.
    turns out, their deep commitment to the principles on the Constitution is quite provisional.

  804. remember when AG Eric Holder refused to turn over documents to Congress? and the GOP House voted to hold him in contempt? and some House members wrote up articles of impeachment against him?
    oddly! all those Rule Of Law “conservatives” are silent this week.
    turns out, their deep commitment to the principles on the Constitution is quite provisional.

  805. (for the record, i think Barr should be held in contempt for perjury, not for refusing to un-redact info about active legal proceedings)

  806. (for the record, i think Barr should be held in contempt for perjury, not for refusing to un-redact info about active legal proceedings)

  807. What about all those Ds who voted for Holder’s executive privilege, what have they got to say?

  808. What about all those Ds who voted for Holder’s executive privilege, what have they got to say?

  809. Were I one of them, I would say this:

    In September 2012, after a nineteen-month review, the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General cleared the Attorney General of any wrongdoing with regard to Fast and Furious, stating that there was “no evidence” that Holder knew about the operation before early 2011.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Contempt_of_Congress
    Since I’m me, I’d just say that Darrell Issa is a douchebag.

  810. Were I one of them, I would say this:

    In September 2012, after a nineteen-month review, the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General cleared the Attorney General of any wrongdoing with regard to Fast and Furious, stating that there was “no evidence” that Holder knew about the operation before early 2011.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder#Contempt_of_Congress
    Since I’m me, I’d just say that Darrell Issa is a douchebag.

  811. What about all those Ds who voted for Holder’s executive privilege, what have they got to say?
    In what ways are the two cases the same?
    In what ways does executive privilege, which was the claim in the Fast and Furious case, protect the findings of a special counsel’s investigation?
    it isn’t too early to start serious planning for where we might relocate (and it will have to be relocate) the population of, for example, Bangladesh
    The UNHCR counted about 1 million refugees from the conflicts in Syria in Europe. That was enough to threaten the Schengen area agreements and spark the resurgence of nationalistic fascism in Europe.
    The Bangladeshi government’s climate change action plan anticipates that 20 million Bangladeshis may require relocation by 2050.
    Note that changing climate contributed to the Syrian conflicts, to the conflicts in Darfur, and are also a contributor to the exodus from Central America that we are freaking out about right now.
    “Stand athwart history yelling stop!”
    Good luck with that.

  812. What about all those Ds who voted for Holder’s executive privilege, what have they got to say?
    In what ways are the two cases the same?
    In what ways does executive privilege, which was the claim in the Fast and Furious case, protect the findings of a special counsel’s investigation?
    it isn’t too early to start serious planning for where we might relocate (and it will have to be relocate) the population of, for example, Bangladesh
    The UNHCR counted about 1 million refugees from the conflicts in Syria in Europe. That was enough to threaten the Schengen area agreements and spark the resurgence of nationalistic fascism in Europe.
    The Bangladeshi government’s climate change action plan anticipates that 20 million Bangladeshis may require relocation by 2050.
    Note that changing climate contributed to the Syrian conflicts, to the conflicts in Darfur, and are also a contributor to the exodus from Central America that we are freaking out about right now.
    “Stand athwart history yelling stop!”
    Good luck with that.

  813. Note that changing climate contributed to the Syrian conflicts, to the conflicts in Darfur, and are also a contributor to the exodus from Central America that we are freaking out about right now.
    Also the Rwandan genocide, IIRC.

  814. Note that changing climate contributed to the Syrian conflicts, to the conflicts in Darfur, and are also a contributor to the exodus from Central America that we are freaking out about right now.
    Also the Rwandan genocide, IIRC.

  815. “I hear Greenland will be available…’
    How bout if all 167-plus million Bangladeshi seek high, dry land in California, get fed up immediately with the high real estate prices and taxes and then decamp, all 167 million, maybe in reverse-engineered Conastoga wagons, the better to call it Manifest Destiny in order to appeal to mythic American bullshit, to Texas and you can then brag about Texas’ hospitable tax rates and setting new records for the state’s uninsured population.
    I understand the tax migrants will feel right at home in Houston during the humid rainy season when the water rises.
    Think of the tens of thousands of Bengali food trucks in Austin.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cHLoHou8uY

  816. “I hear Greenland will be available…’
    How bout if all 167-plus million Bangladeshi seek high, dry land in California, get fed up immediately with the high real estate prices and taxes and then decamp, all 167 million, maybe in reverse-engineered Conastoga wagons, the better to call it Manifest Destiny in order to appeal to mythic American bullshit, to Texas and you can then brag about Texas’ hospitable tax rates and setting new records for the state’s uninsured population.
    I understand the tax migrants will feel right at home in Houston during the humid rainy season when the water rises.
    Think of the tens of thousands of Bengali food trucks in Austin.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cHLoHou8uY

  817. Guess where else is available:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-wests-plans-for-arctic-war-against-russia?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
    We’ve wasted our military assets on the Southern border when ice breakers might have been a good idea.
    It would be cool if p withdrew us from NATO, hanh?
    Seems the world’s great military powers, including ours, are true believers in the global warming hoax.
    Curious about those stinking fucking subhuman anti-science republicans, though I’m sure they are shorting ice in their offshore accounts, the filth.

  818. Guess where else is available:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-wests-plans-for-arctic-war-against-russia?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
    We’ve wasted our military assets on the Southern border when ice breakers might have been a good idea.
    It would be cool if p withdrew us from NATO, hanh?
    Seems the world’s great military powers, including ours, are true believers in the global warming hoax.
    Curious about those stinking fucking subhuman anti-science republicans, though I’m sure they are shorting ice in their offshore accounts, the filth.

  829. At the time it was built, the Texas Capitol building was about the eighth largest artifact in the world. A later Texas politician once quipped that the capitol was built for giants and was inhabited by pygmies.

  830. At the time it was built, the Texas Capitol building was about the eighth largest artifact in the world. A later Texas politician once quipped that the capitol was built for giants and was inhabited by pygmies.

  831. I would take as a starting point the approach we took during the previous Gilded Age.
    With respect, I find this puzzling. What approach do you refer to?
    I picked the Gilded Age example because it had a lot of the same issues we see today:
    – enormous wealth inequality
    – government jobs going to the well connected (with the folks in power) rather than the competent.
    – combined with serious corruption in government.
    – issues with new technologies
    – issues with race and with immigration
    – a narrowly divided electorate, where tiny shifts could swing elections
    As for what ended that, see the Progressive Era.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
    But briefly, we got laws to break up monopolies and oligopolies, and to regulate corporations. We got laws to clamp down on corruption in government. And to shift political power from the rich to the people. We got the income tax, to both reduce income inequality and fund improved government services. We got changes to improve education and make higher education more widely available.
    A lot of those laws are still in place. However, the world has changed drastically, and they need some updates for changed circumstances.
    And, as noted, our overall economic situation is better, opening new possibilities. For just one example, we might combine higher tax rates on those who have more money than they can spend with higher Negative Income Tax for those who have little. I’m not sure I’d go as far as a guaranteed minimum income. But it’s not a flat economic impossibility — for all that it has other problems

  832. I would take as a starting point the approach we took during the previous Gilded Age.
    With respect, I find this puzzling. What approach do you refer to?
    I picked the Gilded Age example because it had a lot of the same issues we see today:
    – enormous wealth inequality
    – government jobs going to the well connected (with the folks in power) rather than the competent.
    – combined with serious corruption in government.
    – issues with new technologies
    – issues with race and with immigration
    – a narrowly divided electorate, where tiny shifts could swing elections
    As for what ended that, see the Progressive Era.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
    But briefly, we got laws to break up monopolies and oligopolies, and to regulate corporations. We got laws to clamp down on corruption in government. And to shift political power from the rich to the people. We got the income tax, to both reduce income inequality and fund improved government services. We got changes to improve education and make higher education more widely available.
    A lot of those laws are still in place. However, the world has changed drastically, and they need some updates for changed circumstances.
    And, as noted, our overall economic situation is better, opening new possibilities. For just one example, we might combine higher tax rates on those who have more money than they can spend with higher Negative Income Tax for those who have little. I’m not sure I’d go as far as a guaranteed minimum income. But it’s not a flat economic impossibility — for all that it has other problems

  833. Janie:
    Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    Russell:
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes.
    I tend to agree with Janie here, though I’m not sure there’s a lot of difference between her and Russell. Janie describes the means, Russell the ends.
    They are trying to destroy democracy, in all the various people here have listed (and don’t forget the census business, which I didn’t see mentioned), in order to entrench themselves in power.

  834. Janie:
    Their aims are explicit and transparent: destroy democracy in the USA.
    Russell:
    I don’t actually think that’s the goal. I think the goal is to preserve some “way of life” that they find congenial, and which is (or they think it is) threatened by broader social and economic changes.
    I tend to agree with Janie here, though I’m not sure there’s a lot of difference between her and Russell. Janie describes the means, Russell the ends.
    They are trying to destroy democracy, in all the various people here have listed (and don’t forget the census business, which I didn’t see mentioned), in order to entrench themselves in power.

  835. russell (referring to the 12pm post), I assume/fear the ‘solution’ will be Hilaire Belloc’s most (in)famous quote: ‘Whatever happens…’

  836. russell (referring to the 12pm post), I assume/fear the ‘solution’ will be Hilaire Belloc’s most (in)famous quote: ‘Whatever happens…’

  841. Last night, I asked:

    Does anybody here doubt that Moderate Marty would be telling us, around Christmas and New Year’s 2020, that however despicable He, Trump may be personally, we should chill out and have a reasoned debate on whether He may actually be within His rights? Anybody? Marty?

    My prediction, you’ll note, was about what Marty would do, not about what He, Trump would do. Naturally, Marty responded with:

    Jesus you people. Do you think there is ANY way he could actually refuse to turn over power? Is there any credible notion that the military would defend him in that endeavor? The FBI maybe?

    I harp on this merely to illustrate the classic misdirection maneuver that defenders of indefensible positions often engage in.
    MY position is NOT that He, Trump will attempt to stay in the White House if he loses in 2020. It is NOT that the FBI or the Secret Service or the Army or the goddam “Oath Keepers” would take up arms to keep Dear Leader in power.
    My position is simply that, IF He, Trump tried that on, Moderate Marty would admonish us angst-ridden commie pinko baby-killers to look at it from He, Trump’s point of view. I am not mind-reading, I am making a prediction. About Marty, not about He, Trump.
    I hope and expect we will NOT find ourselves able to test that prediction.
    –TP

  842. Last night, I asked:

    Does anybody here doubt that Moderate Marty would be telling us, around Christmas and New Year’s 2020, that however despicable He, Trump may be personally, we should chill out and have a reasoned debate on whether He may actually be within His rights? Anybody? Marty?

    My prediction, you’ll note, was about what Marty would do, not about what He, Trump would do. Naturally, Marty responded with:

    Jesus you people. Do you think there is ANY way he could actually refuse to turn over power? Is there any credible notion that the military would defend him in that endeavor? The FBI maybe?

    I harp on this merely to illustrate the classic misdirection maneuver that defenders of indefensible positions often engage in.
    MY position is NOT that He, Trump will attempt to stay in the White House if he loses in 2020. It is NOT that the FBI or the Secret Service or the Army or the goddam “Oath Keepers” would take up arms to keep Dear Leader in power.
    My position is simply that, IF He, Trump tried that on, Moderate Marty would admonish us angst-ridden commie pinko baby-killers to look at it from He, Trump’s point of view. I am not mind-reading, I am making a prediction. About Marty, not about He, Trump.
    I hope and expect we will NOT find ourselves able to test that prediction.
    –TP

  843. It would help if people on the left would drop the “democratic socialism” label and adopt “social democracy” instead.
    I don’t think many people would recognize a distinction. I doubt that very many people in the US could give an accurate definition of either.
    Plus, at the national level, you can probably count the number of self-declared democratic socialists with your fingers. And I’m not sure all of them could give an accurate definition if what it is.

  844. It would help if people on the left would drop the “democratic socialism” label and adopt “social democracy” instead.
    I don’t think many people would recognize a distinction. I doubt that very many people in the US could give an accurate definition of either.
    Plus, at the national level, you can probably count the number of self-declared democratic socialists with your fingers. And I’m not sure all of them could give an accurate definition if what it is.

  851. NPR had somebody from Trump’s legal stuff on this AM, talking about all of the shenanigans.
    The guy was reasonable, articulate, and more than sane. His people are talking to Nadler’s people, these are the issues they are concerned about, surely they will reach some accommodation acceptable to both sides, etc etc etc. A good lawyer and a good spokesperson. Somebody you could work with to resolve an adversarial situation without burning the house down.
    Watch Trump blow it all up.
    He doesn’t know how to interact with other human beings, other than by being a colossal jerk.
    Character is fate.

  852. NPR had somebody from Trump’s legal stuff on this AM, talking about all of the shenanigans.
    The guy was reasonable, articulate, and more than sane. His people are talking to Nadler’s people, these are the issues they are concerned about, surely they will reach some accommodation acceptable to both sides, etc etc etc. A good lawyer and a good spokesperson. Somebody you could work with to resolve an adversarial situation without burning the house down.
    Watch Trump blow it all up.
    He doesn’t know how to interact with other human beings, other than by being a colossal jerk.
    Character is fate.

  853. assert executive privilege over the results of an investigation INTO THAT EXECUTIVE ?
    we’re in banana republic territory now.

  854. assert executive privilege over the results of an investigation INTO THAT EXECUTIVE ?
    we’re in banana republic territory now.

  855. We are, cleek, but it’s really because of the people being super mean to our poor, beleaguered president. Everyone knows that.

  856. We are, cleek, but it’s really because of the people being super mean to our poor, beleaguered president. Everyone knows that.

  857. Bananas territory too:
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27404389/colorado-stem-school-shooting-8-year-old/
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/qanon-ruined-earth-day-celebration-preparing-jihad
    These two snapshots of singular and purely American-bred conservative cultural pig shit make me want to start a liberal charter school whose curriculum will be devoted to training adolescent liberal assassins, a sort of youth militia, outfitted with the latest in cultural and political paranoia, malignant performance art chops, and the military grade weaponry required to carry out what we adults are too civilized to attempt for the good of the country.
    We could invite the NRA and the rest of the gun nuts to the school for an assembly and in the middle of the thing, the kids could blast forth with fusillades of gunfire during the question and answer session at the conservative gun filth who expect us to duck and cover (Fuck you!) in fucking schools for the rest of American history, which, God willing, will be short-lived.
    Maybe Betsy DeVOS and her mercenary, murderous brother could cut the ribbon at the first school and then serve as an example of what is coming to the entire subhuman conservative movement in this world.
    Further, when set upon by threatening alt-Right, QANON, White House and conservatively inspired shitheads, our kids here, good American kids, but fed up, vengeful kids, will be trained to seek out these Secret Santa f*ckers and carry out savagely violent attacks on them and their mothers, this last is very important, because we can’t allow these conservative vermin to breed any longer if we plan to live any kind of normal life in the good ole USA of assholes.
    This shit stops now.

  858. Bananas territory too:
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27404389/colorado-stem-school-shooting-8-year-old/
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/qanon-ruined-earth-day-celebration-preparing-jihad
    These two snapshots of singular and purely American-bred conservative cultural pig shit make me want to start a liberal charter school whose curriculum will be devoted to training adolescent liberal assassins, a sort of youth militia, outfitted with the latest in cultural and political paranoia, malignant performance art chops, and the military grade weaponry required to carry out what we adults are too civilized to attempt for the good of the country.
    We could invite the NRA and the rest of the gun nuts to the school for an assembly and in the middle of the thing, the kids could blast forth with fusillades of gunfire during the question and answer session at the conservative gun filth who expect us to duck and cover (Fuck you!) in fucking schools for the rest of American history, which, God willing, will be short-lived.
    Maybe Betsy DeVOS and her mercenary, murderous brother could cut the ribbon at the first school and then serve as an example of what is coming to the entire subhuman conservative movement in this world.
    Further, when set upon by threatening alt-Right, QANON, White House and conservatively inspired shitheads, our kids here, good American kids, but fed up, vengeful kids, will be trained to seek out these Secret Santa f*ckers and carry out savagely violent attacks on them and their mothers, this last is very important, because we can’t allow these conservative vermin to breed any longer if we plan to live any kind of normal life in the good ole USA of assholes.
    This shit stops now.

  859. but it’s really because of the people being super mean to our poor, beleaguered president.
    that must be what the “Pray For Trump” bumper sticker i saw yesterday was about.

  860. but it’s really because of the people being super mean to our poor, beleaguered president.
    that must be what the “Pray For Trump” bumper sticker i saw yesterday was about.

Comments are closed.