by JanieM
Surely it’s time for something completely different.
I went to an event tonight featuring the authors of the recently published book Proving Einstein Right: The Daring Expeditions that Changed How We Look at the Universe. The book was written by S. James Gates, professor of physics and math at Brown (among various other simultaneous careers) and Maine novelist Cathie Pelletier. They worked on this book together for IIRC five years, and only met each other in person about a month ago.
It’s a long story, and I didn’t take notes, but the gist is something like this: Cathie Pelletier ran across some old typed interviews of people, or people who were related to people, who were involved in the quest to test Einstein’s theory of gravity by tracking starlight during a total eclipse of the sun. Then she saw this commercial, and emailed Jim Gates out of the blue with her idea for a book about the whole thing. And thus this amazing collaboration was born.
I haven’t read the book yet but will pick it up next time I’m at B&N. I’m looking forward to dipping back into some physics for non-physicists – I haven’t done that for a long time.
Cathie’s novels are great too – sweet and funny and down to earth, a nice (and hopeful) antidote to real life as we’re currently experiencing it. Most of them are set in the fictional town of Mattagash, Maine, modeled on the town of Allagash, waaaayyyyy up north, where Cathie grew up and is now living again after many decades and adventures elsewhere.
For the record, the eclipse where Dyson and Eddison finally proved that gravity deflected light was in 1919, 100 years ago this past May.
Open thread.
It seems like there’s always places where science needs more experiments to determine how things really work. For example, this on the current state of cosmology.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/scientists-are-baffled-whats-up-with-the-universe/2019/10/31/31fc42e4-f353-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
Our understanding will never be perfect. But, contra some, that doesn’t mean we know nothing. Nor that any theory is just as good as any other.
It seems like there’s always places where science needs more experiments to determine how things really work. For example, this on the current state of cosmology.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/scientists-are-baffled-whats-up-with-the-universe/2019/10/31/31fc42e4-f353-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
Our understanding will never be perfect. But, contra some, that doesn’t mean we know nothing. Nor that any theory is just as good as any other.
There is just a gigantic 3D video screen (radius about 100 lighthours) around the (static) Earth. We’d see what happens when Voyager 2 crashes into it, if mankind would not meet its sticky end a few years earlier.
There is just a gigantic 3D video screen (radius about 100 lighthours) around the (static) Earth. We’d see what happens when Voyager 2 crashes into it, if mankind would not meet its sticky end a few years earlier.
I hope no one else has had the miserable time I’ve had with Apple’s new Mac OSX release (10.15, Catalina). Starting with the initial installation hanging part-way through, it’s been most of three weeks of niggling little things: fix this, fix that, fix something else.
I hope no one else has had the miserable time I’ve had with Apple’s new Mac OSX release (10.15, Catalina). Starting with the initial installation hanging part-way through, it’s been most of three weeks of niggling little things: fix this, fix that, fix something else.
Harmut,
too late.
The aliens have already come to Earth.
Last night, they replaced all your stuff with exact duplicates.
Tomorrow, they’ll change them back again, just to mess with your head.
Tell the authorities, if you dare.
Harmut,
too late.
The aliens have already come to Earth.
Last night, they replaced all your stuff with exact duplicates.
Tomorrow, they’ll change them back again, just to mess with your head.
Tell the authorities, if you dare.
I wonder how they got past the sock gnomes?
I wonder how they got past the sock gnomes?
Mind meld with the sock gnomes?
Mind meld with the sock gnomes?
what strikes me in the OP is how advances in our understanding of the physical world always seem to require suspending our intuitive sense of how things work.
obviously the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn’t.
obviously the earth is flat, but it isn’t.
obviously things either happen at the same time or not, but that’s not actually true.
I wonder what blinders we wear now that people will look back at 100 years from now and shake their heads.
what strikes me in the OP is how advances in our understanding of the physical world always seem to require suspending our intuitive sense of how things work.
obviously the sun goes around the earth, but it doesn’t.
obviously the earth is flat, but it isn’t.
obviously things either happen at the same time or not, but that’s not actually true.
I wonder what blinders we wear now that people will look back at 100 years from now and shake their heads.
I wonder what blinders we wear now that people will look back at 100 years from now and shake their heads.
Tax cuts increase revenue.
I wonder what blinders we wear now that people will look back at 100 years from now and shake their heads.
Tax cuts increase revenue.
Naw they’ll still be saying that
Naw they’ll still be saying that
I wonder what blinders we wear now that people will look back at 100 years from now and shake their heads.
Why didn’t they listen to that Michael Cain fellow?
I wonder what blinders we wear now that people will look back at 100 years from now and shake their heads.
Why didn’t they listen to that Michael Cain fellow?
Whatever you think of Harris’ merits (or otherwise) as candidate, this seems to me to be a fair question:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/05/how-kamala-harris-went-from-female-obama-to-fifth-place-229901
Mark Thompson, a veteran radio host and NAACP activist who spoke with Harris on his “Make it Plain” show on SiriusXM, questioned why Biden could do a 180-degree turn on justice reform, including coming out against the death penalty after 40-plus years of support, while Harris has been tagged by progressives as being too tough on crime….
Whatever you think of Harris’ merits (or otherwise) as candidate, this seems to me to be a fair question:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/05/how-kamala-harris-went-from-female-obama-to-fifth-place-229901
Mark Thompson, a veteran radio host and NAACP activist who spoke with Harris on his “Make it Plain” show on SiriusXM, questioned why Biden could do a 180-degree turn on justice reform, including coming out against the death penalty after 40-plus years of support, while Harris has been tagged by progressives as being too tough on crime….
“Why didn’t they listen to that Michael Cain fellow?”
Too smart, too much expertise, too reasonable, and too much experience in government.
You have Deep State written all over you, and stupidity just will not stand for that.
“Why didn’t they listen to that Michael Cain fellow?”
Too smart, too much expertise, too reasonable, and too much experience in government.
You have Deep State written all over you, and stupidity just will not stand for that.
I hope no one else has had the miserable time I’ve had with Apple’s new Mac OSX release (10.15, Catalina).
I’m clearly doing something wrong, as I have yet to notice any difference at all since I installed it.
(Other than the nagging invitations, which I invariably ignore, to explore its new functions and capabilities.)
I hope no one else has had the miserable time I’ve had with Apple’s new Mac OSX release (10.15, Catalina).
I’m clearly doing something wrong, as I have yet to notice any difference at all since I installed it.
(Other than the nagging invitations, which I invariably ignore, to explore its new functions and capabilities.)
why Biden could do a 180-degree turn on justice reform, including coming out against the death penalty after 40-plus years of support, while Harris has been tagged by progressives as being too tough on crime
“progressives” don’t like Biden either.
Harris had one big breakout moment early on, and then took a bunch of big swings that didn’t connect and which made her look ineffective.
why Biden could do a 180-degree turn on justice reform, including coming out against the death penalty after 40-plus years of support, while Harris has been tagged by progressives as being too tough on crime
“progressives” don’t like Biden either.
Harris had one big breakout moment early on, and then took a bunch of big swings that didn’t connect and which made her look ineffective.
Why didn’t they listen to that Michael Cain fellow?
LOL.
My lead time from wherever I’m at at the moment, to “why didn’t I listen to that Michael Cain guy?” is less like 100 years, and more like a week and a half.
Thanks for hanging around with us.
Harris had one big breakout moment early on, and then took a bunch of big swings that didn’t connect
Don’t disagree. It’s too bad, because she has a kick ass and take names quality that IMO would be useful.
Why didn’t they listen to that Michael Cain fellow?
LOL.
My lead time from wherever I’m at at the moment, to “why didn’t I listen to that Michael Cain guy?” is less like 100 years, and more like a week and a half.
Thanks for hanging around with us.
Harris had one big breakout moment early on, and then took a bunch of big swings that didn’t connect
Don’t disagree. It’s too bad, because she has a kick ass and take names quality that IMO would be useful.
maybe she could be AG or Biden’s unpaid, globe-hopping, under-the-table and of-the-books, fixer and arm-twister.
i think that’s an official position now.
maybe she could be AG or Biden’s unpaid, globe-hopping, under-the-table and of-the-books, fixer and arm-twister.
i think that’s an official position now.
off-the-books, definitely not of-the-books
off-the-books, definitely not of-the-books
I’m clearly doing something wrong, as I have yet to notice any difference at all since I installed it.
To get the initial install to finish cleanly, I had to find a USB keyboard (I normally use a Bluetooth one), plug it into my Mini, and hit Cmd-L every few minutes. This worked for many people whose installation hung, but no one seems to know why it works.
I’m an old UNIX guy, and take them at their word when they say “It’s UNIX underneath.” This has become less true over time. Looking back at my notes, most of the other breakage had to do with it becoming even less UNIX-like this time.
I’m clearly doing something wrong, as I have yet to notice any difference at all since I installed it.
To get the initial install to finish cleanly, I had to find a USB keyboard (I normally use a Bluetooth one), plug it into my Mini, and hit Cmd-L every few minutes. This worked for many people whose installation hung, but no one seems to know why it works.
I’m an old UNIX guy, and take them at their word when they say “It’s UNIX underneath.” This has become less true over time. Looking back at my notes, most of the other breakage had to do with it becoming even less UNIX-like this time.
maybe she could be AG or Biden’s unpaid, globe-hopping, under-the-table and of-the-books, fixer and arm-twister.
Harris could be looking at either an AG nomination or even (depending on who the nominee is) a VP slot**. Has the advantage that she can take either one, and her Senate seat will still be ultra-safe D.
** Probable not for Warren or Buttigieg. But for Biden or Sanders maybe a useful bit of diversity for the ticket. Of course, other than a Biden/Sanders ticket, I’m not sure how you get a “two old straight white guys” D ticket….
maybe she could be AG or Biden’s unpaid, globe-hopping, under-the-table and of-the-books, fixer and arm-twister.
Harris could be looking at either an AG nomination or even (depending on who the nominee is) a VP slot**. Has the advantage that she can take either one, and her Senate seat will still be ultra-safe D.
** Probable not for Warren or Buttigieg. But for Biden or Sanders maybe a useful bit of diversity for the ticket. Of course, other than a Biden/Sanders ticket, I’m not sure how you get a “two old straight white guys” D ticket….
There’s too many OSWGs on all sides.
There’s too many OSWGs on all sides.
There’s too many OSWGs on all sides.
Well if you just picked at random from the total population you’d expect 1/3 straight white guys. If you consider just “people involved in politics” you get more guys, and the age distribution skews older. So even at 1/2 OSWGs you’re not seeing anything noteworthy.
I suppose that you can argue that, to reflect their voters, Democrats should expect more from other groups. But still, is the current candidate pool wildly out of pattern?
But maybe I misunderstood the comment, and you were objecting to the demographics of the total population…. 😉
There’s too many OSWGs on all sides.
Well if you just picked at random from the total population you’d expect 1/3 straight white guys. If you consider just “people involved in politics” you get more guys, and the age distribution skews older. So even at 1/2 OSWGs you’re not seeing anything noteworthy.
I suppose that you can argue that, to reflect their voters, Democrats should expect more from other groups. But still, is the current candidate pool wildly out of pattern?
But maybe I misunderstood the comment, and you were objecting to the demographics of the total population…. 😉
Please reduce the number of OSWG by 2/3.
I am Not A Crank.
Please reduce the number of OSWG by 2/3.
I am Not A Crank.
It just seems like the OSWGs and OSWgals are too welded to the politics of the last century. There needs to be a cleaning up of the layered mess the boomers made. Not just adding more layers.
It just seems like the OSWGs and OSWgals are too welded to the politics of the last century. There needs to be a cleaning up of the layered mess the boomers made. Not just adding more layers.
There’s too many OSWGs on all sides.
The OSWG dream team.
Although I am making a (perhaps incorrect) assumption about the “S” part. They do seem inseparable….
In any case, we could do worse.
There’s too many OSWGs on all sides.
The OSWG dream team.
Although I am making a (perhaps incorrect) assumption about the “S” part. They do seem inseparable….
In any case, we could do worse.
Really, I just have to SMH and laugh.
“Oh, *that* conversation with Zelensky’s staff!”.
I think wj’s right, we should all give thanks that the crooks are so incompetent.
Really, I just have to SMH and laugh.
“Oh, *that* conversation with Zelensky’s staff!”.
I think wj’s right, we should all give thanks that the crooks are so incompetent.
Nothing like discovering that you’re looking at a perjury charge to “clarify” and “refresh” one’s recollections.
Of course it also helps that loyalty in Trumpland is all one way. Reduces the willingness of his toadies to take a bullet for him when push comes to shove, ’cause they know he’s only got their backs for sticking a knife in.
(In a competently run crime family, the 23% of the population who are true believers are where Trump would recruit his staff. Sadly, they are short of the Central Casting types he wants. For a form over substance guy, that’s a deal breaker.)
Nothing like discovering that you’re looking at a perjury charge to “clarify” and “refresh” one’s recollections.
Of course it also helps that loyalty in Trumpland is all one way. Reduces the willingness of his toadies to take a bullet for him when push comes to shove, ’cause they know he’s only got their backs for sticking a knife in.
(In a competently run crime family, the 23% of the population who are true believers are where Trump would recruit his staff. Sadly, they are short of the Central Casting types he wants. For a form over substance guy, that’s a deal breaker.)
With 99 percent of precincts counted, the Republican governor of Kentucky is down roughly 1%. Of course, he was the most unpopular governor in the country; but then 538 says Kentucky is 26% more Republican than the country as a whole. And he’s still losing.
Less than 12 hours before the polls opened, Trump was there campaigning for him. Since everything is always all about him, Trump said: “If you lose, they will say Trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. You can’t let that happen to me.” Well, it looks like they did.
And Moscow Mitch, one of the least popular senators in the country, maybe has a problem next year. Here’s hoping.
With 99 percent of precincts counted, the Republican governor of Kentucky is down roughly 1%. Of course, he was the most unpopular governor in the country; but then 538 says Kentucky is 26% more Republican than the country as a whole. And he’s still losing.
Less than 12 hours before the polls opened, Trump was there campaigning for him. Since everything is always all about him, Trump said: “If you lose, they will say Trump suffered the greatest defeat in the history of the world. You can’t let that happen to me.” Well, it looks like they did.
And Moscow Mitch, one of the least popular senators in the country, maybe has a problem next year. Here’s hoping.
OK, time to cry ‘fraud’, demand a recount (or 10) or annullment. And if that should not work strip the illegitimate (= non-GOP) winner of all the powers of his office before he takes it. You know, the usual routine.
OK, time to cry ‘fraud’, demand a recount (or 10) or annullment. And if that should not work strip the illegitimate (= non-GOP) winner of all the powers of his office before he takes it. You know, the usual routine.
This is a really cool idea…
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-10-cooling-electricity.html
As a thought exercise, how many square kilometres of this would you need around the equator in order to reverse global warning ?
This is a really cool idea…
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-10-cooling-electricity.html
As a thought exercise, how many square kilometres of this would you need around the equator in order to reverse global warning ?
All this does is stop things getting so hot in the sun. The question is not much different in kind to what area of mirror would you need around the equator…
All this does is stop things getting so hot in the sun. The question is not much different in kind to what area of mirror would you need around the equator…
All this does is stop things getting so hot in the sun. The question is not much different in kind to what area of mirror would you need around the equator…
No – the difference is that this reflects most sunlight, but is transparent to IR, so it would actively cool the earth’s surface during daytime.
A mirror would only prevent it heating up.
All this does is stop things getting so hot in the sun. The question is not much different in kind to what area of mirror would you need around the equator…
No – the difference is that this reflects most sunlight, but is transparent to IR, so it would actively cool the earth’s surface during daytime.
A mirror would only prevent it heating up.
Er, I doubt it. There’s IR from the sun also.
Er, I doubt it. There’s IR from the sun also.
As a thought exercise, how many square kilometres of this would you need around the equator in order to reverse global warning ?
Many. You’re talking about changing the albedo for an entire planet here. In round numbers, the literature estimates we’d need to reduce albedo by about 2.5 W/m^2 from the current 250 W/m^2 — very close to a 1% reduction. The area of the Earth is a bit over 500M km^2. Assume away all the second-order effects and we would be looking at about 5M km^2.
Plus the usual caveats. It wouldn’t do anything about some of the other parts of climate change, like ocean acidification. It would almost certainly have unknown impacts on weather patterns.
Here’s a starting point for reading.
As a thought exercise, how many square kilometres of this would you need around the equator in order to reverse global warning ?
Many. You’re talking about changing the albedo for an entire planet here. In round numbers, the literature estimates we’d need to reduce albedo by about 2.5 W/m^2 from the current 250 W/m^2 — very close to a 1% reduction. The area of the Earth is a bit over 500M km^2. Assume away all the second-order effects and we would be looking at about 5M km^2.
Plus the usual caveats. It wouldn’t do anything about some of the other parts of climate change, like ocean acidification. It would almost certainly have unknown impacts on weather patterns.
Here’s a starting point for reading.
…but is transparent to IR, so it would actively cool the earth’s surface during daytime.
The whole thing about greenhouse gases is that they capture IR radiated from ground level so that it doesn’t escape. If the stuff were completely transparent to IR, it would have no effect. In terms of global warming, the only effect would be to stop incoming light energy from being absorbed and then reradiated as IR.
…but is transparent to IR, so it would actively cool the earth’s surface during daytime.
The whole thing about greenhouse gases is that they capture IR radiated from ground level so that it doesn’t escape. If the stuff were completely transparent to IR, it would have no effect. In terms of global warming, the only effect would be to stop incoming light energy from being absorbed and then reradiated as IR.
ISTM the question is how much IR would come in from the filtered sunlight versus how much would go back out from the ground, given the lack of heating from non-IR sunlight. (Not that I know the answer.)
ISTM the question is how much IR would come in from the filtered sunlight versus how much would go back out from the ground, given the lack of heating from non-IR sunlight. (Not that I know the answer.)
I think you’re all missing the point here.
The ground radiates considerably more IR than it receives through insolation – which is why this thing works on a small scale to cool what’s underneath it even in the midday sun.
Some detail here:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page5.php
Finally, a net of about 17 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface as thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by atoms and molecules on the surface. This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%). (These competing fluxes are part of the greenhouse effect, described on page 6.) Remember that the peak wavelength of energy a surface radiates is based on its temperature. The Sun’s peak radiation is at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. The Earth’s surface is much cooler, only about 15 degrees Celsius on average. The peak radiation from the surface is at thermal infrared wavelengths around 12.5 micrometers.
What this device does is reflect most of the solar wavelengths, while being pretty transparent to the IR wavelengths which radiate from the ground.
So you get a fair percentage of the cooling by radiation which occurs at night.
I’m not proposing this as any kind of solution to global warming – that would be silly – but it might, for example, make a very big contribution to the problem of air conditioning the Middle East.
I think you’re all missing the point here.
The ground radiates considerably more IR than it receives through insolation – which is why this thing works on a small scale to cool what’s underneath it even in the midday sun.
Some detail here:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page5.php
Finally, a net of about 17 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface as thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by atoms and molecules on the surface. This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%). (These competing fluxes are part of the greenhouse effect, described on page 6.) Remember that the peak wavelength of energy a surface radiates is based on its temperature. The Sun’s peak radiation is at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. The Earth’s surface is much cooler, only about 15 degrees Celsius on average. The peak radiation from the surface is at thermal infrared wavelengths around 12.5 micrometers.
What this device does is reflect most of the solar wavelengths, while being pretty transparent to the IR wavelengths which radiate from the ground.
So you get a fair percentage of the cooling by radiation which occurs at night.
I’m not proposing this as any kind of solution to global warming – that would be silly – but it might, for example, make a very big contribution to the problem of air conditioning the Middle East.
Well, I don’t see how I was missing the point. Harrumph!
Well, I don’t see how I was missing the point. Harrumph!
I unforgivably overlooked your comment, hairshirt.
A thousand apologies.
The original article I posted does give some clues to the answer, as does the NASA link.
I unforgivably overlooked your comment, hairshirt.
A thousand apologies.
The original article I posted does give some clues to the answer, as does the NASA link.
I’m not proposing this as any kind of solution to global warming – that would be silly…
Then why does your initial thought experiment say “reverse global warming” :^)
There are people who are very serious about increasing the planet’s albedo in order to control the temperature change. Usually by introducing aerosols in the stratosphere.
I’m not proposing this as any kind of solution to global warming – that would be silly…
Then why does your initial thought experiment say “reverse global warming” :^)
There are people who are very serious about increasing the planet’s albedo in order to control the temperature change. Usually by introducing aerosols in the stratosphere.
Then why does your initial thought experiment say “reverse global warming“
It was just that – a thought exercise.
But it’s nonetheless an interesting technology which might just help make habitable spaces in areas of the world that are becoming too hot for human habitation.
In Dubai for example, they air condition outdoor areas to make them liveable – and in the summer months something like 70% of their total energy usage is for air conditioning.
To do some of that at zero energy cost, alongside a minor global cooling effect, is not nothing.
Then why does your initial thought experiment say “reverse global warming“
It was just that – a thought exercise.
But it’s nonetheless an interesting technology which might just help make habitable spaces in areas of the world that are becoming too hot for human habitation.
In Dubai for example, they air condition outdoor areas to make them liveable – and in the summer months something like 70% of their total energy usage is for air conditioning.
To do some of that at zero energy cost, alongside a minor global cooling effect, is not nothing.
Thanks for the interesting link, Michael.
Bit too long for me to read tonight, but I will get around to it.
Thanks for the interesting link, Michael.
Bit too long for me to read tonight, but I will get around to it.
@Nigel,
Parts of northeast India are on track to become uninhabitable at times by mid-century: a combination of heat and humidity (35 °C wet-bulb temperature) that kills anyone if sustained for several hours. High population and widespread poverty probably rules out air conditioning on the necessary scale. Something like the aerogel insulation might be an alternative. I also expect that India will be the first country to try the stratospheric aerosol form of geoengineering. It can be relatively cheap if you don’t mind some side effects, and if the models are right it could be at least locally effective in only a few years.
@Nigel,
Parts of northeast India are on track to become uninhabitable at times by mid-century: a combination of heat and humidity (35 °C wet-bulb temperature) that kills anyone if sustained for several hours. High population and widespread poverty probably rules out air conditioning on the necessary scale. Something like the aerogel insulation might be an alternative. I also expect that India will be the first country to try the stratospheric aerosol form of geoengineering. It can be relatively cheap if you don’t mind some side effects, and if the models are right it could be at least locally effective in only a few years.
Wow. Just wow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/06/are-bill-taylors-notebooks-trumps-nixon-tapes/
It appears that Ambassador kept nearly hour-by-hour notes on what was happening in Ukraine. From the day he arrived. It’s not quite Nixon’s White House tapes. But it’s still going to be hard to dismiss. (Not that they won’t try. Or at least try to distract.)
Wow. Just wow.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/06/are-bill-taylors-notebooks-trumps-nixon-tapes/
It appears that Ambassador kept nearly hour-by-hour notes on what was happening in Ukraine. From the day he arrived. It’s not quite Nixon’s White House tapes. But it’s still going to be hard to dismiss. (Not that they won’t try. Or at least try to distract.)
Or at least try to distract
by, for example, putting the whistleblower’s name in giant headlines and claiming his past work for the government means Trump is vindicated in everything – as Breitbart is currently doing ?
Or at least try to distract
by, for example, putting the whistleblower’s name in giant headlines and claiming his past work for the government means Trump is vindicated in everything – as Breitbart is currently doing ?
This is interesting.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrainian-president-was-booked-to-announce-biden-investigation-on-cnn-says-report
This is interesting.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrainian-president-was-booked-to-announce-biden-investigation-on-cnn-says-report
The mere announcement of an investigation on CNN, even if the investigation never got started thereafter, would be a political gemstone for Rump in a race against Biden. Neat!
The mere announcement of an investigation on CNN, even if the investigation never got started thereafter, would be a political gemstone for Rump in a race against Biden. Neat!
The mere announcement of an investigation
Right?
See also….
“But Burisma…” would be the “But her emails” of 2020.
The mere announcement of an investigation
Right?
See also….
“But Burisma…” would be the “But her emails” of 2020.
it’s a total coincidence that Rudy is running the exact same plays he ran in 2016 with the “emails!” nontroversy.
it’s a total coincidence that Rudy is running the exact same plays he ran in 2016 with the “emails!” nontroversy.
The dreaded TPM paywall!!!
The dreaded TPM paywall!!!
It appears that Ambassador kept nearly hour-by-hour notes on what was happening in Ukraine.
This is in the best traditions of the State Department. A senior State Dept person once said to me “It’s the first rule of the State Department: CYA (cover your ass). And the way you do that is with a paper trail.” As I said here when the Sondland-Taylor text exchange was first published, I don’t see how he (Trump) survives this. Let’s hope that’s right (nothing is ever certain with these crooks).
It appears that Ambassador kept nearly hour-by-hour notes on what was happening in Ukraine.
This is in the best traditions of the State Department. A senior State Dept person once said to me “It’s the first rule of the State Department: CYA (cover your ass). And the way you do that is with a paper trail.” As I said here when the Sondland-Taylor text exchange was first published, I don’t see how he (Trump) survives this. Let’s hope that’s right (nothing is ever certain with these crooks).
Trump’s only hope is that enough Republican Senators adopt the Lindsey Graham approach: “I refuse to look at the evidence because my mind is made up and I don’t what to put that at risk.”
Which is literally an admission that, if he did look at the evidence, he thinks he would be forced to remove Trump. Which says something about just how solid the case is already. (Not that I expect it to be enough to get 20 Republican Senators to do their civic duty….)
Trump’s only hope is that enough Republican Senators adopt the Lindsey Graham approach: “I refuse to look at the evidence because my mind is made up and I don’t what to put that at risk.”
Which is literally an admission that, if he did look at the evidence, he thinks he would be forced to remove Trump. Which says something about just how solid the case is already. (Not that I expect it to be enough to get 20 Republican Senators to do their civic duty….)
Good news for Senator Jones (D-Alabama): Jeff Sessions has announced that he’s running.
Now Sessions has been pretty popular as a senator. On the other hand, Trump is real popular thete, too. And Trump hates him (for disloyalty), so will likely endorse someone else. All of which might just let Roy Moore squeeze thru and grab the Republican nomination again. And Jones already beat Moore once.
Good news for Senator Jones (D-Alabama): Jeff Sessions has announced that he’s running.
Now Sessions has been pretty popular as a senator. On the other hand, Trump is real popular thete, too. And Trump hates him (for disloyalty), so will likely endorse someone else. All of which might just let Roy Moore squeeze thru and grab the Republican nomination again. And Jones already beat Moore once.
I don’t see how he (Trump) survives this.
Trump survives this if enough people are getting what they want out of Trump, and if that matters more to them than the fact that the POTUS is flagrantly corrupt.
People get all kinds of things out of a Trump presidency. A lot of people – tens of millions – basically love the guy, as in would gladly take a bullet for the man. A lot of people don’t really give much of a crap about Trump one way or the other, don’t really enjoy the antics but don’t really care as long as the markets are good, their taxes are low-ish, and they’re making money. Some people actively dislike him, but can put up with it as long in exchange for getting generally conservative policies implemented.
The House can impeach Trump but then it goes to the Senate. It will take 67 Senators to vote him out of office. 53 Senators are (R), so 20 or more of them will have to vote against their own party. That seems, to me, highly unlikely.
If he gets through that, he will most definitely be the (R) nominee for POTUS in 2020, and I put his odds at willing at approximately 50/50. Maybe better, depends on who the (D)’s put up.
It is way more than possible that Trump will not only survive, but will be in office for another term. And who knows what kind of fnckery the (R)’s will cook up if that happens, maybe he’ll extend that.
Millions and millions and millions of people either love the hell out of Trump, or find him sufficiently tolerable that they’ll put up with him. To change that, they would need to decide that their preferences are less important than not having an obvious criminal grifter as POTUS. I’m not seeing any kind of trend in that direction, his approval numbers, while not that high, have been about as rock-solid as things like that get.
Trump is just an epiphenomenon. The people who love the guy, and/or don’t really give a crap as long as they’re getting what they want out of him, are the problem.
One thing I will say is that I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever take anyone seriously who (a) supports Trump at any level at all and (b) ever complains about corruption or malfeasance in government, again.
Never.
This crap is so blatant that anybody with half a brain can figure it out. That’s either sufficiently important to you – more important than whatever it is you are getting out of POTUS Trump – or it’s not.
If it’s not, for a sufficient number of people, then Trump isn’t going anywhere.
I don’t see how he (Trump) survives this.
Trump survives this if enough people are getting what they want out of Trump, and if that matters more to them than the fact that the POTUS is flagrantly corrupt.
People get all kinds of things out of a Trump presidency. A lot of people – tens of millions – basically love the guy, as in would gladly take a bullet for the man. A lot of people don’t really give much of a crap about Trump one way or the other, don’t really enjoy the antics but don’t really care as long as the markets are good, their taxes are low-ish, and they’re making money. Some people actively dislike him, but can put up with it as long in exchange for getting generally conservative policies implemented.
The House can impeach Trump but then it goes to the Senate. It will take 67 Senators to vote him out of office. 53 Senators are (R), so 20 or more of them will have to vote against their own party. That seems, to me, highly unlikely.
If he gets through that, he will most definitely be the (R) nominee for POTUS in 2020, and I put his odds at willing at approximately 50/50. Maybe better, depends on who the (D)’s put up.
It is way more than possible that Trump will not only survive, but will be in office for another term. And who knows what kind of fnckery the (R)’s will cook up if that happens, maybe he’ll extend that.
Millions and millions and millions of people either love the hell out of Trump, or find him sufficiently tolerable that they’ll put up with him. To change that, they would need to decide that their preferences are less important than not having an obvious criminal grifter as POTUS. I’m not seeing any kind of trend in that direction, his approval numbers, while not that high, have been about as rock-solid as things like that get.
Trump is just an epiphenomenon. The people who love the guy, and/or don’t really give a crap as long as they’re getting what they want out of him, are the problem.
One thing I will say is that I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever take anyone seriously who (a) supports Trump at any level at all and (b) ever complains about corruption or malfeasance in government, again.
Never.
This crap is so blatant that anybody with half a brain can figure it out. That’s either sufficiently important to you – more important than whatever it is you are getting out of POTUS Trump – or it’s not.
If it’s not, for a sufficient number of people, then Trump isn’t going anywhere.
Trump’s only hope is that enough Republican Senators adopt the Lindsey Graham approach…
I disagree. Graham can’t look at the evidence because of his previous comment “If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo…” But the other Senators don’t have that problem. I expect their approach to be, OK, so he used US aid to extort domestic political assistance, so what?
The Republicans had Bill Clinton bang to rights for lying about a blow job (when he ought to have told them to mind their own business). That didn’t mean the Senate had to convict him.
Trump’s only hope is that enough Republican Senators adopt the Lindsey Graham approach…
I disagree. Graham can’t look at the evidence because of his previous comment “If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo…” But the other Senators don’t have that problem. I expect their approach to be, OK, so he used US aid to extort domestic political assistance, so what?
The Republicans had Bill Clinton bang to rights for lying about a blow job (when he ought to have told them to mind their own business). That didn’t mean the Senate had to convict him.
It is way more than possible that Trump will not only survive, but will be in office for another term.
This is unfortunately true, and for all the reasons russell gives. I suppose my “I don’t see how he survives this” was predicated on the fact that they (the text exchanges) were crystal-clear evidence of criminal malfeasance, and the naive assumption that that would be enough to do for him. But the collapse of any Republican pretence that they care about the rule of law, or corruption, means that the US has descended within one term into an openly lawless power grab. But russell is also right about this being an epiphenomenon and a symptom: the conditions for this to happen apparently so fast have been moving into place for years (gerrymandering, SCOTUS partisanship, Citizens’ United etc etc). It is unspeakably depressing, but perhaps the activism of e.g. the sapients of this world will be enough to start reversing it. One can hope.
It is way more than possible that Trump will not only survive, but will be in office for another term.
This is unfortunately true, and for all the reasons russell gives. I suppose my “I don’t see how he survives this” was predicated on the fact that they (the text exchanges) were crystal-clear evidence of criminal malfeasance, and the naive assumption that that would be enough to do for him. But the collapse of any Republican pretence that they care about the rule of law, or corruption, means that the US has descended within one term into an openly lawless power grab. But russell is also right about this being an epiphenomenon and a symptom: the conditions for this to happen apparently so fast have been moving into place for years (gerrymandering, SCOTUS partisanship, Citizens’ United etc etc). It is unspeakably depressing, but perhaps the activism of e.g. the sapients of this world will be enough to start reversing it. One can hope.
It is unspeakably depressing, but perhaps the activism of e.g. the sapients of this world will be enough to start reversing it.
Thank you, but I don’t really deserve much credit. I wish I could do more.
I’ve taken some comfort in the fact that we can make some difference locally. But federal issues are what mean the most to me (the environment, decent treatment of immigrants, support for global human rights, etc.). I wish I knew how to be fearless and effective, but anger and despair seems to be a more common state of mind. It’s helpful to be able to express all of this here.
It is unspeakably depressing, but perhaps the activism of e.g. the sapients of this world will be enough to start reversing it.
Thank you, but I don’t really deserve much credit. I wish I could do more.
I’ve taken some comfort in the fact that we can make some difference locally. But federal issues are what mean the most to me (the environment, decent treatment of immigrants, support for global human rights, etc.). I wish I knew how to be fearless and effective, but anger and despair seems to be a more common state of mind. It’s helpful to be able to express all of this here.
crystal-clear evidence of criminal malfeasance
The stated policy of the DOJ is that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted for criminal activity. The available remedies, per the DOJ, are impeachment or an election.
It’s possible that other jurisdictions – e.g. New York State – will find Trump criminally liable for any number of things. Could charge him, try him, and find him guilty.
Absent impeachment or losing an election, I believe that even in that case, he would remain as POTUS.
Funny world we live in.
crystal-clear evidence of criminal malfeasance
The stated policy of the DOJ is that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted for criminal activity. The available remedies, per the DOJ, are impeachment or an election.
It’s possible that other jurisdictions – e.g. New York State – will find Trump criminally liable for any number of things. Could charge him, try him, and find him guilty.
Absent impeachment or losing an election, I believe that even in that case, he would remain as POTUS.
Funny world we live in.
“Funny world we live in.’
It’s going to be hilariously side-splitting when he is both impeached AND loses an election and STILL remains as POTUS, while hosting his new reality show from the Oval Office.
“Funny world we live in.’
It’s going to be hilariously side-splitting when he is both impeached AND loses an election and STILL remains as POTUS, while hosting his new reality show from the Oval Office.
I can certainly see him trying it on.
I can certainly see him trying it on.
Some people actively dislike him, but can put up with it as long in exchange for getting generally conservative policies implemented.
There’s no reason (that we know of now) to expect Pence to get booted, too. So they don’t really care whether Trump stays or goes. And if his popularity is low enough, they might actually prefer the prospect of Pence being the head of the ticket next year.
Some people actively dislike him, but can put up with it as long in exchange for getting generally conservative policies implemented.
There’s no reason (that we know of now) to expect Pence to get booted, too. So they don’t really care whether Trump stays or goes. And if his popularity is low enough, they might actually prefer the prospect of Pence being the head of the ticket next year.
It’s going to be hilariously side-splitting when he is both impeached AND loses an election and STILL remains as POTUS, while hosting his new reality show from the Oval Office.
Not to worry. If he loses (or the Senate boots him out), the Deep State** will toss him out in the street. By force if necessary.
I know Trump thinks the law doesn’t apply to him. But in a case like this, he’s going to find out that it does.
** That would be the dedicated civil servants in the Secret Service, who actually care about their oaths to defend the Constitution.
It’s going to be hilariously side-splitting when he is both impeached AND loses an election and STILL remains as POTUS, while hosting his new reality show from the Oval Office.
Not to worry. If he loses (or the Senate boots him out), the Deep State** will toss him out in the street. By force if necessary.
I know Trump thinks the law doesn’t apply to him. But in a case like this, he’s going to find out that it does.
** That would be the dedicated civil servants in the Secret Service, who actually care about their oaths to defend the Constitution.
Find a parade, any fucking parade, and get in front of it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-says-hes-considering-attending-parade-in-russia-in-may-2019-11-08?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Find a parade, any fucking parade, and get in front of it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-says-hes-considering-attending-parade-in-russia-in-may-2019-11-08?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Not to worry. If he loses (or the Senate boots him out), the Deep State** will toss him out in the street. By force if necessary.
I’m not so cheerfully confident about the former. If the Senate boots him, yeah, okay, the Rs are okay with it at that point, so he’ll be gone. If he loses the election, well, that’s a much more complicated dynamic, and all sorts of shenanigans could follow. See what the Rs are threatening in KY right now … or at least as of last night. (I’m down with some kind of bug, not going to google for links.)
*****
GftNC: means that the US has descended within one term into an openly lawless power grab
A quibble, but the rest of your comment contradicts the “one-term descent” framing. This term has just been the tiny last step of the ladder, or stairway, or whatever metaphor you like. We’ve been sliding down it for a long time. Or being pushed, more like.
Merrick Garland. Newt. Saint Ronald. The decades during which the far right quietly drafted legislation to try out in the states concerning abortion, gay rights, voting rights, labor law….tweaking and tweaking, patiently waiting until they had stuff that was workable. And what about the states where incoming D governors have had the powers of the office stripped by outgoing/incumbent legislatures? (NC? WI? I can’t remember.) What about the alleged ties to Opus Dei among people currently in positions of power? The Catholic Church does not keep its position in the world by relying on short-term thinking.
This is what I was thinking of when the Bene Gesserit was mentioned a week or so ago. I don’t see a corresponding long-horizon campaign working on our side, but maybe pigs will eventually fly.
Not to worry. If he loses (or the Senate boots him out), the Deep State** will toss him out in the street. By force if necessary.
I’m not so cheerfully confident about the former. If the Senate boots him, yeah, okay, the Rs are okay with it at that point, so he’ll be gone. If he loses the election, well, that’s a much more complicated dynamic, and all sorts of shenanigans could follow. See what the Rs are threatening in KY right now … or at least as of last night. (I’m down with some kind of bug, not going to google for links.)
*****
GftNC: means that the US has descended within one term into an openly lawless power grab
A quibble, but the rest of your comment contradicts the “one-term descent” framing. This term has just been the tiny last step of the ladder, or stairway, or whatever metaphor you like. We’ve been sliding down it for a long time. Or being pushed, more like.
Merrick Garland. Newt. Saint Ronald. The decades during which the far right quietly drafted legislation to try out in the states concerning abortion, gay rights, voting rights, labor law….tweaking and tweaking, patiently waiting until they had stuff that was workable. And what about the states where incoming D governors have had the powers of the office stripped by outgoing/incumbent legislatures? (NC? WI? I can’t remember.) What about the alleged ties to Opus Dei among people currently in positions of power? The Catholic Church does not keep its position in the world by relying on short-term thinking.
This is what I was thinking of when the Bene Gesserit was mentioned a week or so ago. I don’t see a corresponding long-horizon campaign working on our side, but maybe pigs will eventually fly.
Find a parade, any fucking parade
Well, since the Pentagon won’t give him one in DC, why not have his buddy Vlad do it? If nothing else, announcing that he’s going sends a signal that expects to survive impeachment. (Of course, it might bother any remaining Cold Warriors in the Senate GOP. But Trump’s incapable of thinking about that kind of secondary effect.)
Find a parade, any fucking parade
Well, since the Pentagon won’t give him one in DC, why not have his buddy Vlad do it? If nothing else, announcing that he’s going sends a signal that expects to survive impeachment. (Of course, it might bother any remaining Cold Warriors in the Senate GOP. But Trump’s incapable of thinking about that kind of secondary effect.)
Janie, I don’t think we really disagree (or that I disagree with myself!) the last step off the ladder was the one that made it openly as opposed to covertly, sneakily lawless. By continuing to support Trump, the GOP have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that criminal behaviour of every kind (sexual, financial, traitorous) is perfectly acceptable to them, in a way they never have so openly before, as cleek and russell among others have been pointing out. What the results will be remains to be seen; as you imply many of us saw it happening for ages, but I guess the American public as a whole did not. Maybe enough of them do now.
Janie, I don’t think we really disagree (or that I disagree with myself!) the last step off the ladder was the one that made it openly as opposed to covertly, sneakily lawless. By continuing to support Trump, the GOP have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that criminal behaviour of every kind (sexual, financial, traitorous) is perfectly acceptable to them, in a way they never have so openly before, as cleek and russell among others have been pointing out. What the results will be remains to be seen; as you imply many of us saw it happening for ages, but I guess the American public as a whole did not. Maybe enough of them do now.
“By continuing to support Trump, the GOP have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that criminal behaviour of every kind (sexual, financial, traitorous) is perfectly acceptable to them,”
No, just that it takes something really bad to impeach somebody. And any Republican is better than any Democrat.
For all the smoking guns that have been declared there still isnt an impeachable offense.
And any Republican is better than any Democrat.
“By continuing to support Trump, the GOP have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that criminal behaviour of every kind (sexual, financial, traitorous) is perfectly acceptable to them,”
No, just that it takes something really bad to impeach somebody. And any Republican is better than any Democrat.
For all the smoking guns that have been declared there still isnt an impeachable offense.
And any Republican is better than any Democrat.
Ahh Marty, I’m drunk and you’re in the twilight zone. By the way, did you think Bill Clinton committed an impeachable offense?
Ahh Marty, I’m drunk and you’re in the twilight zone. By the way, did you think Bill Clinton committed an impeachable offense?
Nope, didnt like what he did but nope.
Nope, didnt like what he did but nope.
No, just that it takes something really bad to impeach somebody.
blackmailing a foreign government to help with his re-election is not bad. got it.
No, just that it takes something really bad to impeach somebody.
blackmailing a foreign government to help with his re-election is not bad. got it.
So, after looking at a variety of maps again, I’m on the page with a number of other pundits: the Republicans have managed to piss off a lot of suburban voters.
So, after looking at a variety of maps again, I’m on the page with a number of other pundits: the Republicans have managed to piss off a lot of suburban voters.
there still isnt an impeachable offense.
literally the only thing that qualifies something as an impeachable offense is that it can garner enough HoR votes. that’s all the Constitution requires.
blackmailing a foreign government to help with his re-election will be more than sufficient to get the votes.
there still isnt an impeachable offense.
literally the only thing that qualifies something as an impeachable offense is that it can garner enough HoR votes. that’s all the Constitution requires.
blackmailing a foreign government to help with his re-election will be more than sufficient to get the votes.
See “blackmail” scary word. Dem talking point. But sure any HoR can impeach any President. And probably will from now on.
See “blackmail” scary word. Dem talking point. But sure any HoR can impeach any President. And probably will from now on.
See “blackmail” scary word. Dem talking point.
you should probably try to avoid sounding like you’re reading from a GOP press release when you say stuff like that.
And probably will from now on.
i’m sure. it’s not like the GOP has anything else to offer.
See “blackmail” scary word. Dem talking point.
you should probably try to avoid sounding like you’re reading from a GOP press release when you say stuff like that.
And probably will from now on.
i’m sure. it’s not like the GOP has anything else to offer.
I will withhold your (already authorised) military aid unless you publicly say you’re investigating my most popular political rival and his family for corruption, even if it isn’t true.
Hmmm. You characterise it.
I will withhold your (already authorised) military aid unless you publicly say you’re investigating my most popular political rival and his family for corruption, even if it isn’t true.
Hmmm. You characterise it.
I would like for you to work with the Attorney General to help to investigate the former VP and his son for potential criminal abuse of his position for financial gain.
Remember we are great friends and we have that hardware you need.
It seems he was acting in the best interest of the country and it would be his responsibility to try to get the facts. So I can do anything I want as long as I’m running for President?
I mean, are Joe Biden and his son above the law? Can they be investigated now that he probably wont win the nomination?
I would like for you to work with the Attorney General to help to investigate the former VP and his son for potential criminal abuse of his position for financial gain.
Remember we are great friends and we have that hardware you need.
It seems he was acting in the best interest of the country and it would be his responsibility to try to get the facts. So I can do anything I want as long as I’m running for President?
I mean, are Joe Biden and his son above the law? Can they be investigated now that he probably wont win the nomination?
They can and should be investigated if there’s any evidence they’ve broken the law. It is against the law for an American president to extort help against American political rivals from a foreign power.
They can and should be investigated if there’s any evidence they’ve broken the law. It is against the law for an American president to extort help against American political rivals from a foreign power.
For all the smoking guns that have been declared there still isnt an impeachable offense.
That’s the open question, isn’t it? That’s the point of having the inquiry.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but Trump will be impeached, or not, based on what comes out of the investigation.
And any Republican is better than any Democrat.
This is the crux of the matter, for you anyway.
Trump is an (R), you like the policies, so you will get his back regardless of what he is or does.
For all the smoking guns that have been declared there still isnt an impeachable offense.
That’s the open question, isn’t it? That’s the point of having the inquiry.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but Trump will be impeached, or not, based on what comes out of the investigation.
And any Republican is better than any Democrat.
This is the crux of the matter, for you anyway.
Trump is an (R), you like the policies, so you will get his back regardless of what he is or does.
Biden pressured Ukraine to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor AFTER said corrupt prosecutor stymied and stopped any investigations into Burisma and Biden’s son.
If he had done so BEFORE, you’d have at least a valid argument.
Biden pressured Ukraine to get rid of the corrupt prosecutor AFTER said corrupt prosecutor stymied and stopped any investigations into Burisma and Biden’s son.
If he had done so BEFORE, you’d have at least a valid argument.
You’re right russell, I have a limit, just pretty far from where you might think it should be.
You’re right russell, I have a limit, just pretty far from where you might think it should be.
I don’t know all the facts, and as I mentioned I’m drunk (so blame the wine for any spelling and grammar mistakes), but if that’s exactly right then Hartmut FTW
I don’t know all the facts, and as I mentioned I’m drunk (so blame the wine for any spelling and grammar mistakes), but if that’s exactly right then Hartmut FTW
You know Marty, I’ve always been polite and respectful on here, however much I disagree with what someone says.
But when you say that you see nothing wrong with a president’s using US aid as a lever to get a foreign power to help him smear a domestic opponent, what you’re really saying is that you’ll support Trump whatever he does.
That puts you firmly on the side of evil and outside the scope of civility.
You can fuck right off.
And I respectfully disagree with GftNC’s view that Trump represents a one-term descent. The previous Republican president instituted the routine torture of prisoners. I understand why Obama chose to keep him onside, he’s not included in this, but Dubya, his agents and his enablers, are evil too.
I’m not drunk, I’ve just had enough. There are not points to be made on both sides of this debate. There’s right and there’s wrong. Fuck the evildoers. That’s all.
You know Marty, I’ve always been polite and respectful on here, however much I disagree with what someone says.
But when you say that you see nothing wrong with a president’s using US aid as a lever to get a foreign power to help him smear a domestic opponent, what you’re really saying is that you’ll support Trump whatever he does.
That puts you firmly on the side of evil and outside the scope of civility.
You can fuck right off.
And I respectfully disagree with GftNC’s view that Trump represents a one-term descent. The previous Republican president instituted the routine torture of prisoners. I understand why Obama chose to keep him onside, he’s not included in this, but Dubya, his agents and his enablers, are evil too.
I’m not drunk, I’ve just had enough. There are not points to be made on both sides of this debate. There’s right and there’s wrong. Fuck the evildoers. That’s all.
There’s right and there’s wrong. Fuck the evildoers. That’s all.
Thank you.
There’s right and there’s wrong. Fuck the evildoers. That’s all.
Thank you.
In all fairness, drunk or not, my “one term descent” was heavily qualified and no let-out for the GOP or Dubya, than whom I could imagine no worse POTUS until this one emerged. I’m quite happy with “fuck the evildoers”, I just don’t think Marty is one of them.
In all fairness, drunk or not, my “one term descent” was heavily qualified and no let-out for the GOP or Dubya, than whom I could imagine no worse POTUS until this one emerged. I’m quite happy with “fuck the evildoers”, I just don’t think Marty is one of them.
I’m quite happy with “fuck the evildoers”, I just don’t think Marty is one of them.
His support for the evildoers doesn’t speak highly of him.
I’m quite happy with “fuck the evildoers”, I just don’t think Marty is one of them.
His support for the evildoers doesn’t speak highly of him.
He is misguided, proud and stubborn. He is not evil.
He is misguided, proud and stubborn. He is not evil.
He is misguided, proud and stubborn. He is not evil.
Judging people’s souls isn’t my problem (or job). I’m sure he’s fine other than the fact that he’s putting a lot of energy into ruining the world. He knows his tunes though!
He is misguided, proud and stubborn. He is not evil.
Judging people’s souls isn’t my problem (or job). I’m sure he’s fine other than the fact that he’s putting a lot of energy into ruining the world. He knows his tunes though!
To quote one of Tony P’s favourites: and tomorrow I will be sober. Good night all.
To quote one of Tony P’s favourites: and tomorrow I will be sober. Good night all.
I’m not sure exactly how to respond. I think there is a legitimate objection to what Trump did. I also think 50m people or so think Joe should be investigated, not for political purposes.
It’s easy to say fuck off, but in total not much really happened. The election is no more in danger from that than from the three year search for a smoking gun with Democrats clearly abusing their power in search of the brass ring. That abuse is constant and ongoing. It’s a fishing expedition based on testimony of people who were “offended”.
It’s pretty clear they are trying to impact the election.
I’m not sure exactly how to respond. I think there is a legitimate objection to what Trump did. I also think 50m people or so think Joe should be investigated, not for political purposes.
It’s easy to say fuck off, but in total not much really happened. The election is no more in danger from that than from the three year search for a smoking gun with Democrats clearly abusing their power in search of the brass ring. That abuse is constant and ongoing. It’s a fishing expedition based on testimony of people who were “offended”.
It’s pretty clear they are trying to impact the election.
there still isnt an impeachable offense.
Except that it’s bribery. Which is explicitly listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. No need to fret over what does or doesn’t constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
there still isnt an impeachable offense.
Except that it’s bribery. Which is explicitly listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. No need to fret over what does or doesn’t constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
It’s not bribery. It’s not blackmail. It’s a President with pretty wide latitude in foreign affairs negotiating for a better deal. It’s not clear from the facts its illegal.
Right and wrong is a different thing.
It’s not bribery. It’s not blackmail. It’s a President with pretty wide latitude in foreign affairs negotiating for a better deal. It’s not clear from the facts its illegal.
Right and wrong is a different thing.
The distance between Marty’s understanding of the plain facts on the ground and mine is so remarkably vast that it just seems pointless to even try to discuss any of this.
Investigate Joe Biden for what? What is he alleged to have done? Investigate him because “50m people” think somebody should? What do those people think he did? What information are they working from? And there is no political agenda behind the desire to investigate Biden?
The (D) are abusing their power? What power are they abusing? Why was and is Trump under investigation in the first place? Who started the investigation? Was it the (D)s?
It’s too freaking much to try to walk back.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nobody else is obliged to humor them.
Trump is a crook. He is and has been surrounded by people who are also crooks. That is why he is, and has been, under investigation.
The people who voted for him screwed up. It happens. But the rest of the world is not obliged to sit on their hands and passively accept the consequences of their bad judgement.
The distance between Marty’s understanding of the plain facts on the ground and mine is so remarkably vast that it just seems pointless to even try to discuss any of this.
Investigate Joe Biden for what? What is he alleged to have done? Investigate him because “50m people” think somebody should? What do those people think he did? What information are they working from? And there is no political agenda behind the desire to investigate Biden?
The (D) are abusing their power? What power are they abusing? Why was and is Trump under investigation in the first place? Who started the investigation? Was it the (D)s?
It’s too freaking much to try to walk back.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nobody else is obliged to humor them.
Trump is a crook. He is and has been surrounded by people who are also crooks. That is why he is, and has been, under investigation.
The people who voted for him screwed up. It happens. But the rest of the world is not obliged to sit on their hands and passively accept the consequences of their bad judgement.
If you don’t publicly state that you are investigating my chief rival and his son for corruption and malfeasance, I will not release millions of dollars in military aid that Congress has allocated for you.
That is what Trump is accused of presenting to Zelensky. If it’s true, it is a gross abuse of power and against the law.
The point of the inquiry is to determine if it’s true.
The rest is noise.
If you don’t publicly state that you are investigating my chief rival and his son for corruption and malfeasance, I will not release millions of dollars in military aid that Congress has allocated for you.
That is what Trump is accused of presenting to Zelensky. If it’s true, it is a gross abuse of power and against the law.
The point of the inquiry is to determine if it’s true.
The rest is noise.
If you dont publicly state you are investigating the former VP who is being investigated for using his position for financial gain through his son. Same facts, different construction.
If you dont publicly state you are investigating the former VP who is being investigated for using his position for financial gain through his son. Same facts, different construction.
Who’s investigating Joe Biden for the things you name?
Who’s investigating Joe Biden for the things you name?
Who’s investigating Joe Biden for the things you name?
Don’t doubt for a minute that somebody somewhere has started some kind of an investigation. Maybe even hired a PI — one who has no qualms about taking money for doing nothing. Doesn’t mean there’s a real investigation.
Who’s investigating Joe Biden for the things you name?
Don’t doubt for a minute that somebody somewhere has started some kind of an investigation. Maybe even hired a PI — one who has no qualms about taking money for doing nothing. Doesn’t mean there’s a real investigation.
Lest we forget, there are also the emoluments clause violations and multiple cases of probable obstruction of justice. It’s open to debate whether the line of perjury was also crossed in these contexts. There were utterings from inside the administration that the boss should under no circumstances be allowed to get interviewed by investigators under oath since he would inevitably perjure himself. The RW talking point at the time was that this was the sole purpose of the enterprise, i.e. entrapping poor helpless DJT into making a harmless questionable statement* that then could be construed as perjurious justifying impeachment.
Btw, given that election campaigning now re-starts the very day after any election taking place, any action can be construed as motivated by the ‘incoming’ next election. Plus Dem POTUSes may not nominate any judges (and especially no justices) in the first or last eight years of their time in office (too close to an elecction) while GOPsters may do so up to inauguration day of the next POTUS.
*totally unlike the beyond-the-pale stuff of e.g. Bill Clinton (who also defiled the sacred Oval Office not a mere Moscow hotel suite)
Lest we forget, there are also the emoluments clause violations and multiple cases of probable obstruction of justice. It’s open to debate whether the line of perjury was also crossed in these contexts. There were utterings from inside the administration that the boss should under no circumstances be allowed to get interviewed by investigators under oath since he would inevitably perjure himself. The RW talking point at the time was that this was the sole purpose of the enterprise, i.e. entrapping poor helpless DJT into making a harmless questionable statement* that then could be construed as perjurious justifying impeachment.
Btw, given that election campaigning now re-starts the very day after any election taking place, any action can be construed as motivated by the ‘incoming’ next election. Plus Dem POTUSes may not nominate any judges (and especially no justices) in the first or last eight years of their time in office (too close to an elecction) while GOPsters may do so up to inauguration day of the next POTUS.
*totally unlike the beyond-the-pale stuff of e.g. Bill Clinton (who also defiled the sacred Oval Office not a mere Moscow hotel suite)
The upside about those like Marty, who seem to have drunk pretty well the full bucket of Kool-Aid, is that they are contributing to the destruction of what has become the party of Trump.
It’s possible that he wins a second term. But very probably there will not be a Republican Congress to enable him as the Senate for now continues to do.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trump-is-poison-for-suburban-republicansso-why-wont-they-turn-on-him
Looking ahead to 2020, the editorial concluded, “The fair judgment a year from Election Day in 2020 is that Mr. Trump is highly vulnerable in his bid for a second term.” That seems incontestable. Arguably, however, Republican Party leaders should be even more worried than the President. As I wrote earlier in the week, given the skewed geographical distribution of Trump voters and potential Trump voters, there is still a chance that he could pull another inside straight in the Electoral College to win a second term. That’s all he desires, of course. But the Republican Party was founded in 1854, and, if it wants to survive for another hundred and sixty-five years, it needs to align itself with some growing parts of the electorate rather than turning into an embittered rump party for rural working-class whites…
The upside about those like Marty, who seem to have drunk pretty well the full bucket of Kool-Aid, is that they are contributing to the destruction of what has become the party of Trump.
It’s possible that he wins a second term. But very probably there will not be a Republican Congress to enable him as the Senate for now continues to do.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trump-is-poison-for-suburban-republicansso-why-wont-they-turn-on-him
Looking ahead to 2020, the editorial concluded, “The fair judgment a year from Election Day in 2020 is that Mr. Trump is highly vulnerable in his bid for a second term.” That seems incontestable. Arguably, however, Republican Party leaders should be even more worried than the President. As I wrote earlier in the week, given the skewed geographical distribution of Trump voters and potential Trump voters, there is still a chance that he could pull another inside straight in the Electoral College to win a second term. That’s all he desires, of course. But the Republican Party was founded in 1854, and, if it wants to survive for another hundred and sixty-five years, it needs to align itself with some growing parts of the electorate rather than turning into an embittered rump party for rural working-class whites…
somebody somewhere has started some kind of an investigation.
Let’s exclude Breitbart and QAnon.
Marty says “same facts, different construction”, but extends my statement to claim that Biden Sr. is “being investigated for using his position for financial gain through his son”.
So, not the “same facts”. A new fact has been asserted.
I am not aware of any such investigation. Looked briefly, found nothing, outside of e.g. Breitbart et al.
There is a memo claiming corruption that was allegedly leaked by the Ukrainian AG’s office, which even the Washington Times (NB: not to be confused with the Post) says is bogus.
Is that it?
I’m open to hearing new information. There has been an assertion that Joe Biden is the subject of an investigation due to allegations that he has corruptly taken advantage of Hunter’s job at Burisma to enrich himself.
What investigation is that?
somebody somewhere has started some kind of an investigation.
Let’s exclude Breitbart and QAnon.
Marty says “same facts, different construction”, but extends my statement to claim that Biden Sr. is “being investigated for using his position for financial gain through his son”.
So, not the “same facts”. A new fact has been asserted.
I am not aware of any such investigation. Looked briefly, found nothing, outside of e.g. Breitbart et al.
There is a memo claiming corruption that was allegedly leaked by the Ukrainian AG’s office, which even the Washington Times (NB: not to be confused with the Post) says is bogus.
Is that it?
I’m open to hearing new information. There has been an assertion that Joe Biden is the subject of an investigation due to allegations that he has corruptly taken advantage of Hunter’s job at Burisma to enrich himself.
What investigation is that?
Also worth noting:
AFAIK none of the testimony in the inquiry so far claims that Trump et al wanted Zelensky to actually *investigate* Biden.
The “deliverable” appears to be the public statement. The actual investigation, not required.
Crook. Hence, inquiries.
Also worth noting:
AFAIK none of the testimony in the inquiry so far claims that Trump et al wanted Zelensky to actually *investigate* Biden.
The “deliverable” appears to be the public statement. The actual investigation, not required.
Crook. Hence, inquiries.
It’s a President with pretty wide latitude in foreign affairs negotiating for a better deal.
the deal he was negotiating was for himself.
there’s no plausible explanation of why Trump chose to put so much energy – including an entirely separate channel run through his own personal yet unpaid lawyer – into one country in particular. general non-specific ‘corruption’ is everywhere, probably in every single country we give aid to. but Trump chose Ukraine as the target of his valuable time? why? because he thought he could use it to trigger a scandalous “investigation” into his likely opponent, Biden.
Trump chose to explicitly mention Biden and Crowdstrike in his call. Crowdstrike? this is a conspiracy theory from 2016 about DNC emails! what the hell does that have to do with the “country” ?
he was negotiating for himself. not for the country. for himself.
he was literally using the office for his own personal gain – as he has countless times with his hotels and Trump Tower rents, etc. – the G7 meeting would have been another.
and countless other people have confirmed this, under oath.
It’s a President with pretty wide latitude in foreign affairs negotiating for a better deal.
the deal he was negotiating was for himself.
there’s no plausible explanation of why Trump chose to put so much energy – including an entirely separate channel run through his own personal yet unpaid lawyer – into one country in particular. general non-specific ‘corruption’ is everywhere, probably in every single country we give aid to. but Trump chose Ukraine as the target of his valuable time? why? because he thought he could use it to trigger a scandalous “investigation” into his likely opponent, Biden.
Trump chose to explicitly mention Biden and Crowdstrike in his call. Crowdstrike? this is a conspiracy theory from 2016 about DNC emails! what the hell does that have to do with the “country” ?
he was negotiating for himself. not for the country. for himself.
he was literally using the office for his own personal gain – as he has countless times with his hotels and Trump Tower rents, etc. – the G7 meeting would have been another.
and countless other people have confirmed this, under oath.
Thanks for doing the yeoman’s work in trying to communicate the truth about Trump to Marty. I’m not seeing any indication that he cares about the truth though. That’s the most disturbing thing to me about all of this.
Thanks for doing the yeoman’s work in trying to communicate the truth about Trump to Marty. I’m not seeing any indication that he cares about the truth though. That’s the most disturbing thing to me about all of this.
it is interesting to see just how far his party loyalty extends, though.
though, way back when, in the summertime, Marty did say this:
and i agree!
i just don’t see how that’s a greater offense that using the federal government to assist his own election campaign.
it is interesting to see just how far his party loyalty extends, though.
though, way back when, in the summertime, Marty did say this:
and i agree!
i just don’t see how that’s a greater offense that using the federal government to assist his own election campaign.
Wow. Great memory, and good find, cleek.
Wow. Great memory, and good find, cleek.
I’m sure Rump is super concerned about Cheney and Haliburton, too, since he’s so focused on what former VPs might have done to enrich themselves. It’s purely coincidental that the one he wanted another country’s president to announce an investigation into in late 2019 was his most likely 2020 election rival. It didn’t even hurt when I fell off that turnip truck.
I’m sure Rump is super concerned about Cheney and Haliburton, too, since he’s so focused on what former VPs might have done to enrich themselves. It’s purely coincidental that the one he wanted another country’s president to announce an investigation into in late 2019 was his most likely 2020 election rival. It didn’t even hurt when I fell off that turnip truck.
It didn’t even hurt when I fell off that turnip truck.
Some people weren’t so lucky, they fell on their heads.
Actually, that explains a lot.
It didn’t even hurt when I fell off that turnip truck.
Some people weren’t so lucky, they fell on their heads.
Actually, that explains a lot.
The effort you’re putting into debunking Marty’s ridiculous claims is commendable, but I fear wasted.
He is merely parroting the party of Trump’s talking points, and will l8kley continue to do so. Debating their merits is going to be a very one sided debate.
The effort you’re putting into debunking Marty’s ridiculous claims is commendable, but I fear wasted.
He is merely parroting the party of Trump’s talking points, and will l8kley continue to do so. Debating their merits is going to be a very one sided debate.
general non-specific ‘corruption’ is everywhere
And we don’t even have to go back to Cheney to find examples.
Has Trump threatened China if China refuses to investigate Elaine Chao?
In fact, it would probably take us into next year to even start listing the examples of similar corruption in Clickbait’s own administration. Or his own family! Is he investigating himself for corruption yet? I mean, the field is so rich, and it would be so much easier than bashing the president of Ukraine to make shit up.
general non-specific ‘corruption’ is everywhere
And we don’t even have to go back to Cheney to find examples.
Has Trump threatened China if China refuses to investigate Elaine Chao?
In fact, it would probably take us into next year to even start listing the examples of similar corruption in Clickbait’s own administration. Or his own family! Is he investigating himself for corruption yet? I mean, the field is so rich, and it would be so much easier than bashing the president of Ukraine to make shit up.
But no, wait, I forgot, Clickbait isn’t corrupt enough for anyone to care about, or at least anyone whose head suffered in that fall off the turnip truck.
The invented spec of Biden corruption matters ever so much more than the redwood forest of Clickbait corruption….
Because, because…..I think cleek’s law applies here, actually.
But no, wait, I forgot, Clickbait isn’t corrupt enough for anyone to care about, or at least anyone whose head suffered in that fall off the turnip truck.
The invented spec of Biden corruption matters ever so much more than the redwood forest of Clickbait corruption….
Because, because…..I think cleek’s law applies here, actually.
Nigel @10:08: you’re absolutely right, and that has been true forever. I don’t know why Marty comes here to sneer at us and get abused in return, and I don’t know why we all bite the hooks. I’m not supposed to call Marty a troll, but given that he comes here knowing full well what will happen, and we bite the hooks knowing full well what will happen, and no one’s mind ever changes the slightest iota and we all know that will happen (or not happen, I guess), and every thread he joins becomes about him — I think it’s pretty apt. Especially because of that last criterion. When Marty shows up, general discussion dies, and it’s all about refuting his idiocies. Maybe there’s some value in that for any imaginary lurkers who need fodder to refute their crazy uncle’s Fox talking points, but I’m skeptical even about that.
Some days, even I have something better to do.
Like today. Off to some craft fairs to shop for Christmas presents and marvel at all the ways people can find to spend their time creatively.
Nigel @10:08: you’re absolutely right, and that has been true forever. I don’t know why Marty comes here to sneer at us and get abused in return, and I don’t know why we all bite the hooks. I’m not supposed to call Marty a troll, but given that he comes here knowing full well what will happen, and we bite the hooks knowing full well what will happen, and no one’s mind ever changes the slightest iota and we all know that will happen (or not happen, I guess), and every thread he joins becomes about him — I think it’s pretty apt. Especially because of that last criterion. When Marty shows up, general discussion dies, and it’s all about refuting his idiocies. Maybe there’s some value in that for any imaginary lurkers who need fodder to refute their crazy uncle’s Fox talking points, but I’m skeptical even about that.
Some days, even I have something better to do.
Like today. Off to some craft fairs to shop for Christmas presents and marvel at all the ways people can find to spend their time creatively.
IMO, it really is the “Trump, Undaunted Destroyer of Corruption” thing that destroys that particular defense. why would anyone believe that?
it’s such an obvious retcon that even diehard fans should cringe at it.
IMO, it really is the “Trump, Undaunted Destroyer of Corruption” thing that destroys that particular defense. why would anyone believe that?
it’s such an obvious retcon that even diehard fans should cringe at it.
Once again I’m ok if Trump gets impeached. That diesnt change any of the criticisms of the Dems or the lack of a real smoking gun. If it were me this is not what I would hang my hat on.
I dont like Trump, I dont like the Dems just as much. I come here because I keep looking for a glimpse of self awareness that the Dems have abused the whole federal bureaucracy in search of a smoking gun. Failing that they are making one up. That is as big a threat to our democracy as anything Trumps done.
He is not a legitimate excuse for their actions.
Once again I’m ok if Trump gets impeached. That diesnt change any of the criticisms of the Dems or the lack of a real smoking gun. If it were me this is not what I would hang my hat on.
I dont like Trump, I dont like the Dems just as much. I come here because I keep looking for a glimpse of self awareness that the Dems have abused the whole federal bureaucracy in search of a smoking gun. Failing that they are making one up. That is as big a threat to our democracy as anything Trumps done.
He is not a legitimate excuse for their actions.
Again, nonsense.
Can’t be bothered, Marty. If you’re sincere, please rebut each of these points:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/ukraine-depositions-trump-republican-corruption-lies.html
‘No smoking gun’, forsooth !
Again, nonsense.
Can’t be bothered, Marty. If you’re sincere, please rebut each of these points:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/ukraine-depositions-trump-republican-corruption-lies.html
‘No smoking gun’, forsooth !
I come here because I keep looking for a glimpse of self awareness
Sneer on, Marty.
I come here because I keep looking for a glimpse of self awareness
Sneer on, Marty.
I mean, a fascination with our self-awareness…how quaint and civic-minded, I’m sure.
Go work on your own self-awareness for a few lifetimes.
I mean, a fascination with our self-awareness…how quaint and civic-minded, I’m sure.
Go work on your own self-awareness for a few lifetimes.
J Edgar Hoover, the conservative Deep State at the time, 1919, and persisting long afterwards, addressing Emma Goldman on the ferry transporting her and hundreds of other dissidents to a hardly seaworthy vessel anchored off Brooklyn, for her deportation back to Europe:
“Haven’t I given you a square deal, Miss Goldman?”
“Oh, I suppose you’ve given me as square a deal as you could,” Goldman replied. “We shouldn’t expect from any person something beyond his capacity.”
Yes, forsooth!
This conversation related here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/when-america-tried-to-deport-its-radicals
.. an article that should be read if only to introduce yourselves to one Louis F. Post, the likes of which, and many more such individuals, will have to be seen again in America, if we are to emerge from the current malign insanity …. and not only regarding immigration, foist upon this country by the conservative movement (during Goldman’s moment here personified by the racist, anti-Semitic conservative Democratic Party Wilson Administration) .. as it has found its apotheosis in p, without catastrophic but long-deserved civil unrest.
J Edgar Hoover, the conservative Deep State at the time, 1919, and persisting long afterwards, addressing Emma Goldman on the ferry transporting her and hundreds of other dissidents to a hardly seaworthy vessel anchored off Brooklyn, for her deportation back to Europe:
“Haven’t I given you a square deal, Miss Goldman?”
“Oh, I suppose you’ve given me as square a deal as you could,” Goldman replied. “We shouldn’t expect from any person something beyond his capacity.”
Yes, forsooth!
This conversation related here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/when-america-tried-to-deport-its-radicals
.. an article that should be read if only to introduce yourselves to one Louis F. Post, the likes of which, and many more such individuals, will have to be seen again in America, if we are to emerge from the current malign insanity …. and not only regarding immigration, foist upon this country by the conservative movement (during Goldman’s moment here personified by the racist, anti-Semitic conservative Democratic Party Wilson Administration) .. as it has found its apotheosis in p, without catastrophic but long-deserved civil unrest.
Honesty is not sneering. You think I’m a rube. I think you cant see that’s been the Dem talking point at least since the deplorables comment.
I examine every new thing on the actual facts, not what some emasculated civil servant feels about it. I try my best to listen through the bs on both sides. But there is bs on both sides.
But here, the Dems are all about facts. That’s a lack of self awareness. Dud Schiff coach the whistleblower? What does it mean if he did? Why are they leaking the closed door testimony when open testimony is underway? Is that to shape opinion and influence elections with no response possible? Do you ever look at what the Dems are doing critically?
Honesty is not sneering. You think I’m a rube. I think you cant see that’s been the Dem talking point at least since the deplorables comment.
I examine every new thing on the actual facts, not what some emasculated civil servant feels about it. I try my best to listen through the bs on both sides. But there is bs on both sides.
But here, the Dems are all about facts. That’s a lack of self awareness. Dud Schiff coach the whistleblower? What does it mean if he did? Why are they leaking the closed door testimony when open testimony is underway? Is that to shape opinion and influence elections with no response possible? Do you ever look at what the Dems are doing critically?
Saying you don’t care about the smoking gun isn’t the same thing as saying there isn’t one. AFAICT, Marty alternates between the two.
Saying you don’t care about the smoking gun isn’t the same thing as saying there isn’t one. AFAICT, Marty alternates between the two.
President with pretty wide latitude in foreign affairs
Presidents have enormous latitude in foreign affairs. (Constrained only by the requirement that actual treaties get ratified by the Senate.) But that is latitude in deciding what policy is in the national interest. Which is not, be it noted, identical to the President’s (any president, not just this one’s) personal political interest.
Of course, it can be challenging to figure out what the current administration’s policy is on anything, including foreign affairs. Even ignoring the detail that, when you can suss it out, it will likely have changed in the meantime, depending on who talked to Trump last. The only consistent threads seem to be
1) what benefits Trump personally,
2) what benefits Putin (possibly overlapping categories)
Beyond that?
President with pretty wide latitude in foreign affairs
Presidents have enormous latitude in foreign affairs. (Constrained only by the requirement that actual treaties get ratified by the Senate.) But that is latitude in deciding what policy is in the national interest. Which is not, be it noted, identical to the President’s (any president, not just this one’s) personal political interest.
Of course, it can be challenging to figure out what the current administration’s policy is on anything, including foreign affairs. Even ignoring the detail that, when you can suss it out, it will likely have changed in the meantime, depending on who talked to Trump last. The only consistent threads seem to be
1) what benefits Trump personally,
2) what benefits Putin (possibly overlapping categories)
Beyond that?
And I keep engaging with this because, unlike some, I am hoping America does not end up in a violent civil war.
There are people on the wilder fringes of the Dem side (I’m thinking of JDT-type rhetoric, if not his actual reality) who are just as obdurate and up for a fight as some rabid Trump supporters, and those two groups of people could well end up instigating or fighting in a civil war.
But in my opinion, Marty and people like him are not in this category, and it does no good and probably does harm to insult them or call them evil or evildoers. If widescale violence and disintegration are to be avoided in the USA (and maybe they can’t be) then people have to be prepared to talk without monstering each other.
I am not making a false equivalence, or recommending a kumbaya both-sides-now approach, and my own opinions of the Trump situation are presumably quite clear. But I do believe in dialogue between adversaries, as a way of avoiding armed and other kinds of conflict. Plenty here disagree with me. So be it. I’ll keep it up unless asked to desist.
And I keep engaging with this because, unlike some, I am hoping America does not end up in a violent civil war.
There are people on the wilder fringes of the Dem side (I’m thinking of JDT-type rhetoric, if not his actual reality) who are just as obdurate and up for a fight as some rabid Trump supporters, and those two groups of people could well end up instigating or fighting in a civil war.
But in my opinion, Marty and people like him are not in this category, and it does no good and probably does harm to insult them or call them evil or evildoers. If widescale violence and disintegration are to be avoided in the USA (and maybe they can’t be) then people have to be prepared to talk without monstering each other.
I am not making a false equivalence, or recommending a kumbaya both-sides-now approach, and my own opinions of the Trump situation are presumably quite clear. But I do believe in dialogue between adversaries, as a way of avoiding armed and other kinds of conflict. Plenty here disagree with me. So be it. I’ll keep it up unless asked to desist.
“You think I’m a rube.”
Bullshit. You are one of us, and probably with a bigger 401K, at least at one time before conservative corporate types threw you to the wolves and the depredations of Obamacare.
Yet another conservative elitist hiding behind truly victimized citizens (unfettered free trade, no available access to healthcare, except unregulated opioid distribution by tax cutting oligarchs, and the obliteration of unions, among every other fucking item, are fundamental deep state conservative dogma forced upon these people by the conservative movement), the white working class who have true grievances, just as the black working has had for a century or more since slavery, but the former are so newly desperate at what unfettered capitalism can do to them that they are in thrall to a cosseted elitist demagogue who has never earned an honest cent in his trust fund baby life, beyond what he could steal (rhymes with “deal”) and slap his feces logo on, from others, in order to score some massive tax cuts and install reactionary judges who will rule that Social Security and Medicare, among other things, must be dismantled in the name of some fantasy of the true American way of life.
And yes, Hillary Clinton, like Nixon’s camera-unfriendly stubble, has a tin ear, and should have STFU about “deplorables”, who are merely Romney’s “47%”, despite the fact that some people actually are deplorable, just as Hitler’s aggrieved Germans were, and she should further learn that her mere presence as a public figure, a woman who sez what’s on her mind just like any republican male would, and her more recent public statements, drive people into Trump’s arms, and he has nothing but fake diamond cuff links to reward them with.
“There is bs on both sides.”
Your side has won the bs game.
We don’t need extra innings or sudden death overtime to determine that.
Take the trophy and turn out the lights.
“You think I’m a rube.”
Bullshit. You are one of us, and probably with a bigger 401K, at least at one time before conservative corporate types threw you to the wolves and the depredations of Obamacare.
Yet another conservative elitist hiding behind truly victimized citizens (unfettered free trade, no available access to healthcare, except unregulated opioid distribution by tax cutting oligarchs, and the obliteration of unions, among every other fucking item, are fundamental deep state conservative dogma forced upon these people by the conservative movement), the white working class who have true grievances, just as the black working has had for a century or more since slavery, but the former are so newly desperate at what unfettered capitalism can do to them that they are in thrall to a cosseted elitist demagogue who has never earned an honest cent in his trust fund baby life, beyond what he could steal (rhymes with “deal”) and slap his feces logo on, from others, in order to score some massive tax cuts and install reactionary judges who will rule that Social Security and Medicare, among other things, must be dismantled in the name of some fantasy of the true American way of life.
And yes, Hillary Clinton, like Nixon’s camera-unfriendly stubble, has a tin ear, and should have STFU about “deplorables”, who are merely Romney’s “47%”, despite the fact that some people actually are deplorable, just as Hitler’s aggrieved Germans were, and she should further learn that her mere presence as a public figure, a woman who sez what’s on her mind just like any republican male would, and her more recent public statements, drive people into Trump’s arms, and he has nothing but fake diamond cuff links to reward them with.
“There is bs on both sides.”
Your side has won the bs game.
We don’t need extra innings or sudden death overtime to determine that.
Take the trophy and turn out the lights.
My prediction is that, in ten years, Trump will have vanished in the rearview mirror and everyone’s hair will be on fire about entirely something else. Until then, we will have muddled through without anything even near the 1960’s levels of violence.
My prediction is that, in ten years, Trump will have vanished in the rearview mirror and everyone’s hair will be on fire about entirely something else. Until then, we will have muddled through without anything even near the 1960’s levels of violence.
Ever wonder why California seems so relaxed about diversity? Well just possibly because it has been diverse for a long time. A very long time.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/11/09/the-number-of-native-american-tribal-languages-in-california-might-surprise-you/
Place names based on Spanish may be what catch the eye, not least because they include big city names. And also because we tend to be familiar enough with Spanish to realize what we are seeing. But there are lots of Native American names that you just don’t pick up on. Including places like Yosemite and Tahoe.
Ever wonder why California seems so relaxed about diversity? Well just possibly because it has been diverse for a long time. A very long time.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/11/09/the-number-of-native-american-tribal-languages-in-california-might-surprise-you/
Place names based on Spanish may be what catch the eye, not least because they include big city names. And also because we tend to be familiar enough with Spanish to realize what we are seeing. But there are lots of Native American names that you just don’t pick up on. Including places like Yosemite and Tahoe.
I come here because I keep looking for a glimpse of self awareness that the Dems have abused the whole federal bureaucracy in search of a smoking gun. Failing that they are making one up.
So far so good. You gotta show your work, though.
You think I’m a rube. I think you cant see that’s been the Dem talking point at least since the deplorables comment.
Probably not so regarding you specifically, but IMO this is a fair complaint in general. Pointing and laughing is not good faith engagement.
the actual facts, not what some emasculated civil servant feels about it.
Hmm, now we’re diverging from substance.
Dud Schiff coach the whistleblower?
Did he?
Why are they leaking the closed door testimony when open testimony is underway?
A reasonable question. But at this point it’s pretty much all in the public record.
Is that to shape opinion and influence elections with no response possible?
Have there been no (R)’s at all present in the closed door sessions? No opportunity for the (R)’s who were present to rebut leaked information, or at least make a response?
Do you ever look at what the Dems are doing critically?
Every day.
Look, it’s fine if you want to raise all of these points. But you have to at least do some due diligence to see if they have any merit.
The reason people here get annoyed with you about this stuff is that you don’t appear to actually be presenting any facts. Nothing that stands the most basic kind of scrutiny, anyway.
As far as I can tell, Joe Biden is not actually under investigation. Therefore talking about whether he’s been “cleared” or not is absurd. If you believe he actually is under investigation by anyone not involved in the whole Trump/Giuliani train wreck, please explain why. Bring some information.
If you think Schiff coached the whistleblower, please bring some actual information that explains why you think that. And if you’re going to go down that path, you need to also explain why there is a conga line of people – people who were on the call, people with stellar resumes in public service – who are telling the exact same story, only more so.
If you want to engage the topic, show us why you think what you think. It will be less frustrating for everyone, yourself included.
Show your work, man. That’s all anyone is asking for.
I come here because I keep looking for a glimpse of self awareness that the Dems have abused the whole federal bureaucracy in search of a smoking gun. Failing that they are making one up.
So far so good. You gotta show your work, though.
You think I’m a rube. I think you cant see that’s been the Dem talking point at least since the deplorables comment.
Probably not so regarding you specifically, but IMO this is a fair complaint in general. Pointing and laughing is not good faith engagement.
the actual facts, not what some emasculated civil servant feels about it.
Hmm, now we’re diverging from substance.
Dud Schiff coach the whistleblower?
Did he?
Why are they leaking the closed door testimony when open testimony is underway?
A reasonable question. But at this point it’s pretty much all in the public record.
Is that to shape opinion and influence elections with no response possible?
Have there been no (R)’s at all present in the closed door sessions? No opportunity for the (R)’s who were present to rebut leaked information, or at least make a response?
Do you ever look at what the Dems are doing critically?
Every day.
Look, it’s fine if you want to raise all of these points. But you have to at least do some due diligence to see if they have any merit.
The reason people here get annoyed with you about this stuff is that you don’t appear to actually be presenting any facts. Nothing that stands the most basic kind of scrutiny, anyway.
As far as I can tell, Joe Biden is not actually under investigation. Therefore talking about whether he’s been “cleared” or not is absurd. If you believe he actually is under investigation by anyone not involved in the whole Trump/Giuliani train wreck, please explain why. Bring some information.
If you think Schiff coached the whistleblower, please bring some actual information that explains why you think that. And if you’re going to go down that path, you need to also explain why there is a conga line of people – people who were on the call, people with stellar resumes in public service – who are telling the exact same story, only more so.
If you want to engage the topic, show us why you think what you think. It will be less frustrating for everyone, yourself included.
Show your work, man. That’s all anyone is asking for.
Another set of back-and-forths that make me think that, whatever else people may think, the future of the republic is fragile.
An article about “regime cleavage” on Politico by Thomas Pepinsky was making the rounds on social media a couple weeks back.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/31/regime-cleavage-229895
He warns that this current polarization may lead both sides to reject the legitimacy of the other. He points to the work of Levitsky and Ziblatt as a model for thinking about this, and, as this excerpt from their book, How Democracies Die shows, that is not a comforting model:
https://newrepublic.com/article/145916/democracy-dies-donald-trump-contempt-for-american-political-institutions
This is entirely the sort of political theology that I mentioned earlier when I linked to the encyclopedia article about Carl Schmitt during the Kavanaugh hearings. The GOP — on a structural level from the leadership to the propaganda wing of Sinclair/Fox/Breitbart to the grassroots of the NRA and the religious right — is fully invested in the friend/foe distinction, and the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
I’m scared because I really don’t see anything to argue with in either of these accounts.
Another set of back-and-forths that make me think that, whatever else people may think, the future of the republic is fragile.
An article about “regime cleavage” on Politico by Thomas Pepinsky was making the rounds on social media a couple weeks back.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/31/regime-cleavage-229895
He warns that this current polarization may lead both sides to reject the legitimacy of the other. He points to the work of Levitsky and Ziblatt as a model for thinking about this, and, as this excerpt from their book, How Democracies Die shows, that is not a comforting model:
https://newrepublic.com/article/145916/democracy-dies-donald-trump-contempt-for-american-political-institutions
This is entirely the sort of political theology that I mentioned earlier when I linked to the encyclopedia article about Carl Schmitt during the Kavanaugh hearings. The GOP — on a structural level from the leadership to the propaganda wing of Sinclair/Fox/Breitbart to the grassroots of the NRA and the religious right — is fully invested in the friend/foe distinction, and the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
I’m scared because I really don’t see anything to argue with in either of these accounts.
The GOP — on a structural level from the leadership to the propaganda wing of Sinclair/Fox/Breitbart to the grassroots of the NRA and the religious right — is fully invested in the friend/foe distinction, and the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
I’m scared because I really don’t see anything to argue with in either of these accounts.
Me too. And that’s why I think resisting the forces encouraging the polarisation is absolutely vital.
But I have to say, FWIW, what russell said at 12.56 seems pretty damn reasonable to me.
The GOP — on a structural level from the leadership to the propaganda wing of Sinclair/Fox/Breitbart to the grassroots of the NRA and the religious right — is fully invested in the friend/foe distinction, and the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
I’m scared because I really don’t see anything to argue with in either of these accounts.
Me too. And that’s why I think resisting the forces encouraging the polarisation is absolutely vital.
But I have to say, FWIW, what russell said at 12.56 seems pretty damn reasonable to me.
Show your work, man. That’s all anyone is asking for.
Yup.
Show your work, man. That’s all anyone is asking for.
Yup.
The Levitsky and Zeblatt article blames the Republican Party for the polarization, and that’s where the blame belongs. So when we talk about resisting polarization, we’re resisting Republicans.
the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
Both of these groups are supporting “Democrats” (each other), even if tepidly at times. As long as that stays the case, there is some hope.
The Levitsky and Zeblatt article blames the Republican Party for the polarization, and that’s where the blame belongs. So when we talk about resisting polarization, we’re resisting Republicans.
the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
Both of these groups are supporting “Democrats” (each other), even if tepidly at times. As long as that stays the case, there is some hope.
The hope, in the absence of any resistance to radicalization on the part of the GOP identified who profess disgust with Trump’s corrosion on an institutional level, is to mobilize the vote so overwhelmingly that the GOP suffers a defeat on the national level the likes of the one that they have suffered at the state level in California. “The Base” must shatter and necessitate a redo of the core values and party platform, otherwise I think we end up with the pendulum swings of authoritarianism that Levitsky and Ziblatt predict, perhaps with an outbreak of open Threeperism in the woolier pockets of the nation where RWNJs have always found shelter.
The hope, in the absence of any resistance to radicalization on the part of the GOP identified who profess disgust with Trump’s corrosion on an institutional level, is to mobilize the vote so overwhelmingly that the GOP suffers a defeat on the national level the likes of the one that they have suffered at the state level in California. “The Base” must shatter and necessitate a redo of the core values and party platform, otherwise I think we end up with the pendulum swings of authoritarianism that Levitsky and Ziblatt predict, perhaps with an outbreak of open Threeperism in the woolier pockets of the nation where RWNJs have always found shelter.
There’s an interesting Q&A in today’s New Yorker called The Passion of Newt Gingrich, in most of which Newt’s answers and assertions could be coming straight from Marty. But very interestingly, towards the end, after a bit of sparring about how the Rs keep changing the line to favour Trump, from say “there was no quid pro quo” to “there’s nothing wrong with a quid pro quo”, the following exchange occurs after Newt confirms that Republicans are convinced there is a cultural civil war going on:
Isaac Chotiner: And you have this guy [Trump] who is a messenger, who is putting forward conservative policies and confirming conservative judges, and standing up for conservatives in the culture war. And, because of that, we have something like Ukraine. I think that most conservatives, if you had said to them five years ago that Barack Obama was pressuring someone to investigate a political rival, would have said that was an inappropriate way to deal with American aid to a foreign country. But there is a larger issue here in conservative minds—a cultural civil war—and that’s what people are focussed on, and that’s why things are always going to be O.K., or worth the cost.
NG: I think that’s right. I think that’s a reasonable analysis.
So there we have it.
There’s an interesting Q&A in today’s New Yorker called The Passion of Newt Gingrich, in most of which Newt’s answers and assertions could be coming straight from Marty. But very interestingly, towards the end, after a bit of sparring about how the Rs keep changing the line to favour Trump, from say “there was no quid pro quo” to “there’s nothing wrong with a quid pro quo”, the following exchange occurs after Newt confirms that Republicans are convinced there is a cultural civil war going on:
Isaac Chotiner: And you have this guy [Trump] who is a messenger, who is putting forward conservative policies and confirming conservative judges, and standing up for conservatives in the culture war. And, because of that, we have something like Ukraine. I think that most conservatives, if you had said to them five years ago that Barack Obama was pressuring someone to investigate a political rival, would have said that was an inappropriate way to deal with American aid to a foreign country. But there is a larger issue here in conservative minds—a cultural civil war—and that’s what people are focussed on, and that’s why things are always going to be O.K., or worth the cost.
NG: I think that’s right. I think that’s a reasonable analysis.
So there we have it.
So there we have it.
And this is why laughing and pointing isn’t inappropriate. It might not be helpful, but what is?
So there we have it.
And this is why laughing and pointing isn’t inappropriate. It might not be helpful, but what is?
the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
No doubt my view is influenced by living in California. Where the Republican Party headed down the ideological purity / no RINOs wanted rabbit hole rather earlier than much of the rest of the country.**
What we see is a GOP which is essentially irrelevant. Democrats hold all the statewide offices. And supermajorities in both houses of the legislature. So, what happens then?
What happened here was we went to open primaries. Essentially everybody competes against everybody else, regardless of party, in the primary — except for the presidential primaries. And the top two have essentially a runoff in the general election.
In the majority of cases, that means a general election between a more liberal Democrat and a more conservative one. What that may foreshadow is a Democratic Party splitting, as the Republicans fade further into irrelevance. Frankly, I’d like to see us fold in something like Maine’s single transferable vote system. But that’s more of a tweak than anything else.
** Excluding the Deep South, of course.
the Democrats are finding themselves pulled apart into the Overton Tracking centrists and the Resist progressives, who have given up hope of any return to normalcy and, in the absence of any meaningful concern for moderation on the right, are committed to counter-mobilization.
No doubt my view is influenced by living in California. Where the Republican Party headed down the ideological purity / no RINOs wanted rabbit hole rather earlier than much of the rest of the country.**
What we see is a GOP which is essentially irrelevant. Democrats hold all the statewide offices. And supermajorities in both houses of the legislature. So, what happens then?
What happened here was we went to open primaries. Essentially everybody competes against everybody else, regardless of party, in the primary — except for the presidential primaries. And the top two have essentially a runoff in the general election.
In the majority of cases, that means a general election between a more liberal Democrat and a more conservative one. What that may foreshadow is a Democratic Party splitting, as the Republicans fade further into irrelevance. Frankly, I’d like to see us fold in something like Maine’s single transferable vote system. But that’s more of a tweak than anything else.
** Excluding the Deep South, of course.
there is a larger issue here in conservative minds—a cultural civil war—and that’s what people are focussed on, and that’s why things are always going to be O.K., or worth the cost.
This basically echoes thoughts of Bannon’s, on the topic of the RW embrace of white nationalists. Yes, they’re nasty bastards, but they’re gonna help us get where we need to go, and we’ll sort out the details later.
All of that comes from a conversation he had with high-level folks at the Vatican. I can probably find it if anyone is interested. Or, I can also just let it sink to the bottom of the ocean, where it belongs.
I don’t understand the culture war thing. Or, I sort of understand it, weird people make us uncomfortable and everybody is weird to somebody. But I don’t understand the sense of impending existential doom and the at-all-costs reaction that it appears to inspire.
What world do conservatives expect to be able to live in? One in which they are never obliged to encounter or accommodate, in any way, anything that they can’t affirm?
The people who live in a world like that are the people who deliberately separate themselves from everyone else. Extreme religious communities, total purist off-the-grid types, preppers waiting for the socio-political apocalypse. (Note the significant overlap between those groups).
And guess what – everyone is completely, 100% free to go do that, if that’s what floats your boat. Exercise your Benedict option. Go with my blessing, and the blessing of everyone here on ObWi no doubt.
Everyone else has to deal with people who aren’t like them. Everyone. That does not have to be a threatening or even uncomfortable experience, you just have to accept that those people exist, and have a claim as reasonable as yours to exist in more or less the same general area as you do.
If you can’t find a way to do that, and are willing to burn the whole thing down rather than try to figure it out, then things are basically going to fall apart. Because circumstances are going to continue to change. Life isn’t going to stand still to accommodate you.
Marty hates Trump, but the (D)’s scare the living bejeesus out of him in ways that Trump can’t begin to touch, for reasons that he doesn’t quite seem to be able to articulate beyond the (D) desire to “take control of everything”. Newt affirms every variety of (R) malfeasance because of the “culture war”. Bannon is open to embracing fncking Nazis – literal Nazis – if that’s the path to victory in the great clash of civilizations in his head.
This is all insane. Barking fncking mad. And it’s gonna end up with some people dead, maybe a lot, and it will be the end of this country as a coherent polity, to the degree that it has ever been one.
there is a larger issue here in conservative minds—a cultural civil war—and that’s what people are focussed on, and that’s why things are always going to be O.K., or worth the cost.
This basically echoes thoughts of Bannon’s, on the topic of the RW embrace of white nationalists. Yes, they’re nasty bastards, but they’re gonna help us get where we need to go, and we’ll sort out the details later.
All of that comes from a conversation he had with high-level folks at the Vatican. I can probably find it if anyone is interested. Or, I can also just let it sink to the bottom of the ocean, where it belongs.
I don’t understand the culture war thing. Or, I sort of understand it, weird people make us uncomfortable and everybody is weird to somebody. But I don’t understand the sense of impending existential doom and the at-all-costs reaction that it appears to inspire.
What world do conservatives expect to be able to live in? One in which they are never obliged to encounter or accommodate, in any way, anything that they can’t affirm?
The people who live in a world like that are the people who deliberately separate themselves from everyone else. Extreme religious communities, total purist off-the-grid types, preppers waiting for the socio-political apocalypse. (Note the significant overlap between those groups).
And guess what – everyone is completely, 100% free to go do that, if that’s what floats your boat. Exercise your Benedict option. Go with my blessing, and the blessing of everyone here on ObWi no doubt.
Everyone else has to deal with people who aren’t like them. Everyone. That does not have to be a threatening or even uncomfortable experience, you just have to accept that those people exist, and have a claim as reasonable as yours to exist in more or less the same general area as you do.
If you can’t find a way to do that, and are willing to burn the whole thing down rather than try to figure it out, then things are basically going to fall apart. Because circumstances are going to continue to change. Life isn’t going to stand still to accommodate you.
Marty hates Trump, but the (D)’s scare the living bejeesus out of him in ways that Trump can’t begin to touch, for reasons that he doesn’t quite seem to be able to articulate beyond the (D) desire to “take control of everything”. Newt affirms every variety of (R) malfeasance because of the “culture war”. Bannon is open to embracing fncking Nazis – literal Nazis – if that’s the path to victory in the great clash of civilizations in his head.
This is all insane. Barking fncking mad. And it’s gonna end up with some people dead, maybe a lot, and it will be the end of this country as a coherent polity, to the degree that it has ever been one.
What world do conservatives expect to be able to live in? One in which they are never obliged to encounter or accommodate, in any way, anything that they can’t affirm?
I think it’s a rampant personality disorder. Honestly, I have my blind spots (as I’m sure everyone here is well aware), but why be mean to people who aren’t harming you? I don’t like R’s because that’s what they do. And I don’t want to give Marty, or anyone else, any room to support people who make that happen. Is he misguided? Absolutely. His guides are evil people.
What world do conservatives expect to be able to live in? One in which they are never obliged to encounter or accommodate, in any way, anything that they can’t affirm?
I think it’s a rampant personality disorder. Honestly, I have my blind spots (as I’m sure everyone here is well aware), but why be mean to people who aren’t harming you? I don’t like R’s because that’s what they do. And I don’t want to give Marty, or anyone else, any room to support people who make that happen. Is he misguided? Absolutely. His guides are evil people.
What world do conservatives expect to be able to live in? One in which they are never obliged to encounter or accommodate, in any way, anything that they can’t affirm?
The thing is, the only way to get there (since self-isolation always breaks down) is genocide. Worse, iterative genocide. Because once you get rid of those who are different, you become able to notice that some of those who have been allies in this are actually different from you as well. So you do it again. And again and again.
Maybe, at some point, a group ceases to panic over difference while still retaining the capability to eliminate the purists. Maybe the purists decide they can tolerate others, so long as they are totally subservient. Or it ends in extinction.
In fairness, it must be said that the same horror of difference exists on the left as well. I’ve encountered some of those folks first hand. We saw in Cambodia in the 70s how that works out. We seem to be seeing it again in China today, so far principally in Xinjiang and Tibet. At least for the moment, the left in the US has managed to keep the purists from taking control. I pray that lasts.
What world do conservatives expect to be able to live in? One in which they are never obliged to encounter or accommodate, in any way, anything that they can’t affirm?
The thing is, the only way to get there (since self-isolation always breaks down) is genocide. Worse, iterative genocide. Because once you get rid of those who are different, you become able to notice that some of those who have been allies in this are actually different from you as well. So you do it again. And again and again.
Maybe, at some point, a group ceases to panic over difference while still retaining the capability to eliminate the purists. Maybe the purists decide they can tolerate others, so long as they are totally subservient. Or it ends in extinction.
In fairness, it must be said that the same horror of difference exists on the left as well. I’ve encountered some of those folks first hand. We saw in Cambodia in the 70s how that works out. We seem to be seeing it again in China today, so far principally in Xinjiang and Tibet. At least for the moment, the left in the US has managed to keep the purists from taking control. I pray that lasts.
it must be said that the same horror of difference exists on the left as well
It’s not an inherently or specifically left/right thing. If doesn’t even have to be about politics, it can be religion or ethnicity or almost anything you can imagine.
In the US, right now, it’s showing up among conservative Americans.
The phrase “culture war” implies that there are two (or more) cultures – deep patterns of human behavior and organization – that cannot co-exist in the same place and time. And it implies that, in order for one of those cultures to continue, it must defeat if not utterly destroy the other.
That utterly undermines the conditions for, and possibility of, dialog or rapprochement.
This is being invoked over stuff that has little if any effect on the actual lives of the people who seem to be experiencing such a profound sense of threat. As far as I can tell.
I have no idea how to address it. It seems beyond reason.
it must be said that the same horror of difference exists on the left as well
It’s not an inherently or specifically left/right thing. If doesn’t even have to be about politics, it can be religion or ethnicity or almost anything you can imagine.
In the US, right now, it’s showing up among conservative Americans.
The phrase “culture war” implies that there are two (or more) cultures – deep patterns of human behavior and organization – that cannot co-exist in the same place and time. And it implies that, in order for one of those cultures to continue, it must defeat if not utterly destroy the other.
That utterly undermines the conditions for, and possibility of, dialog or rapprochement.
This is being invoked over stuff that has little if any effect on the actual lives of the people who seem to be experiencing such a profound sense of threat. As far as I can tell.
I have no idea how to address it. It seems beyond reason.
Even Germany and France became buddies after their unfortunate 1871 falling-out. It took merely just short of a century, 2 world wars and (low) double digits of megadeaths to overcome the ‘hereditary enmity’. So, there is always some hope that even Merkins will manage it in the end (or hopefully before that).
Even Germany and France became buddies after their unfortunate 1871 falling-out. It took merely just short of a century, 2 world wars and (low) double digits of megadeaths to overcome the ‘hereditary enmity’. So, there is always some hope that even Merkins will manage it in the end (or hopefully before that).
I have no idea how to address it. It seems beyond reason.
So, there is always some hope that even Merkins will manage it in the end (or hopefully before that).
I suggest laughing and pointing.
Also, that anyone who doesn’t like Trump: vote for the D.
Yes, I’m a D. It’s long been like this, people – just not quite this bad. Did I always agree with every possible thing that any D said? No. But look at the record:
Nixon: crook
Ford: pardoned crook.
Carter: sweater
Reagan: Iran-contra, daily degradation of the environment, horrible central America policy, and other horrible shnt. [Did we decide that 4 letter words are okay?]
Bush I: Iran contra involvement. Willie Horton.
Clinton: sexual infidelities explicitly detailed by Ken Starr. Can debate policies, but didn’t Hillary say “superpredator”, and angle for universal healthcare? Obviously, erase any achievements like stopping genocide in former Yugoslavia, strong economy and the birth and burgeoning of the Internet.
Bush II: Nepotism anyone? Also, too, torture, war under false pretenses, horrible news daily regarding environmental degradation, and can we say financial crisis?
Obama: Nice (and for people here: dronez!). But he forgot about Russia.
Trump: WTF?
I have no idea how to address it. It seems beyond reason.
So, there is always some hope that even Merkins will manage it in the end (or hopefully before that).
I suggest laughing and pointing.
Also, that anyone who doesn’t like Trump: vote for the D.
Yes, I’m a D. It’s long been like this, people – just not quite this bad. Did I always agree with every possible thing that any D said? No. But look at the record:
Nixon: crook
Ford: pardoned crook.
Carter: sweater
Reagan: Iran-contra, daily degradation of the environment, horrible central America policy, and other horrible shnt. [Did we decide that 4 letter words are okay?]
Bush I: Iran contra involvement. Willie Horton.
Clinton: sexual infidelities explicitly detailed by Ken Starr. Can debate policies, but didn’t Hillary say “superpredator”, and angle for universal healthcare? Obviously, erase any achievements like stopping genocide in former Yugoslavia, strong economy and the birth and burgeoning of the Internet.
Bush II: Nepotism anyone? Also, too, torture, war under false pretenses, horrible news daily regarding environmental degradation, and can we say financial crisis?
Obama: Nice (and for people here: dronez!). But he forgot about Russia.
Trump: WTF?
If there are any conservatives other than wj reading who can explain the sense of persecution and threat that seems endemic among American conservatives, please share, if you are willing.
I except wj because, although conservative, he doesn’t seem to be as generally freaked out and fearful. I don’t hear any culture war apocalyptics from him.
As a heads up, this being ObWi, you may receive responses that go beyond the merely polite. Strong language may occur.
If you are willing to brave all of that and share whatever it is that we’re not getting, I personally will appreciate it.
If there are any conservatives other than wj reading who can explain the sense of persecution and threat that seems endemic among American conservatives, please share, if you are willing.
I except wj because, although conservative, he doesn’t seem to be as generally freaked out and fearful. I don’t hear any culture war apocalyptics from him.
As a heads up, this being ObWi, you may receive responses that go beyond the merely polite. Strong language may occur.
If you are willing to brave all of that and share whatever it is that we’re not getting, I personally will appreciate it.
If doesn’t even have to be about politics, it can be religion or ethnicity or almost anything you can imagine.
In the US, right now, it’s showing up among conservative Americans.
The phrase “culture war” implies that there are two (or more) cultures – deep patterns of human behavior and organization – that cannot co-exist in the same place and time. And it implies that, in order for one of those cultures to continue, it must defeat if not utterly destroy the other.
I am embarking on a theory. It barely even qualifies as a work-in-progress, but it’s something to play around with.
I blame sports. Specifically high school and college sports. (Although pro sports aren’t blameless.)
It is my observation that sports fans have gradually, over my lifetime, been putting the fanatic back in fan. “My” team gets supported, regardless of how they behave, on or off the field. And all other teams are not only opposed but demonized. Rallies cheer for suggestions like “Kill the __[fill in name of other side]__!”
Imbibe enough of that for a lifetime, and you start filtering it over into every other activity you engage in.
I also note that, to massively oversimplify, there are far more sports fans on the right than on the left. Certainly in college. (On the other hand, there seem to be a fair number of sports fans among the liberals here. Clearly not a perfect correlation.)
Result, the right has more political fanatics than the left.
As I say, a work in need of progress. But it seems like an interesting idea to play around with. Feel free to trash as you please.
If doesn’t even have to be about politics, it can be religion or ethnicity or almost anything you can imagine.
In the US, right now, it’s showing up among conservative Americans.
The phrase “culture war” implies that there are two (or more) cultures – deep patterns of human behavior and organization – that cannot co-exist in the same place and time. And it implies that, in order for one of those cultures to continue, it must defeat if not utterly destroy the other.
I am embarking on a theory. It barely even qualifies as a work-in-progress, but it’s something to play around with.
I blame sports. Specifically high school and college sports. (Although pro sports aren’t blameless.)
It is my observation that sports fans have gradually, over my lifetime, been putting the fanatic back in fan. “My” team gets supported, regardless of how they behave, on or off the field. And all other teams are not only opposed but demonized. Rallies cheer for suggestions like “Kill the __[fill in name of other side]__!”
Imbibe enough of that for a lifetime, and you start filtering it over into every other activity you engage in.
I also note that, to massively oversimplify, there are far more sports fans on the right than on the left. Certainly in college. (On the other hand, there seem to be a fair number of sports fans among the liberals here. Clearly not a perfect correlation.)
Result, the right has more political fanatics than the left.
As I say, a work in need of progress. But it seems like an interesting idea to play around with. Feel free to trash as you please.
I except wj because, although conservative, he doesn’t seem to be as generally freaked out and fearful. I don’t hear any culture war apocalyptics from him.
Thanks for that, russell.
I managed to grow up, with fairly conservative parents, without most of the prejudices that afflict many of those around me. And certainly without any concern that someone who was merely different might be a threat. I never thanked them enough for that blessing.
At the moment, I’m not so much fearful as dispairing. But while I am unenthused about a fair number of the policies being advocated by many of those seeming the Democratic nomination, that’s not the cause. Rather it’s what my party (and I still, to some extent, think of the GOP that way; no matter that it has changed beyond recognition) has become. Had become to some degree before Trump, actually, certainly here in California. Although he has brought out the worst in far more of its members than I had dreamed might be possible. Alas.
I except wj because, although conservative, he doesn’t seem to be as generally freaked out and fearful. I don’t hear any culture war apocalyptics from him.
Thanks for that, russell.
I managed to grow up, with fairly conservative parents, without most of the prejudices that afflict many of those around me. And certainly without any concern that someone who was merely different might be a threat. I never thanked them enough for that blessing.
At the moment, I’m not so much fearful as dispairing. But while I am unenthused about a fair number of the policies being advocated by many of those seeming the Democratic nomination, that’s not the cause. Rather it’s what my party (and I still, to some extent, think of the GOP that way; no matter that it has changed beyond recognition) has become. Had become to some degree before Trump, actually, certainly here in California. Although he has brought out the worst in far more of its members than I had dreamed might be possible. Alas.
totally OT:
this segment from On The Media today was absolutely fascinating.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/supreme-court-justice-most-say
a recurring question on the left has been: why does Clarence Thomas act the way he does? is it because he’s such a die hard movement conservative that he is blind to race issues?
i’m going to simplify greatly, but (as a teaser) it’s more like: he’s a rather intense follower of Malcom X’s brand of super cynical black nationalism, but mixed with Ayn Rand’s individualism. that makes his decisions sound like he’s super right wing, but he’s actually just really fundamentally pissed at the system and thinks the best way forward black people is to arm themselves and to disengage with liberal attempts to improve the lot of blacks in the US.
totally OT:
this segment from On The Media today was absolutely fascinating.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/supreme-court-justice-most-say
a recurring question on the left has been: why does Clarence Thomas act the way he does? is it because he’s such a die hard movement conservative that he is blind to race issues?
i’m going to simplify greatly, but (as a teaser) it’s more like: he’s a rather intense follower of Malcom X’s brand of super cynical black nationalism, but mixed with Ayn Rand’s individualism. that makes his decisions sound like he’s super right wing, but he’s actually just really fundamentally pissed at the system and thinks the best way forward black people is to arm themselves and to disengage with liberal attempts to improve the lot of blacks in the US.
But there is a larger issue here in conservative minds—a cultural civil war—and that’s what people are focussed on, and that’s why things are always going to be O.K., or worth the cost.
today’s conservationism is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.
fuck the GOP.
But there is a larger issue here in conservative minds—a cultural civil war—and that’s what people are focussed on, and that’s why things are always going to be O.K., or worth the cost.
today’s conservationism is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.
fuck the GOP.
today’s conservationism is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.
But it’s just so, so much easier to just oppose someone else. Rather than, you know, actually exert yourself to think about what you believe and why. Sloth, nothing more. (Well that or inability to think.)
today’s conservationism is the opposite of what liberals want, updated daily.
But it’s just so, so much easier to just oppose someone else. Rather than, you know, actually exert yourself to think about what you believe and why. Sloth, nothing more. (Well that or inability to think.)
it must be said that the same horror of difference exists on the left as well
It’s not an inherently or specifically left/right thing. If doesn’t even have to be about politics, it can be religion or ethnicity or almost anything you can imagine.
There a very interesting article in Science which suggests that is was, curiously, the Catholic Church which was responsible for the original move away from such attitudes, by its undermining of intensive kin based social organisation:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/eaau5141
A growing body of research suggests that populations around the globe vary substantially along several important psychological dimensions and that populations characterized as Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) are particularly unusual. People from these societies tend to be more individualistic, independent, and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting of strangers) while revealing less conformity and in-group loyalty. Although these patterns are now well documented, few efforts have sought to explain them. Here, we propose that the Western Church (i.e., the branch of Christianity that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church) transformed European kinship structures during the Middle Ages and that this transformation was a key factor behind a shift towards a WEIRDer psychology…
it must be said that the same horror of difference exists on the left as well
It’s not an inherently or specifically left/right thing. If doesn’t even have to be about politics, it can be religion or ethnicity or almost anything you can imagine.
There a very interesting article in Science which suggests that is was, curiously, the Catholic Church which was responsible for the original move away from such attitudes, by its undermining of intensive kin based social organisation:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/eaau5141
A growing body of research suggests that populations around the globe vary substantially along several important psychological dimensions and that populations characterized as Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) are particularly unusual. People from these societies tend to be more individualistic, independent, and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting of strangers) while revealing less conformity and in-group loyalty. Although these patterns are now well documented, few efforts have sought to explain them. Here, we propose that the Western Church (i.e., the branch of Christianity that evolved into the Roman Catholic Church) transformed European kinship structures during the Middle Ages and that this transformation was a key factor behind a shift towards a WEIRDer psychology…
That, of course, has little to do with our current predicaments, but I thought it an interesting idea that the Catholic Church might have been one of the great forces for modernity.
Of more relevance to the question raised by russell is this excellent Guardian article on Milan:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/nov/10/how-europes-cities-stole-continents-wealth
“It was big cities like Milan, not nation states, which benefited most from the great wave of integration that came with the European single market,” Camagni says.
“The city provides financiers, lawyers, designers, artists, culture, everything required to be a modern international hub. It has a monopoly on the high-end services that command the highest prices, and the rest of Italy has to pay those prices. In fashion it sits on top of a long global chain that has low-paid garment workers in Vietnam at the bottom. The problem is that this miracle in Milan only really involves the million or so people at its very heart. The city has shaken off the industrial hinterland that made it great in the 20th century. In the end this creates a problem of dignity for other places.”
Clearly Europe is not the US, bu it is impossible not to be struck by the parallels.
In last May’s European elections Milan voted for the Democratic party. The rest of Lombardy voted for Salvini’s League. Afterwards Pietro Bussolati, a Milanese Democratic party official on Lombardy’s regional council, sat down with colleagues and drew up a novel map of metropolitan Milan. “It wasn’t just of the city,” he explains, “but also of the surrounding area. What we found was that the proportion of centre-left votes in a place was directly related to the availability of fast means of transport to Milan itself. In all the places where people didn’t have that, and frequent contact with Milan was more difficult, the vote went to the centre-right.
“In my opinion this is not about salaries; it’s about how much direct knowledge one has of how innovation and openness help bring about economic growth. The more you can see that the universities, the research institutes and openness to the rest of the world bring about opportunities you wouldn’t otherwise have, the more you are likely to vote centre-left and express liberal values. And by the same token, the less you see of that, the more likely you are to fall for myths about migrants who steal and so on, and vote for the League.”…
That, of course, has little to do with our current predicaments, but I thought it an interesting idea that the Catholic Church might have been one of the great forces for modernity.
Of more relevance to the question raised by russell is this excellent Guardian article on Milan:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/nov/10/how-europes-cities-stole-continents-wealth
“It was big cities like Milan, not nation states, which benefited most from the great wave of integration that came with the European single market,” Camagni says.
“The city provides financiers, lawyers, designers, artists, culture, everything required to be a modern international hub. It has a monopoly on the high-end services that command the highest prices, and the rest of Italy has to pay those prices. In fashion it sits on top of a long global chain that has low-paid garment workers in Vietnam at the bottom. The problem is that this miracle in Milan only really involves the million or so people at its very heart. The city has shaken off the industrial hinterland that made it great in the 20th century. In the end this creates a problem of dignity for other places.”
Clearly Europe is not the US, bu it is impossible not to be struck by the parallels.
In last May’s European elections Milan voted for the Democratic party. The rest of Lombardy voted for Salvini’s League. Afterwards Pietro Bussolati, a Milanese Democratic party official on Lombardy’s regional council, sat down with colleagues and drew up a novel map of metropolitan Milan. “It wasn’t just of the city,” he explains, “but also of the surrounding area. What we found was that the proportion of centre-left votes in a place was directly related to the availability of fast means of transport to Milan itself. In all the places where people didn’t have that, and frequent contact with Milan was more difficult, the vote went to the centre-right.
“In my opinion this is not about salaries; it’s about how much direct knowledge one has of how innovation and openness help bring about economic growth. The more you can see that the universities, the research institutes and openness to the rest of the world bring about opportunities you wouldn’t otherwise have, the more you are likely to vote centre-left and express liberal values. And by the same token, the less you see of that, the more likely you are to fall for myths about migrants who steal and so on, and vote for the League.”…
Also, not all is grounds for despair.
Even the deepest crap provides fertile ground for growth:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/10/joe-arpaio-arizona-latino-activists-elected-office-229906
Nearly 10 years later, Garcia is part of a new wave of Latino politicians in Arizona who have entered politics in response to those policies—a legacy that Arpaio and Brewer likely did not expect. In a state that once compelled police officers to ask about the citizenship status of the people they pulled over and barred undocumented immigrants from getting driver’s licenses and paying in-state tuition at public universities, a growing number of Latino activists are using the lessons they learned in organizing against the immigration crackdown to catapult themselves into elected state and local office…
Also, not all is grounds for despair.
Even the deepest crap provides fertile ground for growth:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/10/joe-arpaio-arizona-latino-activists-elected-office-229906
Nearly 10 years later, Garcia is part of a new wave of Latino politicians in Arizona who have entered politics in response to those policies—a legacy that Arpaio and Brewer likely did not expect. In a state that once compelled police officers to ask about the citizenship status of the people they pulled over and barred undocumented immigrants from getting driver’s licenses and paying in-state tuition at public universities, a growing number of Latino activists are using the lessons they learned in organizing against the immigration crackdown to catapult themselves into elected state and local office…
It worked for the Irish in Boston.
It worked for the Irish in Boston.
Interesting stuff, Nigel. Thanks.
Interesting stuff, Nigel. Thanks.
Hm, is that a reason why public transport is considered anathema to the Right these days?
Apart from benefitting the lower classes, that is.
Hm, is that a reason why public transport is considered anathema to the Right these days?
Apart from benefitting the lower classes, that is.
I examine every new thing on the actual facts, not what some emasculated civil servant feels about it.
I don’t know who Marty meant by this characterisation, but in case it was meant to describe Foreign Service Officers I just want to say this. I have known very many FSOs, and they are normally rather conservative, pretty patriotic types (much more conservative than me, and I am hardly radical). They are prepared to be put in harm’s way in their country’s service, and occasionally they die in that service. What some of them are doing now is brave and principled, as discussed in an article in the NYT headed How the State Dept’s Dissenters Incited a Revolt, Then a Rallying Cry. It is certainly true that during the Trump presidency morale in the State Department has been low because of that administration’s contempt for expertise and impartial advice, and assessments have frequently been made that the State Dept will take “generations” to recover, but this recent “activism” (i.e. participation in a legal congressional process) is very clearly a result of their conviction that the POTUS is behaving in a deeply improper and illegal way. Bill Taylor had retired, he was persuaded to come out of retirement to replace Masha Yovanovitch. He, and people like him, deserve praise and respect for their willingness to undergo much unpleasantness in their country’s interests.
I examine every new thing on the actual facts, not what some emasculated civil servant feels about it.
I don’t know who Marty meant by this characterisation, but in case it was meant to describe Foreign Service Officers I just want to say this. I have known very many FSOs, and they are normally rather conservative, pretty patriotic types (much more conservative than me, and I am hardly radical). They are prepared to be put in harm’s way in their country’s service, and occasionally they die in that service. What some of them are doing now is brave and principled, as discussed in an article in the NYT headed How the State Dept’s Dissenters Incited a Revolt, Then a Rallying Cry. It is certainly true that during the Trump presidency morale in the State Department has been low because of that administration’s contempt for expertise and impartial advice, and assessments have frequently been made that the State Dept will take “generations” to recover, but this recent “activism” (i.e. participation in a legal congressional process) is very clearly a result of their conviction that the POTUS is behaving in a deeply improper and illegal way. Bill Taylor had retired, he was persuaded to come out of retirement to replace Masha Yovanovitch. He, and people like him, deserve praise and respect for their willingness to undergo much unpleasantness in their country’s interests.
I read that article yesterday. Their advice is not impartial, it represents a POV. They object to this Presidents foreign policy. That’s whast the article says. After 50 years of a consistent interventionist set of policies they object to reducing our influence, which reduces their importance and, in their view, the security of the US.
Perfectly natural to react to that.
I read that article yesterday. Their advice is not impartial, it represents a POV. They object to this Presidents foreign policy. That’s whast the article says. After 50 years of a consistent interventionist set of policies they object to reducing our influence, which reduces their importance and, in their view, the security of the US.
Perfectly natural to react to that.
Why are they leaking the closed door testimony when open testimony is underway?
what has been ‘leaked’?
most of the witnesses are making the text of their opening statements public. i can’t think of anything interesting from any of them that wasn’t in the public statements. all i heard about what happened behind the closed doors are things like “the Dems gasped”.
now that the transcripts are coming out, we’re learning a few more details about what happened – stuff that wasn’t in the public statements. and some of the new details are exactly the kinds of things that would leak (the phone call transcript is missing things about Burisma, for ex). but they didn’t leak.
we’re also learning that the GOP is desperate to change the subject.
wrs: show your work.
Why are they leaking the closed door testimony when open testimony is underway?
what has been ‘leaked’?
most of the witnesses are making the text of their opening statements public. i can’t think of anything interesting from any of them that wasn’t in the public statements. all i heard about what happened behind the closed doors are things like “the Dems gasped”.
now that the transcripts are coming out, we’re learning a few more details about what happened – stuff that wasn’t in the public statements. and some of the new details are exactly the kinds of things that would leak (the phone call transcript is missing things about Burisma, for ex). but they didn’t leak.
we’re also learning that the GOP is desperate to change the subject.
wrs: show your work.
Now that the transcripts are coming out….leaking, releasing, question is still the same. You obviously knew the answer.
Now that the transcripts are coming out….leaking, releasing, question is still the same. You obviously knew the answer.
They have actual expertise, so they see how this President’s foreign policy affects what they perceive as US interests. This is POV stuff. But testifying in an impeachment enquiry, against orders (and they are normally very much about following orders, even if they disagree with them), that’s because they see a POTUS behaving improperly and illegally.
They have actual expertise, so they see how this President’s foreign policy affects what they perceive as US interests. This is POV stuff. But testifying in an impeachment enquiry, against orders (and they are normally very much about following orders, even if they disagree with them), that’s because they see a POTUS behaving improperly and illegally.
leaking, releasing, question is still the same. You obviously knew the answer.
as always, not even an attempt to address the substance.
F
leaking, releasing, question is still the same. You obviously knew the answer.
as always, not even an attempt to address the substance.
F
I read that article yesterday. Their advice is not impartial, it represents a POV.
This is quite true.
Pity the current President’s point of view is different on all counts.
I read that article yesterday. Their advice is not impartial, it represents a POV.
This is quite true.
Pity the current President’s point of view is different on all counts.
wj: true in every particular.
wj: true in every particular.
1. Betty Cracker at BJ, saying it better than I ever could:
I think we’re better off being post post-partisan and asking the swing voters who decide elections to pick a goddamned side.
The whole thing is great, and it isn’t very long.
2. Re: wj’s comment last night on sports and divisiveness: nah, correlation is not causation. 😉
3. Re: wj’s comment last night on “the left” in Cambodia: What’s currently called “the left” in the US is a mishmash of economic policy preferences and social/cultural preferences (among other things). By definition, the murderous “left” in Cambodia, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, etc., is the polar opposite of the latter aspect of what’s currently called “the left” in the US. (Somehow I don’t see “the left” in Cambodia in the 1970s championing LGBTQ rights, the welcoming of immigrants, etc.)
If you want to try to tease out how we got to see the overt resurgence of white nationalism, children in cages, Opus Dei strongly influencing federal policy about abortion, gay and trans rights, etc., it might be more useful to talk about “authoritarianism” than about left/right distinctions.
But it all seems kind of circular to me.
1. Betty Cracker at BJ, saying it better than I ever could:
I think we’re better off being post post-partisan and asking the swing voters who decide elections to pick a goddamned side.
The whole thing is great, and it isn’t very long.
2. Re: wj’s comment last night on sports and divisiveness: nah, correlation is not causation. 😉
3. Re: wj’s comment last night on “the left” in Cambodia: What’s currently called “the left” in the US is a mishmash of economic policy preferences and social/cultural preferences (among other things). By definition, the murderous “left” in Cambodia, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, etc., is the polar opposite of the latter aspect of what’s currently called “the left” in the US. (Somehow I don’t see “the left” in Cambodia in the 1970s championing LGBTQ rights, the welcoming of immigrants, etc.)
If you want to try to tease out how we got to see the overt resurgence of white nationalism, children in cages, Opus Dei strongly influencing federal policy about abortion, gay and trans rights, etc., it might be more useful to talk about “authoritarianism” than about left/right distinctions.
But it all seems kind of circular to me.
Better link to Betty Cracker’s post. The other was to a specific comment. Sorry about that.
Better link to Betty Cracker’s post. The other was to a specific comment. Sorry about that.
Marty might want to read this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/10/republicans-admit-they-have-no-fact-witnesses-trump-did-it/
The gist: Republicans are essentially stipulating the facts. What they have left is
1) arguing that it somehow wasn’t bad enough for impeachment.
2) stunts
Marty, to his credit, explicitly makes the first.
What isn’t clear is what, then, would be bad enough. After all, they also argue that the President can’t even be investigated while in office.
Marty might want to read this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/10/republicans-admit-they-have-no-fact-witnesses-trump-did-it/
The gist: Republicans are essentially stipulating the facts. What they have left is
1) arguing that it somehow wasn’t bad enough for impeachment.
2) stunts
Marty, to his credit, explicitly makes the first.
What isn’t clear is what, then, would be bad enough. After all, they also argue that the President can’t even be investigated while in office.
Something tells me that impartiality (I would never cop to such a thing, myself) is not Marty’s goal here but rather that his partiality is in fact objective impartial truth.
“Deep State”: absolutely as meaningless but willfully partial and bullshit turn of phrase as “Death Tax”, “Democrat” politicians, and “political correctness”.
Tell me, oh impartial one, which objective truth was more partial to the actual truth, the conservative, or was it liberal, Deep State’s repeated warnings about the spectacular attack on 9/11, or the Bush Administration’s willful, studied decision to ignore those warnings?
Were the CIA and the State Department partial to American citizens NOT being attacked and murdered en masse, and is that partiality suspect because it’s not impartial?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353
also, what wj said, what cleek said, and what GFTNC said.
Also, in advance, WRS sez here pretty soon, whatever it is.
I have other questions.
What does “All men are created equal” mean, exactly?
Putting aside what the Founders actually, literally meant compared to how progressives, including Lincolnesque republican progressives, throughout subsequent history have fought against conservative opposition and stonewalling at every fucking turn to open the claim to its full meaning.
I mean, place every one-second old baby born across America at the identical time side-by-side at the imaginary American starting line and tell me for how long this equality lasts for them, or is even relevant, given the myriad realities of each subsequent judgmental, ranking, competitive tick-tock second of lived life each baby experiences.
I say, maybe a second and a half, and then they are no longer equal, regardless of opportunities.
So what then that they are created equal.
Enjoy this brief equality while you can, kids.
You’ll all be equal again one day.
It’s called the grave.
Something tells me that impartiality (I would never cop to such a thing, myself) is not Marty’s goal here but rather that his partiality is in fact objective impartial truth.
“Deep State”: absolutely as meaningless but willfully partial and bullshit turn of phrase as “Death Tax”, “Democrat” politicians, and “political correctness”.
Tell me, oh impartial one, which objective truth was more partial to the actual truth, the conservative, or was it liberal, Deep State’s repeated warnings about the spectacular attack on 9/11, or the Bush Administration’s willful, studied decision to ignore those warnings?
Were the CIA and the State Department partial to American citizens NOT being attacked and murdered en masse, and is that partiality suspect because it’s not impartial?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353
also, what wj said, what cleek said, and what GFTNC said.
Also, in advance, WRS sez here pretty soon, whatever it is.
I have other questions.
What does “All men are created equal” mean, exactly?
Putting aside what the Founders actually, literally meant compared to how progressives, including Lincolnesque republican progressives, throughout subsequent history have fought against conservative opposition and stonewalling at every fucking turn to open the claim to its full meaning.
I mean, place every one-second old baby born across America at the identical time side-by-side at the imaginary American starting line and tell me for how long this equality lasts for them, or is even relevant, given the myriad realities of each subsequent judgmental, ranking, competitive tick-tock second of lived life each baby experiences.
I say, maybe a second and a half, and then they are no longer equal, regardless of opportunities.
So what then that they are created equal.
Enjoy this brief equality while you can, kids.
You’ll all be equal again one day.
It’s called the grave.
“It represents a POV.”
So what, then what?
Consult the Oracle of Delphi, for its completely unconsidered opinion?
Do I have to start a sentence with “I’m old enough to remember ..”?
I’m old enough to remember conservatives claiming exclusive access to immutable truth, not limp-wristed relativism.
Now we know (I knew) that when, for example, when Milton Friedman could, in his inimitable, bald-faced “no one can argue with my complete and total grasp of the rational truth” unctuous tone of voice that corporations have only one purpose, to serve the interest of shareholders and no one else, he was talking out of his ass, from whence the conservative point of view originates, sez I.
“It represents a POV.”
So now conservatives are channeling Derrida and Foucault?
“It represents a POV.”
So what, then what?
Consult the Oracle of Delphi, for its completely unconsidered opinion?
Do I have to start a sentence with “I’m old enough to remember ..”?
I’m old enough to remember conservatives claiming exclusive access to immutable truth, not limp-wristed relativism.
Now we know (I knew) that when, for example, when Milton Friedman could, in his inimitable, bald-faced “no one can argue with my complete and total grasp of the rational truth” unctuous tone of voice that corporations have only one purpose, to serve the interest of shareholders and no one else, he was talking out of his ass, from whence the conservative point of view originates, sez I.
“It represents a POV.”
So now conservatives are channeling Derrida and Foucault?
The other day, some MAGA stalwarts were interviewed and asked “Do you believe that Trump could get away with shooting a guy on Fifth Avenue?”, and one of the female irritating adherents answered “I don’t know, it depends on who he shot? Who did he shoot?”
Art Garfunkel? He’s a liberal, isn’t he?
These stinking pigs could be great, award-winning St. Louis or Cleveland or Texas cops.
It’s so fitting that the President of Ukraine is a comedian and trump is a heckler.
The other day, some MAGA stalwarts were interviewed and asked “Do you believe that Trump could get away with shooting a guy on Fifth Avenue?”, and one of the female irritating adherents answered “I don’t know, it depends on who he shot? Who did he shoot?”
Art Garfunkel? He’s a liberal, isn’t he?
These stinking pigs could be great, award-winning St. Louis or Cleveland or Texas cops.
It’s so fitting that the President of Ukraine is a comedian and trump is a heckler.
The other day, some MAGA stalwarts were interviewed and asked “Do you believe that Trump could get away with shooting a guy on Fifth Avenue?”, and one of the female irritating adherents answered “I don’t know, it depends on who he shot? Who did he shoot?”
Art Garfunkel? He’s a liberal, isn’t he?
These stinking pigs could be great, award-winning St. Louis or Cleveland or Texas cops.
It’s so fitting that the President of Ukraine is a comedian and trump is a heckler.
The other day, some MAGA stalwarts were interviewed and asked “Do you believe that Trump could get away with shooting a guy on Fifth Avenue?”, and one of the female irritating adherents answered “I don’t know, it depends on who he shot? Who did he shoot?”
Art Garfunkel? He’s a liberal, isn’t he?
These stinking pigs could be great, award-winning St. Louis or Cleveland or Texas cops.
It’s so fitting that the President of Ukraine is a comedian and trump is a heckler.
So now conservatives are channelling Derrida and Foucault?
LOL
So now conservatives are channelling Derrida and Foucault?
LOL
Dammit, I try my best to say “Art Garfunkel” only once weekly, and now I’ve said it twice in 30 seconds.
Dammit, I try my best to say “Art Garfunkel” only once weekly, and now I’ve said it twice in 30 seconds.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-warning-by-tristero.html
This is my POV as well, which is to day, I deleted a lengthy rant to say simply, but that in more words.
Bert’s dead. Is that all? No, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-LPsCsdr8&t=58s
Bear with me, I’ll illustrate with a different video soon, when I get tired of that one.
Marty is practicing his spider walk here.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-warning-by-tristero.html
This is my POV as well, which is to day, I deleted a lengthy rant to say simply, but that in more words.
Bert’s dead. Is that all? No, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-LPsCsdr8&t=58s
Bear with me, I’ll illustrate with a different video soon, when I get tired of that one.
Marty is practicing his spider walk here.
I read the Betty Cracker link. I can’t speak for what Buttigieg or Biden are saying, but I can speak for myself. When she approvingly quotes Drew Magary in Medium as saying:
Do you wanna know something about partisanship? Partisanship is good. Partisanship is the whole reason we have a democracy. I have no interest in finding common ground with fucking Trump voters or with other assorted white supremacists. I have no interest in making sure those groups don’t feel demonized. I have no interest in making them feel COMFORTABLE when they have made so many Americans, and the world beyond, feel the precise opposite. I’m allowed to be angry at the state of things and I’m sure as hell allowed to loudly call out those responsible for it.
I’m certainly not talking about finding common ground with white supremacists, or maybe even most Trump voters (sorry Marty for continuing to take your name in vain, but you are not in fact “a Trump voter”). It’s very comforting and a relief to the feelings to vent, and insult “the other side”. But, as every negotiator knows, a zero-sum game is an unwise strategy: if you try to humiliate the other guy and have him grovel in the dirt, you’re just as likely to end up driving him into a corner and prolonging the fight, and the damage it causes. If you can make common cause with people who do not start out on your side, but are not totally all-in with the other side, you stand a better chance of winning through to a (mutually) desirable outcome. Now people like Marty are on record as caring, for example, about the budget deficit. So perhaps they will end up seeing that, in the case of Trump, America now has a record-breaking deficit of approaching one trillion dollars, and perhaps that will end up enabling them to make common cause with Trump’s opponents. Ordinary partisanship can resume normal operation when the extraordinary danger Trump and his henchmen pose to the world passes.
I read the Betty Cracker link. I can’t speak for what Buttigieg or Biden are saying, but I can speak for myself. When she approvingly quotes Drew Magary in Medium as saying:
Do you wanna know something about partisanship? Partisanship is good. Partisanship is the whole reason we have a democracy. I have no interest in finding common ground with fucking Trump voters or with other assorted white supremacists. I have no interest in making sure those groups don’t feel demonized. I have no interest in making them feel COMFORTABLE when they have made so many Americans, and the world beyond, feel the precise opposite. I’m allowed to be angry at the state of things and I’m sure as hell allowed to loudly call out those responsible for it.
I’m certainly not talking about finding common ground with white supremacists, or maybe even most Trump voters (sorry Marty for continuing to take your name in vain, but you are not in fact “a Trump voter”). It’s very comforting and a relief to the feelings to vent, and insult “the other side”. But, as every negotiator knows, a zero-sum game is an unwise strategy: if you try to humiliate the other guy and have him grovel in the dirt, you’re just as likely to end up driving him into a corner and prolonging the fight, and the damage it causes. If you can make common cause with people who do not start out on your side, but are not totally all-in with the other side, you stand a better chance of winning through to a (mutually) desirable outcome. Now people like Marty are on record as caring, for example, about the budget deficit. So perhaps they will end up seeing that, in the case of Trump, America now has a record-breaking deficit of approaching one trillion dollars, and perhaps that will end up enabling them to make common cause with Trump’s opponents. Ordinary partisanship can resume normal operation when the extraordinary danger Trump and his henchmen pose to the world passes.
This ain’t baseball.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/11/balls-and-strikes
It’s Civil War.
This ain’t baseball.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/11/balls-and-strikes
It’s Civil War.
It’s Civil War.
I’m with John.
It’s Civil War.
I’m with John.
Short answer, Trump has not shut the government down to trim the Dems budget. Of all the things complained about that is the least valid criticism of Trump. He cant do anything except sign the CR or shut down the government.
In that case Congress is United in letting him take the heat for it.
Short answer, Trump has not shut the government down to trim the Dems budget. Of all the things complained about that is the least valid criticism of Trump. He cant do anything except sign the CR or shut down the government.
In that case Congress is United in letting him take the heat for it.
Trump had two years of solid GOP rule.
the budget does not matter to the GOP.
Trump had two years of solid GOP rule.
the budget does not matter to the GOP.
You’d think the tax cuts had no effect on the deficit. But that would just be a POV.
You’d think the tax cuts had no effect on the deficit. But that would just be a POV.
tax cuts pay for themselves, in votes.
tax cuts pay for themselves, in votes.
Jen Rubin has thoughts about Bloomberg and Trump and the GOP:
Jen Rubin has thoughts about Bloomberg and Trump and the GOP:
I have some other thoughts on wj’s sports analogy, but for now let it be said that Alabama lost their first home game in four years.
I have some other thoughts on wj’s sports analogy, but for now let it be said that Alabama lost their first home game in four years.
I have some other thoughts on wj’s sports analogy, but for now let it be said that Alabama lost their first home game in four years.
I have some other thoughts on wj’s sports analogy, but for now let it be said that Alabama lost their first home game in four years.
Blast!
Blast!
Blast!
(You forgot the second one.)
Blast!
(You forgot the second one.)
wj’s sports analogy,
That’s wj’s tentatively posed sports analogy.
wj’s sports analogy,
That’s wj’s tentatively posed sports analogy.
After 50 years of a consistent interventionist set of policies they object to reducing our influence, which reduces their importance and, in their view, the security of the US.
And your point is, what? That they are misrepresenting the president’s words and actions to get him kicked out of office, because they disagree with his policies?
If that’s your point, what you have offered in evidence is an exercise in mind-reading.
You’re getting to a point where your “point of view” begins to look like paranoia. They’re all out get him!!!
Maybe consider that he just freaking did it.
This ain’t baseball.
Hey, Prinzessin Gloria von Thurn und Taxis!! Former billionaire royal wastrel party girl and now defender of the faith, hanging with the Supremes.
Maybe we really are just living in a Pynchon novel. Or that Benuel movie with the Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus.
The weird have turned pro.
After 50 years of a consistent interventionist set of policies they object to reducing our influence, which reduces their importance and, in their view, the security of the US.
And your point is, what? That they are misrepresenting the president’s words and actions to get him kicked out of office, because they disagree with his policies?
If that’s your point, what you have offered in evidence is an exercise in mind-reading.
You’re getting to a point where your “point of view” begins to look like paranoia. They’re all out get him!!!
Maybe consider that he just freaking did it.
This ain’t baseball.
Hey, Prinzessin Gloria von Thurn und Taxis!! Former billionaire royal wastrel party girl and now defender of the faith, hanging with the Supremes.
Maybe we really are just living in a Pynchon novel. Or that Benuel movie with the Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus.
The weird have turned pro.
1) Betty Cracker is one of my idols.
2) The effort to find the “good” in Marty is lost on me. I’m sure Marty has some good. Read Hitler at Home. I’m sure if Hitler hadn’t killed himself, he would have been invited to dinner by various generous people. I would not have been among them.
3) Is Marty Hitler? Of course not. But supporting the sadism that is the Trump presidency (or disingenuously not supporting it, by saying “but the dems are so bad too!”) is wrong. Marty is in the wrong. Taking up for Marty by cherrypicking is rare humane moments is nice, but kind of weird. He is speaking up for these horrible lies of the Trump phenomenon. Countenancing Marty here is morally wrong.
1) Betty Cracker is one of my idols.
2) The effort to find the “good” in Marty is lost on me. I’m sure Marty has some good. Read Hitler at Home. I’m sure if Hitler hadn’t killed himself, he would have been invited to dinner by various generous people. I would not have been among them.
3) Is Marty Hitler? Of course not. But supporting the sadism that is the Trump presidency (or disingenuously not supporting it, by saying “but the dems are so bad too!”) is wrong. Marty is in the wrong. Taking up for Marty by cherrypicking is rare humane moments is nice, but kind of weird. He is speaking up for these horrible lies of the Trump phenomenon. Countenancing Marty here is morally wrong.
personally, i find the notions that A) Trump didn’t do what every witness says he did and B) what he did wasn’t bad, and C) ok, he did it, but that isn’t bad enough to warrant the asterisk* next to his name … all kindof absurd.
and, i know Marty’s a smart guy. so, i kept hoping he’ll tell us why he’s clinging to B. but he wouldn’t – not in any substantive way. instead, he’s just gone full cleek’s law on us.
it’s pure partisan nihilism. and that’s easy to understand.
—
* – impeached
personally, i find the notions that A) Trump didn’t do what every witness says he did and B) what he did wasn’t bad, and C) ok, he did it, but that isn’t bad enough to warrant the asterisk* next to his name … all kindof absurd.
and, i know Marty’s a smart guy. so, i kept hoping he’ll tell us why he’s clinging to B. but he wouldn’t – not in any substantive way. instead, he’s just gone full cleek’s law on us.
it’s pure partisan nihilism. and that’s easy to understand.
—
* – impeached
Countenancing Marty here is morally wrong.
Words fail.
Countenancing Marty here is morally wrong.
Words fail.
Words fail.
No.
Arguments fail.
My position is correct. You are good at words. Go for it.
Words fail.
No.
Arguments fail.
My position is correct. You are good at words. Go for it.
My position is correct.
QED
My position is correct.
QED
Go for it.
Not possible?
But surely your response will be to dig in at me for lacking in compassion and being too dismissive of the other commenters here. [POSTING RULES! or whatever]
Or being rude (as russell would say).
You know what? You’re “misguided”.
Maybe LJ will weigh in and ban me.
Go for it.
Not possible?
But surely your response will be to dig in at me for lacking in compassion and being too dismissive of the other commenters here. [POSTING RULES! or whatever]
Or being rude (as russell would say).
You know what? You’re “misguided”.
Maybe LJ will weigh in and ban me.
QED
True enough.
QED
True enough.
morally wrong.
I disagree that trying to engage Marty in a discussion of this stuff is morally wrong.
That said, I have to say that I find Marty’s comments in this thread, and on the topic of the impeachment inquiry in general, to be in bad faith and, frankly, morally wrong.
The president has been credibly accused, by credible witnesses, of withholding military aid to another country, in order to enlist that country’s aid in discrediting his political rival.
That’s either true, or not true. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine if it’s true.
That is the substance of the matter. Marty has made one comment about the substance: he doesn’t think Trump’s actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense. That’s an opinion he is entitled to, and he is completely entitled to state it.
But he has gone beyond that to accuse the (D)’s of engaging in a three-year long attempt to illegitimately overthrow the 2016 election. And insinuates that the people testifying against Trump in the Ukraine issue are “emasculated civil servants” who have come forward because they are personally “offended”, or fear losing their influence, or just don’t like Trump’s foreign policies. And, he comes here, more in sorrow than anger of course, to say that we all are simply unable to throw off our blinders and see what a pack of scoundrels the (D)’s are.
To all of which I say, fuck that noise.
Morally wrong, whatever. It’s dishonest, and I’m done with it.
morally wrong.
I disagree that trying to engage Marty in a discussion of this stuff is morally wrong.
That said, I have to say that I find Marty’s comments in this thread, and on the topic of the impeachment inquiry in general, to be in bad faith and, frankly, morally wrong.
The president has been credibly accused, by credible witnesses, of withholding military aid to another country, in order to enlist that country’s aid in discrediting his political rival.
That’s either true, or not true. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine if it’s true.
That is the substance of the matter. Marty has made one comment about the substance: he doesn’t think Trump’s actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense. That’s an opinion he is entitled to, and he is completely entitled to state it.
But he has gone beyond that to accuse the (D)’s of engaging in a three-year long attempt to illegitimately overthrow the 2016 election. And insinuates that the people testifying against Trump in the Ukraine issue are “emasculated civil servants” who have come forward because they are personally “offended”, or fear losing their influence, or just don’t like Trump’s foreign policies. And, he comes here, more in sorrow than anger of course, to say that we all are simply unable to throw off our blinders and see what a pack of scoundrels the (D)’s are.
To all of which I say, fuck that noise.
Morally wrong, whatever. It’s dishonest, and I’m done with it.
I don’t really disagree with the whole of russell’s comment, with the exception of the last two sentences which are not my style. And as to bad faith, I (the inveterate mind reader) am unsure. Doesn’t that imply that you know you’re wrong when making the argument? I’m by no means sure that Marty does.
I don’t really disagree with the whole of russell’s comment, with the exception of the last two sentences which are not my style. And as to bad faith, I (the inveterate mind reader) am unsure. Doesn’t that imply that you know you’re wrong when making the argument? I’m by no means sure that Marty does.
GftNC, does your 1:57 apply to Marty and not to sapient? If so, can you explain why?
Serious question, not snark.
GftNC, does your 1:57 apply to Marty and not to sapient? If so, can you explain why?
Serious question, not snark.
Janie, I’m on my phone so it’s a bit difficult to go back and forth, and get a proper eyeful while considering your question, if you see what I mean. But if I understand you correctly, it’s talking anti- trump strategy, so positing that Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives in the hope that between them they can oust him and then return to partisan business as usual. I’m guessing you don’t agree with me, but that’s pretty much what I was getting at, albeit I now see rather unclearly.
Janie, I’m on my phone so it’s a bit difficult to go back and forth, and get a proper eyeful while considering your question, if you see what I mean. But if I understand you correctly, it’s talking anti- trump strategy, so positing that Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives in the hope that between them they can oust him and then return to partisan business as usual. I’m guessing you don’t agree with me, but that’s pretty much what I was getting at, albeit I now see rather unclearly.
So I guess you could say it applies to sapient and not Marty, although sapient was not necessarily in my mind at the time, and “Marty” was a stand in for (theoretically) possibly reachable conservatives.
So I guess you could say it applies to sapient and not Marty, although sapient was not necessarily in my mind at the time, and “Marty” was a stand in for (theoretically) possibly reachable conservatives.
GftNC, I was also less than clear; I was reading your comment much more expansively. But I’m not in a position to elaborate at the moment, so I’ll leave it at that for now.
GftNC, I was also less than clear; I was reading your comment much more expansively. But I’m not in a position to elaborate at the moment, so I’ll leave it at that for now.
It’s complicated, but basically, no, I don’t agree with you.
It’s complicated, but basically, no, I don’t agree with you.
Yes, I was speaking generally to begin with, and meant it that way too, but then zeroing in on the neverending subject. Good night!
Yes, I was speaking generally to begin with, and meant it that way too, but then zeroing in on the neverending subject. Good night!
As to bad faith, I think it relates not just to whether you know you’re wrong, but to your motives. Marty comes here to start a fight and then to sneer. He admitted as much with his condescending comment about looking to see if we have any self-awareness.
It’s toxic, and I’m done with it. No empty threat this time.
And/or — wrs.
As to bad faith, I think it relates not just to whether you know you’re wrong, but to your motives. Marty comes here to start a fight and then to sneer. He admitted as much with his condescending comment about looking to see if we have any self-awareness.
It’s toxic, and I’m done with it. No empty threat this time.
And/or — wrs.
Doesn’t that imply that you know you’re wrong when making the argument?
Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives
Bad faith does not imply that you are knowingly making false arguments. Bad faith is, as Janie notes, about intention.
Marty has come to this thread with a variety of claims. The (D)’s are abusing their powers. The impeachment inquiry is an attempted coup. The people who are coming forward now are doing so out of a sense of offense arising from their personal “emasculation”, or out of some sense that their influence is being diminished by Trump’s foreign policies. Joe and Hunter Biden are under active investigation for corruption arising from their actions in Ukraine, and Trump was simply asking that Zelensky co-operate with that. (D)’s are exploiting closed hearings to selectively leak information detrimental to Trump’s case, in order to unfairly prejudice public opinion.
Marty has been asked, repeatedly, to defend any of these statements with documentary evidence of any kind. None has been forthcoming.
Instead, we are all incapable of self-reflection, and incapable of seeing that this is all just a naked power grab by out of control (D)’s.
So no, I don’t believe he is here to “engage constructively” with any of us. I have zero interest in mind-reading, and have no interest in speculating about what his motives or objectives are. I’m observing that he’s coming here and making what appear to be insupportable claims, and then, precisely and exactly, refusing to engage constructively in examining whether any of it has merit.
And then insulting all of us when we get annoyed with it.
I call it bad faith because I’m extending the benefit of the doubt that he’s not coming just to troll and wind us all up, but is simply being less than candid. I.e., he’s presenting himself as wanting to “engage constructively”, but is not really interested in doing so, for whatever reason. And the “whatever reason” is really not of interest to me.
In any case, enough is enough. Why should we invest any more time into it? He has been actually been invited to engage constructively here, repeatedly, in this thread – explain why you hold that position, can you provide any information that would support what you’re saying – and he can’t be bothered to do so.
Enough already.
Doesn’t that imply that you know you’re wrong when making the argument?
Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives
Bad faith does not imply that you are knowingly making false arguments. Bad faith is, as Janie notes, about intention.
Marty has come to this thread with a variety of claims. The (D)’s are abusing their powers. The impeachment inquiry is an attempted coup. The people who are coming forward now are doing so out of a sense of offense arising from their personal “emasculation”, or out of some sense that their influence is being diminished by Trump’s foreign policies. Joe and Hunter Biden are under active investigation for corruption arising from their actions in Ukraine, and Trump was simply asking that Zelensky co-operate with that. (D)’s are exploiting closed hearings to selectively leak information detrimental to Trump’s case, in order to unfairly prejudice public opinion.
Marty has been asked, repeatedly, to defend any of these statements with documentary evidence of any kind. None has been forthcoming.
Instead, we are all incapable of self-reflection, and incapable of seeing that this is all just a naked power grab by out of control (D)’s.
So no, I don’t believe he is here to “engage constructively” with any of us. I have zero interest in mind-reading, and have no interest in speculating about what his motives or objectives are. I’m observing that he’s coming here and making what appear to be insupportable claims, and then, precisely and exactly, refusing to engage constructively in examining whether any of it has merit.
And then insulting all of us when we get annoyed with it.
I call it bad faith because I’m extending the benefit of the doubt that he’s not coming just to troll and wind us all up, but is simply being less than candid. I.e., he’s presenting himself as wanting to “engage constructively”, but is not really interested in doing so, for whatever reason. And the “whatever reason” is really not of interest to me.
In any case, enough is enough. Why should we invest any more time into it? He has been actually been invited to engage constructively here, repeatedly, in this thread – explain why you hold that position, can you provide any information that would support what you’re saying – and he can’t be bothered to do so.
Enough already.
Please russell, enough is right. I commented on a nyt article referenced here. The article made it clear that yes the foreign service folks had their feelings hurt. I dont need anything more than their quotes to get that. True of many of the things I have said.
Since when did a demand for a response need to be honored in a timely manner? I had a pretty busy weekend with my real life.
And mostly my questions are around facts. Like so far not a single witness heard Trump tie the two things together. Not one. In fact, not one talked to anyone who heard him demand the quid pro quo. They all “felt” it was wrong. So show your work.
Or dont talk about me arguing in bad faith. I ask a question and come back to two days of meta complaining that any evildoer would take up for satan himself. I’m not the person arguing in bad faith here.
Please russell, enough is right. I commented on a nyt article referenced here. The article made it clear that yes the foreign service folks had their feelings hurt. I dont need anything more than their quotes to get that. True of many of the things I have said.
Since when did a demand for a response need to be honored in a timely manner? I had a pretty busy weekend with my real life.
And mostly my questions are around facts. Like so far not a single witness heard Trump tie the two things together. Not one. In fact, not one talked to anyone who heard him demand the quid pro quo. They all “felt” it was wrong. So show your work.
Or dont talk about me arguing in bad faith. I ask a question and come back to two days of meta complaining that any evildoer would take up for satan himself. I’m not the person arguing in bad faith here.
So show your work.
What I’ve had to say about it is:
1. The claim the (D)’s are making is that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to coerce Zelensky to publicly state that the Bidens were under investigation
2. The purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to establish whether that is true or not.
I think both of those points are sufficiently clear from public sources that they don’t need further support.
The question I asked you about the foreign service folks was – so what? What is your point in bringing up their personal level of “emasculation” or hurt feelings? If you’re trying to argue that that somehow undermines the credibility of their testimony, say that. If not, then why is it even relevant? My assumption, perhaps unfair, is that you want to imply it without actually saying it, which strikes me as dissembling and bad faith. You can speak to your own intentions if you wish.
TBH I’m sick of all of this crap. I’ve been having these same conversations with “conservatives” of all stripes for almost 20 years now.
Trump is a freaking crook. That is the heart of the matter. Maybe that will result in him getting tossed out, maybe it won’t. Probably it won’t, because the (R)’s will get his back no matter what, for all of the reasons discussed in this thread and ten million others.
Even if he is thrown out, we will then have POTUS Pence and a (R) majority Senate. So it will be SSDD, only maybe more so as far as the socially reactionary side of (R) policy. So I’m not seeing how this is a coup, or a naked (D) power grab, or anything similar. It’s the House investigating the POTUS, which has been SOP for every administration as long as I can remember.
You don’t like Trump, but you dislike the (D)’s even more, so if it’s Trump or (D)’s, you’ll go with Trump.
To me, that speaks of a profound disregard for this country. An inclination to put the things that make responsible self-governance possible, as long as you get your preferences policy-wise. We all have our own priorities, and our own calculus concerning what is and is not important.
So show your work.
What I’ve had to say about it is:
1. The claim the (D)’s are making is that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to coerce Zelensky to publicly state that the Bidens were under investigation
2. The purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to establish whether that is true or not.
I think both of those points are sufficiently clear from public sources that they don’t need further support.
The question I asked you about the foreign service folks was – so what? What is your point in bringing up their personal level of “emasculation” or hurt feelings? If you’re trying to argue that that somehow undermines the credibility of their testimony, say that. If not, then why is it even relevant? My assumption, perhaps unfair, is that you want to imply it without actually saying it, which strikes me as dissembling and bad faith. You can speak to your own intentions if you wish.
TBH I’m sick of all of this crap. I’ve been having these same conversations with “conservatives” of all stripes for almost 20 years now.
Trump is a freaking crook. That is the heart of the matter. Maybe that will result in him getting tossed out, maybe it won’t. Probably it won’t, because the (R)’s will get his back no matter what, for all of the reasons discussed in this thread and ten million others.
Even if he is thrown out, we will then have POTUS Pence and a (R) majority Senate. So it will be SSDD, only maybe more so as far as the socially reactionary side of (R) policy. So I’m not seeing how this is a coup, or a naked (D) power grab, or anything similar. It’s the House investigating the POTUS, which has been SOP for every administration as long as I can remember.
You don’t like Trump, but you dislike the (D)’s even more, so if it’s Trump or (D)’s, you’ll go with Trump.
To me, that speaks of a profound disregard for this country. An inclination to put the things that make responsible self-governance possible, as long as you get your preferences policy-wise. We all have our own priorities, and our own calculus concerning what is and is not important.
You don’t like Trump, but you dislike the (D)’s even more, so if it’s Trump or (D)’s, you’ll go with Trump.
This is the heart of it. I have nothing to say to someone who wants me to go back into the closet, or, to judge from JDT’s link to LGM earlier, to simply not exist. Or to say to someone who wants his tax cuts so badly that he’ll ally himself with people like that.
You don’t like Trump, but you dislike the (D)’s even more, so if it’s Trump or (D)’s, you’ll go with Trump.
This is the heart of it. I have nothing to say to someone who wants me to go back into the closet, or, to judge from JDT’s link to LGM earlier, to simply not exist. Or to say to someone who wants his tax cuts so badly that he’ll ally himself with people like that.
Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives
Sure, because we’ve got so much spare time on our hands.
Dems have an unending amount of work to do. Engaging with people who would love nothing better than to undo everything we stand for doesn’t make the top-1000 list of ways we might be effective in pushing back against Clickbait and all he signifies.
Get out the vote, fight R efforts to suppress the vote, help immigrants directly or indirectly, fight the unraveling of FDR’s legacy, fight the undoing of the progress we’ve made in relation to LGBT and women’s issues, fight the destruction of the ACA, attempt to make some progress in relation to climate change…the list goes on and on and on. Working on all these things will give us much more leverage than scrabbling around the fringes of the R world looking for what I think are wildly unlikely allies – who would love to be wasting our time and energy for us by pretending they might be interested.
And even if you just want to talk about talking to people: keeping the D coalition together, even in the age of Clickbait, cannot to be taken for granted. That’s far more important than tilting at windmills.
Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives
Sure, because we’ve got so much spare time on our hands.
Dems have an unending amount of work to do. Engaging with people who would love nothing better than to undo everything we stand for doesn’t make the top-1000 list of ways we might be effective in pushing back against Clickbait and all he signifies.
Get out the vote, fight R efforts to suppress the vote, help immigrants directly or indirectly, fight the unraveling of FDR’s legacy, fight the undoing of the progress we’ve made in relation to LGBT and women’s issues, fight the destruction of the ACA, attempt to make some progress in relation to climate change…the list goes on and on and on. Working on all these things will give us much more leverage than scrabbling around the fringes of the R world looking for what I think are wildly unlikely allies – who would love to be wasting our time and energy for us by pretending they might be interested.
And even if you just want to talk about talking to people: keeping the D coalition together, even in the age of Clickbait, cannot to be taken for granted. That’s far more important than tilting at windmills.
JanieM, for someone who has said she doesn’t really like politics all that much, your 10:15 was fierce as hell. Thanks for that.
JanieM, for someone who has said she doesn’t really like politics all that much, your 10:15 was fierce as hell. Thanks for that.
Janie at 10:13.
Really, I’ve been talking to conservatives online for almost 20 years now. It’s been illuminating and interesting and I’ve made some friends.
It has had absolutely zero effect on electoral or policy outcomes. None whatsoever. None.
This is a hobby. I like everybody here, it’s enjoyable to chat. It gives me a chance to think out loud, and I appreciate all of your forbearance with that.
But nobody’s minds – or votes – are being changed here.
Everything Janie said at 10:13.
Janie at 10:13.
Really, I’ve been talking to conservatives online for almost 20 years now. It’s been illuminating and interesting and I’ve made some friends.
It has had absolutely zero effect on electoral or policy outcomes. None whatsoever. None.
This is a hobby. I like everybody here, it’s enjoyable to chat. It gives me a chance to think out loud, and I appreciate all of your forbearance with that.
But nobody’s minds – or votes – are being changed here.
Everything Janie said at 10:13.
Everything Janie said at 10:13.
Yep. (I said 10:15 before because my eyes have gotten really bad, and am still working on the right glasses.)
So good to read and echo!
Everything Janie said at 10:13.
Yep. (I said 10:15 before because my eyes have gotten really bad, and am still working on the right glasses.)
So good to read and echo!
@sapient — thanks in return. I’m still not that into politics, and I’m terrible at talking to people (not so terrible at writing, sometimes). I give $ and time to what I can, will probably do more now that I’m retired from my techie job.
@russell — more power to you!
To be clear, I think talking to “conservatives” is fine — I do it myself sometimes (esp. since I’m related to some). But I don’t think it’s useful electorally — as you say, ObWi is perfectly illustrative of that.
That’s the logical analysis. Emotionally, I have decreasing patience for anyone who wants to waste my time, and a too-short fuse which I don’t seem to be able to get a handle on these days.
I followed a car into town the other day with a bumper sticker that said “#FUCKMILLS” (Janet Mills, our D governor, who replaced the execrable LePage in January). I’m pretty sure I’ve never had a bumper sticker on my car in my life, certainly not within the past 3 or 4 decades, and if I did, it wouldn’t be a “fuck you” to half my neighbors. But that’s the political climate we’re living and breathing in right now, and I don’t have the support structure in my life to keep me on an even enough keel for russell-style forbearance. It’s at least nice to see it modeled on a regular basis.
*****
Finally, I failed in not explicitly including the fight against the resurgence of racism and anti-semitism in the off-the-cuff list of tasks in my 10:13. But issues around race are implicit in so much of our culture and politics that they were in my mind throughout: in relation to everything to do with voting, not to mention immigration, not to mention holding the D coalition together.
Also, while I’m filling in major blanks: the depraved levels of inequality of wealth we’ve reached, and (not unrelatedly) labor issues can go on the list too.
@sapient — thanks in return. I’m still not that into politics, and I’m terrible at talking to people (not so terrible at writing, sometimes). I give $ and time to what I can, will probably do more now that I’m retired from my techie job.
@russell — more power to you!
To be clear, I think talking to “conservatives” is fine — I do it myself sometimes (esp. since I’m related to some). But I don’t think it’s useful electorally — as you say, ObWi is perfectly illustrative of that.
That’s the logical analysis. Emotionally, I have decreasing patience for anyone who wants to waste my time, and a too-short fuse which I don’t seem to be able to get a handle on these days.
I followed a car into town the other day with a bumper sticker that said “#FUCKMILLS” (Janet Mills, our D governor, who replaced the execrable LePage in January). I’m pretty sure I’ve never had a bumper sticker on my car in my life, certainly not within the past 3 or 4 decades, and if I did, it wouldn’t be a “fuck you” to half my neighbors. But that’s the political climate we’re living and breathing in right now, and I don’t have the support structure in my life to keep me on an even enough keel for russell-style forbearance. It’s at least nice to see it modeled on a regular basis.
*****
Finally, I failed in not explicitly including the fight against the resurgence of racism and anti-semitism in the off-the-cuff list of tasks in my 10:13. But issues around race are implicit in so much of our culture and politics that they were in my mind throughout: in relation to everything to do with voting, not to mention immigration, not to mention holding the D coalition together.
Also, while I’m filling in major blanks: the depraved levels of inequality of wealth we’ve reached, and (not unrelatedly) labor issues can go on the list too.
Quibbling with myself one more time before bed:
It would have been more accurate to say “the resurgence of out and proud racism and anti-semitism…”
It’s not like they really ever went away.
Quibbling with myself one more time before bed:
It would have been more accurate to say “the resurgence of out and proud racism and anti-semitism…”
It’s not like they really ever went away.
Betcha’ you haven’t thought of that now, have you?
Betcha’ you haven’t thought of that now, have you?
Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives
Sure, because we’ve got so much spare time on our hands.
Well, you’ve managed to find time to constructively engage with me. Which I do appreciate.
Dems should be prepared to at least engage constructively with never-Trump conservatives
Sure, because we’ve got so much spare time on our hands.
Well, you’ve managed to find time to constructively engage with me. Which I do appreciate.
Not quite the revolution devouring its own… but still:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/11/donald-trump-jr-walks-out-of-triggered-book-launch-after-heckling-from-supporters
Donald Trump Jr ventured on to the University of California’s overwhelmingly liberal Los Angeles campus on Sunday, hoping to prove what he had just argued in his book – that a hate-filled American left was hell-bent on silencing him and anyone else who supported the Trump presidency.
But the appearance backfired when his own supporters, diehard Make America Great Again conservatives, raised their voices most loudly in protest and ended up drowning him out barely 20 minutes into an event scheduled to last two hours…
Not quite the revolution devouring its own… but still:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/11/donald-trump-jr-walks-out-of-triggered-book-launch-after-heckling-from-supporters
Donald Trump Jr ventured on to the University of California’s overwhelmingly liberal Los Angeles campus on Sunday, hoping to prove what he had just argued in his book – that a hate-filled American left was hell-bent on silencing him and anyone else who supported the Trump presidency.
But the appearance backfired when his own supporters, diehard Make America Great Again conservatives, raised their voices most loudly in protest and ended up drowning him out barely 20 minutes into an event scheduled to last two hours…
Just for Marty, the annotated ‘transcript’ of the call:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/776173492/the-whistleblower-complaint-has-largely-been-corroborated-heres-how
And CNN has a good summary of the testimony which has been released to date:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/impeachment-transcript-takeaways/
I can understand Marty not wanting to wade through all this stuff, but failing to do so renders his attempted rebuttals somewhat … unconvincing.
Just for Marty, the annotated ‘transcript’ of the call:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/09/776173492/the-whistleblower-complaint-has-largely-been-corroborated-heres-how
And CNN has a good summary of the testimony which has been released to date:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/impeachment-transcript-takeaways/
I can understand Marty not wanting to wade through all this stuff, but failing to do so renders his attempted rebuttals somewhat … unconvincing.
for nous…or anybody else interested
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/11/21/betrayal-of-the-kurds/
for nous…or anybody else interested
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/11/21/betrayal-of-the-kurds/
OK, I’m now back in the world of the living, and would like to say the following.
1. On all matters of substance and policy, as I hope has long been clear, I agree with russell, Janie (and sapient), and FWIW I put my money where my mouth is.
2. Unlike the rest of you, *I don’t know any Trump voters, Trump supporters, or even people who hold their noses and like his policies (metropolitan elites in action). (*Actually, I realise this may not be true, I have a friend who did support Trump because he had an R after his name, but we have not discussed it since then because I love her too much and she confessed to me some years ago she thought she might be getting Alzheimers).
3. I don’t think people who believe as “we” do on policy matters can necessarily win the next election alone, and when it comes down to it, winning the next (and future) elections is the only thing that will help.
4. I think from many previous discussions here that Marty is a decent person in very many ways.
5. Marty stands in, for me, for Rs who might, if reached, hold their noses and vote against Trump in an electorally useful way.
6. I am very well aware of how condescending my attitude to Marty comes across (“misguided”, “vulnerable to propaganda” etc), and I regret it, but because of item 5 I have been prepared to talk about it and hope he can forgive me for it. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of his insults here (and by the way, in that respect I observe that he is more sinned against than sinning) are misdirected anger which truly should be aimed at me for my condescension.
7. I think calling people presently on this site “evil”, “evildoers” and “morally wrong to countenance” to be unwise,counterproductive, and in the case of Marty plain wrong and in fact absurd. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe some people are evil, or evildoers, or morally wrong to countenance on this site.)
8. On the matter of “arguing in bad faith”, my understanding was the same as this from Wikipedia: The Duhaime online law dictionary similarly defines bad faith broadly as “intent to deceive”, and “a person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage”. There may well be other meanings of which I was unaware.
9. And lastly, I haven’t been commenting here as long as some of you (e.g. russell) so perhaps I am not as tired of trying to reach out as some of you are. You may be right that we don’t change minds here, but it seems to me that communication across various kinds of gulfs is desirable and may still be able to achieve something, even if it is just the realisation that ideological opponents are human beings and not monsters.
OK, I’m now back in the world of the living, and would like to say the following.
1. On all matters of substance and policy, as I hope has long been clear, I agree with russell, Janie (and sapient), and FWIW I put my money where my mouth is.
2. Unlike the rest of you, *I don’t know any Trump voters, Trump supporters, or even people who hold their noses and like his policies (metropolitan elites in action). (*Actually, I realise this may not be true, I have a friend who did support Trump because he had an R after his name, but we have not discussed it since then because I love her too much and she confessed to me some years ago she thought she might be getting Alzheimers).
3. I don’t think people who believe as “we” do on policy matters can necessarily win the next election alone, and when it comes down to it, winning the next (and future) elections is the only thing that will help.
4. I think from many previous discussions here that Marty is a decent person in very many ways.
5. Marty stands in, for me, for Rs who might, if reached, hold their noses and vote against Trump in an electorally useful way.
6. I am very well aware of how condescending my attitude to Marty comes across (“misguided”, “vulnerable to propaganda” etc), and I regret it, but because of item 5 I have been prepared to talk about it and hope he can forgive me for it. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of his insults here (and by the way, in that respect I observe that he is more sinned against than sinning) are misdirected anger which truly should be aimed at me for my condescension.
7. I think calling people presently on this site “evil”, “evildoers” and “morally wrong to countenance” to be unwise,counterproductive, and in the case of Marty plain wrong and in fact absurd. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe some people are evil, or evildoers, or morally wrong to countenance on this site.)
8. On the matter of “arguing in bad faith”, my understanding was the same as this from Wikipedia: The Duhaime online law dictionary similarly defines bad faith broadly as “intent to deceive”, and “a person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage”. There may well be other meanings of which I was unaware.
9. And lastly, I haven’t been commenting here as long as some of you (e.g. russell) so perhaps I am not as tired of trying to reach out as some of you are. You may be right that we don’t change minds here, but it seems to me that communication across various kinds of gulfs is desirable and may still be able to achieve something, even if it is just the realisation that ideological opponents are human beings and not monsters.
read this just now….couldn’t resist posting:
I’m still learning how to be an adult and not all that happy about it.
read this just now….couldn’t resist posting:
I’m still learning how to be an adult and not all that happy about it.
I’ve just been down a rabbit hole on “bad faith”, and further in the Wikipedia piece found this:
People may hold beliefs in their minds even though they are directly contradicted by facts. These are beliefs held in bad faith. But there is debate as to whether this self-deception is intentional or not.[17]
In his book Being and Nothingness, the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre defined bad faith (French: mauvaise foi) as hiding the truth from oneself.[18] The fundamental question about bad faith self-deception is how it is possible.[19] In order for a liar to successfully lie to the victim of the lie, the liar must know that what is being said is false. In order to be successful at lying, the victim must believe the lie to be true. When a person is in bad faith self-deception, the person is both the liar and the victim of the lie. So at the same time the liar, as liar, believes the lie to be false, and as victim believes it to be true. So there is a contradiction in that a person in bad faith self-deception believes something to be true and false at the same time.[20] Sartre observed that “the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person, which means that I must know the truth in my capacity as deceiver, though it is hidden from me in my capacity as the one deceived”, adding that “I must know that truth very precisely, in order to hide it from myself the more carefully—and this not at two different moments of temporality …”
Cripes.
I’ve just been down a rabbit hole on “bad faith”, and further in the Wikipedia piece found this:
People may hold beliefs in their minds even though they are directly contradicted by facts. These are beliefs held in bad faith. But there is debate as to whether this self-deception is intentional or not.[17]
In his book Being and Nothingness, the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre defined bad faith (French: mauvaise foi) as hiding the truth from oneself.[18] The fundamental question about bad faith self-deception is how it is possible.[19] In order for a liar to successfully lie to the victim of the lie, the liar must know that what is being said is false. In order to be successful at lying, the victim must believe the lie to be true. When a person is in bad faith self-deception, the person is both the liar and the victim of the lie. So at the same time the liar, as liar, believes the lie to be false, and as victim believes it to be true. So there is a contradiction in that a person in bad faith self-deception believes something to be true and false at the same time.[20] Sartre observed that “the one to whom the lie is told and the one who lies are one and the same person, which means that I must know the truth in my capacity as deceiver, though it is hidden from me in my capacity as the one deceived”, adding that “I must know that truth very precisely, in order to hide it from myself the more carefully—and this not at two different moments of temporality …”
Cripes.
uniting “good faith” arguments, Hunter Biden, and the GOP’s desperation:
uniting “good faith” arguments, Hunter Biden, and the GOP’s desperation:
Thanks for all of this GFTNC. It all speaks very well of you. It’s a privilege to have you here.
I’m also sure that Marty is quite a decent person in many ways.
Here is the thing:
When people talk about the impeachment inquiry being a “coup”, or impugn not the accuracy, but the motives and integrity of the witnesses coming forward, or claim that the various investigations into Trump’s behavior are simply attempts to re-visit and overturn the results of the 2016 election, they undermine the institutions that make it possible for this nation to exist as a self-governing republic.
Marty very often insists that, no matter what, people have to play by the rules. The rules in this case are that the POTUS is not above the law, that the mechanism for calling the POTUS to account for gross abuse of power and office is impeachment, and the House owns the authority for bringing articles of impeachment. Full stop.
Marty’s arguments here aren’t just that Trump is not actually guilty of the things for which he is being investigated. His arguments are that the investigation itself is illegitimate. That it is a purely partisan attempt by the (D)’s to overthrow a duly elected administration.
It’s a pernicious argument, because it seeks to delegitimize what is an essential function of US governance – the separation of powers, and the accountability of each institution and person to other institutions.
It’s fine if Marty would prefer Trump to any (D). Everyone’s entitled to their point of view. Whether Marty understands this or not, or would be willing to acknowledge this or not, the arguments he presents here would have the institutions of American governance dismantled so that he could have his preference.
That’s not good.
Thanks for all of this GFTNC. It all speaks very well of you. It’s a privilege to have you here.
I’m also sure that Marty is quite a decent person in many ways.
Here is the thing:
When people talk about the impeachment inquiry being a “coup”, or impugn not the accuracy, but the motives and integrity of the witnesses coming forward, or claim that the various investigations into Trump’s behavior are simply attempts to re-visit and overturn the results of the 2016 election, they undermine the institutions that make it possible for this nation to exist as a self-governing republic.
Marty very often insists that, no matter what, people have to play by the rules. The rules in this case are that the POTUS is not above the law, that the mechanism for calling the POTUS to account for gross abuse of power and office is impeachment, and the House owns the authority for bringing articles of impeachment. Full stop.
Marty’s arguments here aren’t just that Trump is not actually guilty of the things for which he is being investigated. His arguments are that the investigation itself is illegitimate. That it is a purely partisan attempt by the (D)’s to overthrow a duly elected administration.
It’s a pernicious argument, because it seeks to delegitimize what is an essential function of US governance – the separation of powers, and the accountability of each institution and person to other institutions.
It’s fine if Marty would prefer Trump to any (D). Everyone’s entitled to their point of view. Whether Marty understands this or not, or would be willing to acknowledge this or not, the arguments he presents here would have the institutions of American governance dismantled so that he could have his preference.
That’s not good.
Extending russell’s 8:56 comment:
Marty is making the same argument that many high-profile Republicans have been making for some time – that the impeachment is an attempt to remove a democratically elected president, overruling the will of the people who elected him. But that’s not an argument specifically against this impeachment; it’s an argument against presidential impeachment in general (except, maybe, for impeaching someone like Ford, who wasn’t elected president).
It’s an argument that would apply to the impeachment of any elected president, meaning that presidential impeachment is almost always inherently wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Ultimately, it’s an argument against the constitution.
Extending russell’s 8:56 comment:
Marty is making the same argument that many high-profile Republicans have been making for some time – that the impeachment is an attempt to remove a democratically elected president, overruling the will of the people who elected him. But that’s not an argument specifically against this impeachment; it’s an argument against presidential impeachment in general (except, maybe, for impeaching someone like Ford, who wasn’t elected president).
It’s an argument that would apply to the impeachment of any elected president, meaning that presidential impeachment is almost always inherently wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Ultimately, it’s an argument against the constitution.
Ultimately, it’s an argument against the constitution.
It’s an argument in bad faith, too, because it’s only advanced when the president being impeached is an R. The list of such “arguments” coming from the mouths of Rs could fill a thick volume. IOKIYAR. So yes, it’s an argument against the constitution at another level — the rule of law doesn’t matter unless it serves the purpose of Rs staying in power. Because heaven forbid the president should be a D, or if the people are stupid enough to elect one, should be able to, oh, let’s say, appoint people to SCOTUS.
Ultimately, it’s an argument against the constitution.
It’s an argument in bad faith, too, because it’s only advanced when the president being impeached is an R. The list of such “arguments” coming from the mouths of Rs could fill a thick volume. IOKIYAR. So yes, it’s an argument against the constitution at another level — the rule of law doesn’t matter unless it serves the purpose of Rs staying in power. Because heaven forbid the president should be a D, or if the people are stupid enough to elect one, should be able to, oh, let’s say, appoint people to SCOTUS.
I should have written that Marty sometimes makes that argument. It’s not always the same argument. Sometimes, it’s just that he thinks what Rump did is no biggie, therefore the inquiry is illegitimate. (Technically, we haven’t gotten to impeachment yet.)
I should have written that Marty sometimes makes that argument. It’s not always the same argument. Sometimes, it’s just that he thinks what Rump did is no biggie, therefore the inquiry is illegitimate. (Technically, we haven’t gotten to impeachment yet.)
Well, you’ve managed to find time to constructively engage with me. Which I do appreciate.
Mutual. As I said last night, I don’t agree (with GftNC and whomever else) about the electoral need or usefulness of “engaging” with e.g. never-Trumpers. That doesn’t mean it’s not fun to bat ideas around in a forum like this. What’s not fun is to go back and forth ad infinitum with people who are condescending (to say the least) and (IMHO) trolly about it. (And to find myself responding in kind.)
As my Irish friends used to say, shag the begrudgers.
I can’t even picture an occasion that would inspire you (wj) to sneer or condescend — nastiness doesn’t seem to be in your repertoire, and more power to you for that.
Well, you’ve managed to find time to constructively engage with me. Which I do appreciate.
Mutual. As I said last night, I don’t agree (with GftNC and whomever else) about the electoral need or usefulness of “engaging” with e.g. never-Trumpers. That doesn’t mean it’s not fun to bat ideas around in a forum like this. What’s not fun is to go back and forth ad infinitum with people who are condescending (to say the least) and (IMHO) trolly about it. (And to find myself responding in kind.)
As my Irish friends used to say, shag the begrudgers.
I can’t even picture an occasion that would inspire you (wj) to sneer or condescend — nastiness doesn’t seem to be in your repertoire, and more power to you for that.
Thank you russell. I don’t disagree with a word you say @08.56, except possibly your second and third sentences: in which case right back atcha.
I also agree with hsh @09.21, and Janie @09.49, although the “bad faith” thing now has me pretty confused. I might have said it was hypocritical, or inconsistent (although the latter is too neutral), but one thing is certainly true, as Janie says, IOKIYAR.
Thank you russell. I don’t disagree with a word you say @08.56, except possibly your second and third sentences: in which case right back atcha.
I also agree with hsh @09.21, and Janie @09.49, although the “bad faith” thing now has me pretty confused. I might have said it was hypocritical, or inconsistent (although the latter is too neutral), but one thing is certainly true, as Janie says, IOKIYAR.
I think you can make an argument for not actively dismissing or demeaning never-Trumpers without necessarily making an argument for making some kind of special effort to reach out to them (if that’s what anyone is suggesting).
I say make the best arguments for what you stand for (and against?) to persuade whoever you can. If never-Trumpers are receptive, great. If not, that’s on them. Get the votes you need elsewhere. Don’t beat your head against the wall or kick a dead horse or whatever other tired metaphor makes you happy.
I think you can make an argument for not actively dismissing or demeaning never-Trumpers without necessarily making an argument for making some kind of special effort to reach out to them (if that’s what anyone is suggesting).
I say make the best arguments for what you stand for (and against?) to persuade whoever you can. If never-Trumpers are receptive, great. If not, that’s on them. Get the votes you need elsewhere. Don’t beat your head against the wall or kick a dead horse or whatever other tired metaphor makes you happy.
that the impeachment is an attempt to remove a democratically elected president
and it’s a ridiculous argument because nobody seriously thinks 20 GOP Senators will defect.
so, what they’re really arguing is that Trump shouldn’t even get the asterisk. which is really kind of silly because they’d be able to use the Senate dismissal of the charges as another “Total Exoneration™”. the base would love it! they’d be able to spin it into “Overreaching Dems defeated!”
but even that is too much because they just can’t let the Dems win an argument.
that the impeachment is an attempt to remove a democratically elected president
and it’s a ridiculous argument because nobody seriously thinks 20 GOP Senators will defect.
so, what they’re really arguing is that Trump shouldn’t even get the asterisk. which is really kind of silly because they’d be able to use the Senate dismissal of the charges as another “Total Exoneration™”. the base would love it! they’d be able to spin it into “Overreaching Dems defeated!”
but even that is too much because they just can’t let the Dems win an argument.
impeachment is an attempt to remove a democratically elected president
Well, yes.
By definition impeachment provides Congress with that power, as the Constitution specifically provides.
impeachment is an attempt to remove a democratically elected president
Well, yes.
By definition impeachment provides Congress with that power, as the Constitution specifically provides.
Cripes
Sartre will do that to you.
🙂
Cripes
Sartre will do that to you.
🙂
7. I think calling people presently on this site “evil”, “evildoers” and “morally wrong to countenance” to be unwise,counterproductive, and in the case of Marty plain wrong and in fact absurd. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe some people are evil, or evildoers, or morally wrong to countenance on this site.)
Donald Trump is a liar, a racist, a demagogue, a rapist, a hater, a corrupt person, and someone who is encouraging the institutionalization of those things into the fabric of my country. That agenda is evil.
Is my attitude constructive? It’s every bit as constructive or more so than positing that people who argue on his behalf (especially whatabouters who attempt to diminish the reputations of people who don’t deserve it in order to bolster their man) are “reachable” with logic.
7. I think calling people presently on this site “evil”, “evildoers” and “morally wrong to countenance” to be unwise,counterproductive, and in the case of Marty plain wrong and in fact absurd. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe some people are evil, or evildoers, or morally wrong to countenance on this site.)
Donald Trump is a liar, a racist, a demagogue, a rapist, a hater, a corrupt person, and someone who is encouraging the institutionalization of those things into the fabric of my country. That agenda is evil.
Is my attitude constructive? It’s every bit as constructive or more so than positing that people who argue on his behalf (especially whatabouters who attempt to diminish the reputations of people who don’t deserve it in order to bolster their man) are “reachable” with logic.
Donald Trump is a liar, a racist, a demagogue, a rapist, a hater, a corrupt person, and someone who is encouraging the institutionalization of those things into the fabric of my country. That agenda is evil.
Well, I don’t disagree with any of this with the possible exception of “rapist” because it is unproven, although I believe it to be true. Mind you, a reasonably credible accusation of rape was made against Bill Clinton; I am prepared to believe it may have been true – are you?
Donald Trump is a liar, a racist, a demagogue, a rapist, a hater, a corrupt person, and someone who is encouraging the institutionalization of those things into the fabric of my country. That agenda is evil.
Well, I don’t disagree with any of this with the possible exception of “rapist” because it is unproven, although I believe it to be true. Mind you, a reasonably credible accusation of rape was made against Bill Clinton; I am prepared to believe it may have been true – are you?
For me (FWIW) to argue on good faith is to take seriously the arguments of your opponents, and directly address them, irrespective whether you fundamentally disagree with them, or even hold them in a degree of contempt.
It doesn’t extend to submitting to being trolled – IOW, I will engage with others if they are prepared to make the same effort with me.
For me (FWIW) to argue on good faith is to take seriously the arguments of your opponents, and directly address them, irrespective whether you fundamentally disagree with them, or even hold them in a degree of contempt.
It doesn’t extend to submitting to being trolled – IOW, I will engage with others if they are prepared to make the same effort with me.
Cripes
Sartre will do that to you.
🙂
i haz le nausea.
Cripes
Sartre will do that to you.
🙂
i haz le nausea.
Is my attitude constructive?
when arguing with those to your right…yes. when arguing with those to your left…not so much. 😉
i have refrained from joining the bash marty chorus this time as his so-called ‘arguments’ were simply more daft than usual…and i have standards. low ones to be sure, but standards nonetheless.
Is my attitude constructive?
when arguing with those to your right…yes. when arguing with those to your left…not so much. 😉
i have refrained from joining the bash marty chorus this time as his so-called ‘arguments’ were simply more daft than usual…and i have standards. low ones to be sure, but standards nonetheless.
For me (FWIW) to argue on good faith is to take seriously the arguments of your opponents, and directly address them, irrespective whether you fundamentally disagree with them, or even hold them in a degree of contempt.
Actually, this seems like a pretty good definition to me.
For me (FWIW) to argue on good faith is to take seriously the arguments of your opponents, and directly address them, irrespective whether you fundamentally disagree with them, or even hold them in a degree of contempt.
Actually, this seems like a pretty good definition to me.
Mind you, a reasonably credible accusation of rape was made against Bill Clinton; I am prepared to believe it may have been true – are you?
You’re a whatabouter too now, GftNC? I am not prepared to believe it wholesale on the strength of Juanita Broaddrick’s story. What a circus of despicable people Republicans have so long been.
Mind you, a reasonably credible accusation of rape was made against Bill Clinton; I am prepared to believe it may have been true – are you?
You’re a whatabouter too now, GftNC? I am not prepared to believe it wholesale on the strength of Juanita Broaddrick’s story. What a circus of despicable people Republicans have so long been.
And as far as engaging with the other side is concerned, I thought this an interesting article:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/is-the-supreme-courts-fate-in-elena-kagans-hands
Kagan is probably the Justice with whom I am temperamentally most sympathetic.
Though I am no doubt far less polite than she from time to time.
And as far as engaging with the other side is concerned, I thought this an interesting article:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/is-the-supreme-courts-fate-in-elena-kagans-hands
Kagan is probably the Justice with whom I am temperamentally most sympathetic.
Though I am no doubt far less polite than she from time to time.
From the Atlantic article about Broaddrick:
“At the time, her claims were mostly ignored, and when acknowledged they were often disparaged; the fact that she’d recanted in an affidavit after being subpoenaed by Jones’s lawyers was a favorite data point of critics. (Broaddrick says she denied that anything had happened with Clinton because she didn’t want to get involved in a big legal circus with Jones.)”
The only time she was under oath, she recanted her accusation. I know that sworn testimony is no biggie to a lot of people (especially Republicans), but it means something to me.
From the Atlantic article about Broaddrick:
“At the time, her claims were mostly ignored, and when acknowledged they were often disparaged; the fact that she’d recanted in an affidavit after being subpoenaed by Jones’s lawyers was a favorite data point of critics. (Broaddrick says she denied that anything had happened with Clinton because she didn’t want to get involved in a big legal circus with Jones.)”
The only time she was under oath, she recanted her accusation. I know that sworn testimony is no biggie to a lot of people (especially Republicans), but it means something to me.
in case anyone was still wondering:
in case anyone was still wondering:
A couple of thoughts:
1. Trump is a clinical narcissist who, as narcissists do, lashes out blindly at anyone who criticizes or disagrees with him and who responds favorably to anyone who flatters him, including outright thugs and tyrants. Narcissists also believe their words shape reality because the words come from the infallible narcissist.
2. Attempting to benignly parse what was clearly a “give me stuff on Biden and we’ll talk further about your national defense needs” trade-off into some kind of “bad judgement but no big deal” lapse ranges from flat out wrong to intellectually dishonest and, more to the point, it is impeachable.
3. It is impeachable because the military aid on the quid side was intended to deter Russia from attacking the Ukraine which, if such an attack occurred, would have direct and profoundly negative national security implications for the US and NATO.
4. Trump clearly put the nation’s national security interests at risk for personal political gain.
5. Not only is it impeachable, it is just stupid. As most here know, I’m a trial lawyer. If I were slimy and stupid enough to go to someone in economic duress and offer them money to find evidence against an adverse party, leaving aside the whole witness bribery thing, just how credible is my bought-and-paid-for witness? I mean, really.
6. I would like to see Trump impeached and the sooner the better.
7. The disconnect here is that wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
8. The second disconnect here is that just because everyone thing I said is true doesn’t mean the Dems leading the impeachment charge don’t overreach and overstate routinely in their lust to oust Trump. I’m not going to get into a fight over where I find fault with the Dems because, quite frankly, very few here are open to that discussion which makes it a waste of time.
9. Finally, I agree with GFTNC and I disagree that people don’t change their minds. Many of my views have been changed to one degree or another by my interactions here. As well, even though I disagree with virtually all of the economic policies that emanate from the progressive left, having discussions about those policies helps me calibrate and sometimes re-calibrate my own thinking.
Back to work.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Trump is a clinical narcissist who, as narcissists do, lashes out blindly at anyone who criticizes or disagrees with him and who responds favorably to anyone who flatters him, including outright thugs and tyrants. Narcissists also believe their words shape reality because the words come from the infallible narcissist.
2. Attempting to benignly parse what was clearly a “give me stuff on Biden and we’ll talk further about your national defense needs” trade-off into some kind of “bad judgement but no big deal” lapse ranges from flat out wrong to intellectually dishonest and, more to the point, it is impeachable.
3. It is impeachable because the military aid on the quid side was intended to deter Russia from attacking the Ukraine which, if such an attack occurred, would have direct and profoundly negative national security implications for the US and NATO.
4. Trump clearly put the nation’s national security interests at risk for personal political gain.
5. Not only is it impeachable, it is just stupid. As most here know, I’m a trial lawyer. If I were slimy and stupid enough to go to someone in economic duress and offer them money to find evidence against an adverse party, leaving aside the whole witness bribery thing, just how credible is my bought-and-paid-for witness? I mean, really.
6. I would like to see Trump impeached and the sooner the better.
7. The disconnect here is that wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
8. The second disconnect here is that just because everyone thing I said is true doesn’t mean the Dems leading the impeachment charge don’t overreach and overstate routinely in their lust to oust Trump. I’m not going to get into a fight over where I find fault with the Dems because, quite frankly, very few here are open to that discussion which makes it a waste of time.
9. Finally, I agree with GFTNC and I disagree that people don’t change their minds. Many of my views have been changed to one degree or another by my interactions here. As well, even though I disagree with virtually all of the economic policies that emanate from the progressive left, having discussions about those policies helps me calibrate and sometimes re-calibrate my own thinking.
Back to work.
I can’t even picture an occasion that would inspire you (wj) to sneer or condescend — nastiness doesn’t seem to be in your repertoire, and more power to you for that.
Oh, I’m entirely able to get nasty.** Condescending, too. But that’s what the Preview button is for. (That and correcting at least some of my typos.)
** And surely you have seen me get sarcastic here.
I can’t even picture an occasion that would inspire you (wj) to sneer or condescend — nastiness doesn’t seem to be in your repertoire, and more power to you for that.
Oh, I’m entirely able to get nasty.** Condescending, too. But that’s what the Preview button is for. (That and correcting at least some of my typos.)
** And surely you have seen me get sarcastic here.
The disconnect here is that wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
There is no disconnect if what we’re discussing is removing him ia impeachment.
The second disconnect here is that just because everyone thing I said is true doesn’t mean the Dems leading the impeachment charge don’t overreach and overstate routinely in their lust to oust Trump. I’m not going to get into a fight over where I find fault with the Dems because, quite frankly, very few here are open to that discussion which makes it a waste of time…
I would be interested in hearing that, should you change your mind.
If only in précis.
The disconnect here is that wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
There is no disconnect if what we’re discussing is removing him ia impeachment.
The second disconnect here is that just because everyone thing I said is true doesn’t mean the Dems leading the impeachment charge don’t overreach and overstate routinely in their lust to oust Trump. I’m not going to get into a fight over where I find fault with the Dems because, quite frankly, very few here are open to that discussion which makes it a waste of time…
I would be interested in hearing that, should you change your mind.
If only in précis.
I would be interested in hearing that, should you change your mind.
If only in précis.
Seconded.
I would be interested in hearing that, should you change your mind.
If only in précis.
Seconded.
Thanks McK. I have argument with anything you’ve said here, not even this:
doesn’t mean the Dems leading the impeachment charge don’t overreach and overstate routinely in their lust to oust Trump
or this:
wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
and FWIW, I’m “open to” the idea that Clinton raped somebody, somewhere, at some time, just like I’m open to any idea that is imaginable and has not been disproved. Back it off from rape to assault, in the sense of unwanted hands-on sexual advance, and I’d go from “open to” to “would not be surprised by”.
Just like McK can want Trump out without wanting Warren or Sanders in, I can appreciate Clinton’s political talents and general effectiveness as POTUS, and can generally affirm his social and political goals and values, without having to think he is personally a wonderful or blameless guy.
Probably my least favorite thing about DC political culture is the way that shagging attractive young people appears to be seen as one of the perks of office. It’s disgraceful. In my opinion. I value our political institutions, and I simultaneously have a profound distaste for the general atmosphere of greed and entitlement that appears to be endemic in our national political culture.
In any case, Broderick was not a good witness, so her claim did not prevail. It’s been almost 20 years since Bill Clinton was POTUS, so maybe we can all move on from all of that.
Thanks McK. I have argument with anything you’ve said here, not even this:
doesn’t mean the Dems leading the impeachment charge don’t overreach and overstate routinely in their lust to oust Trump
or this:
wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
and FWIW, I’m “open to” the idea that Clinton raped somebody, somewhere, at some time, just like I’m open to any idea that is imaginable and has not been disproved. Back it off from rape to assault, in the sense of unwanted hands-on sexual advance, and I’d go from “open to” to “would not be surprised by”.
Just like McK can want Trump out without wanting Warren or Sanders in, I can appreciate Clinton’s political talents and general effectiveness as POTUS, and can generally affirm his social and political goals and values, without having to think he is personally a wonderful or blameless guy.
Probably my least favorite thing about DC political culture is the way that shagging attractive young people appears to be seen as one of the perks of office. It’s disgraceful. In my opinion. I value our political institutions, and I simultaneously have a profound distaste for the general atmosphere of greed and entitlement that appears to be endemic in our national political culture.
In any case, Broderick was not a good witness, so her claim did not prevail. It’s been almost 20 years since Bill Clinton was POTUS, so maybe we can all move on from all of that.
And the changing minds thing is also interesting.
Of course there are very large numbers of people who are not going to change their minds, and a significant number of whom it is not worth the time engaging with …quite frankly, very few here are open to that discussion which makes it a waste of time… as someone said… 🙂
But if the election is going to be close (in electoral college terms if not in the popular vote), then it is worth considering what might change minds at the margin along with what might encourage a high turnout from whichever side.
(And if it’s not, then why are we worrying anyway ?)
The signs are (FWIW) that next November’s election might see a record turnout. Certainly polls on voter enthusiasm indicate as much.
And the changing minds thing is also interesting.
Of course there are very large numbers of people who are not going to change their minds, and a significant number of whom it is not worth the time engaging with …quite frankly, very few here are open to that discussion which makes it a waste of time… as someone said… 🙂
But if the election is going to be close (in electoral college terms if not in the popular vote), then it is worth considering what might change minds at the margin along with what might encourage a high turnout from whichever side.
(And if it’s not, then why are we worrying anyway ?)
The signs are (FWIW) that next November’s election might see a record turnout. Certainly polls on voter enthusiasm indicate as much.
Probably my least favorite thing about
DC politicalour (and most other) culture(s) is the way that shagging attractive young people appears to be seen as one of the perks ofofficeany position of power. It’s disgraceful. In my opinion. I value ourpoliticalinstitutions, and I simultaneously have a profound distaste for the general atmosphere of greed and entitlement that appears to be endemic in our nationalpoliticalculture.FTFY.
Probably my least favorite thing about
DC politicalour (and most other) culture(s) is the way that shagging attractive young people appears to be seen as one of the perks ofofficeany position of power. It’s disgraceful. In my opinion. I value ourpoliticalinstitutions, and I simultaneously have a profound distaste for the general atmosphere of greed and entitlement that appears to be endemic in our nationalpoliticalculture.FTFY.
I simultaneously have a profound distaste for the general atmosphere of greed and entitlement that appears to be endemic in our national political culture.
Well, we did steal an entire continent.
McKinney abv.: Best post I’ve seen from you in a long time.
I simultaneously have a profound distaste for the general atmosphere of greed and entitlement that appears to be endemic in our national political culture.
Well, we did steal an entire continent.
McKinney abv.: Best post I’ve seen from you in a long time.
I would be interested in hearing that, should you change your mind. If only in précis.
I appreciate the request, but I’m going to pass. It’s far too subjective. From my discussions with my Trump supporting friends, I know that there are some things that cannot be discussed outside the partisan prism and, truly, I’m very, very tired of those discussions. I see no difference in kind on the committed, progressive left. FWIW, I find my take to be common among many of the conservatives and liberals I know. We have our differences, but we don’t personalize it or question the integrity of those we disagree with. And most of us find the “true believers” to be exhausting. Sapient is a good example of people who wear the rest of us out. Sorry, because when you’re not in full Resistance mode, you are very much worth listening to. But these days, you are a one-note singer and it’s well past grating on the nerves.
So, going forward, and when time permits, I’ll address policy issues, e.g. medicare for all. That may change, but for the time being, it will be a policy discussion. Since Trump doesn’t have many actual policies (that mean anything), that will leave me fussing with Professor Warren.
I would be interested in hearing that, should you change your mind. If only in précis.
I appreciate the request, but I’m going to pass. It’s far too subjective. From my discussions with my Trump supporting friends, I know that there are some things that cannot be discussed outside the partisan prism and, truly, I’m very, very tired of those discussions. I see no difference in kind on the committed, progressive left. FWIW, I find my take to be common among many of the conservatives and liberals I know. We have our differences, but we don’t personalize it or question the integrity of those we disagree with. And most of us find the “true believers” to be exhausting. Sapient is a good example of people who wear the rest of us out. Sorry, because when you’re not in full Resistance mode, you are very much worth listening to. But these days, you are a one-note singer and it’s well past grating on the nerves.
So, going forward, and when time permits, I’ll address policy issues, e.g. medicare for all. That may change, but for the time being, it will be a policy discussion. Since Trump doesn’t have many actual policies (that mean anything), that will leave me fussing with Professor Warren.
wMcTxs
wMcTxs
Nigel, that article on Justice Kagen was really interesting. Thanks.
Nigel, that article on Justice Kagen was really interesting. Thanks.
Fair enough, McKinney.
Fair enough, McKinney.
I neglected this:
I agree with GFTNC and I disagree that people don’t change their minds. Many of my views have been changed to one degree or another by my interactions here.
Very much appreciated.
I’ve become very pessimistic about a lot of things, I’m glad to know that there are open minds. Even if mine is not one of them at the moment. 🙂
Thanks McK.
I neglected this:
I agree with GFTNC and I disagree that people don’t change their minds. Many of my views have been changed to one degree or another by my interactions here.
Very much appreciated.
I’ve become very pessimistic about a lot of things, I’m glad to know that there are open minds. Even if mine is not one of them at the moment. 🙂
Thanks McK.
Since it’s Veterans Day, and I am relieved to know that tomorrow we will stop the steady stream of using veterans as commercial props for a bit and continue to ignore the need to fix the VA, etc….
One lasting effect of having read so much writing by veterans during my dissertation research is my deep and abiding respect for the citizen soldiers for whom the citizen side was strongest — the ones whose service was spent loving and wishing every day to return to their peacetime lives. All service is worthy of respect, but I think there is something special about the military service of those who had no love of the military, only love of the way of life that needed defending and to which they wished a rapid return.
Since it’s Veterans Day, and I am relieved to know that tomorrow we will stop the steady stream of using veterans as commercial props for a bit and continue to ignore the need to fix the VA, etc….
One lasting effect of having read so much writing by veterans during my dissertation research is my deep and abiding respect for the citizen soldiers for whom the citizen side was strongest — the ones whose service was spent loving and wishing every day to return to their peacetime lives. All service is worthy of respect, but I think there is something special about the military service of those who had no love of the military, only love of the way of life that needed defending and to which they wished a rapid return.
It is impeachable because the military aid on the quid side was intended to deter Russia from attacking the Ukraine which, if such an attack occurred, would have direct and profoundly negative national security implications for the US and NATO.
Also, Congress had explicitly ordered the military aid. Therefore the President had no authority to mess with it. (As opposed to Congress budgeting for foreign aid, without specifying who gets it or how much.) And that failure to follow the law by holding up the aid (that it was eventually released is irrelevant) is impeachable — one of the requirements of the President is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
It is impeachable because the military aid on the quid side was intended to deter Russia from attacking the Ukraine which, if such an attack occurred, would have direct and profoundly negative national security implications for the US and NATO.
Also, Congress had explicitly ordered the military aid. Therefore the President had no authority to mess with it. (As opposed to Congress budgeting for foreign aid, without specifying who gets it or how much.) And that failure to follow the law by holding up the aid (that it was eventually released is irrelevant) is impeachable — one of the requirements of the President is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
7. The disconnect here is that wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
May I at least get some fries with my ham sandwich, however?
7. The disconnect here is that wanting Trump out is not synonymous with being ok with Warren or Sanders as president.
May I at least get some fries with my ham sandwich, however?
Why I read comments by nous with great attention:
One lasting effect of having read so much writing by veterans during my dissertation research is my deep and abiding respect for the citizen soldiers for whom the citizen side was strongest — the ones whose service was spent loving and wishing every day to return to their peacetime lives. All service is worthy of respect, but I think there is something special about the military service of those who had no love of the military, only love of the way of life that needed defending and to which they wished a rapid return.
What a lovely Veteran’s Day tribute. Thank you.
Why I read comments by nous with great attention:
One lasting effect of having read so much writing by veterans during my dissertation research is my deep and abiding respect for the citizen soldiers for whom the citizen side was strongest — the ones whose service was spent loving and wishing every day to return to their peacetime lives. All service is worthy of respect, but I think there is something special about the military service of those who had no love of the military, only love of the way of life that needed defending and to which they wished a rapid return.
What a lovely Veteran’s Day tribute. Thank you.
Marty, oh Marty…where did you go?
Marty, oh Marty…where did you go?
Careful, bobbyp. Campos’s post ends with “This should not be tolerated.” That sentiment isn’t tolerated well by many here.
McKinney: So, going forward, and when time permits, I’ll address policy issues, e.g. medicare for all.
Someone may earlier have provided this link, but I’ll do it again in case not.
As I’ve mentioned, “Medicare for All” isn’t on my must-do checklist. I am fine with Obamacare, especially with Medicaid expansion, although a public option should be made available along with other improvements and tweaks. Unfortunately Obamacare’s flaws were never going to be solved by any bipartisan effort in Congress, and that’s not because of intolerant people like me.
In any case, the old system of private health care only didn’t work for most people, but that’s what R’s apparently want to return to.
Elizabeth Warren has put her cards on the table, and made her work available for scrutiny and discussion. That, in itself, shows leadership and character, and makes discussion possible.
I appreciate that McKinney has thoughtful views about Trump’s malfeasance, and that he is honest about the impeachment argument. But Trump has been enabled by politicians and citizens who either support him, or unwilling to recognize the binary nature of our political system which requires actively supporting the other side. We’re a democracy, and the people who support Trump’s malfeasance (even if only by not opposing him enough) are part of the problem.
If that makes me a one-noter, sorry about that! It’s important to me that we recognize what’s happening, and how to fix it. When people base their arguments on lies, misinformation, conspiracy theories and whataboutism, I don’t take their arguments seriously. Sorry again!
Careful, bobbyp. Campos’s post ends with “This should not be tolerated.” That sentiment isn’t tolerated well by many here.
McKinney: So, going forward, and when time permits, I’ll address policy issues, e.g. medicare for all.
Someone may earlier have provided this link, but I’ll do it again in case not.
As I’ve mentioned, “Medicare for All” isn’t on my must-do checklist. I am fine with Obamacare, especially with Medicaid expansion, although a public option should be made available along with other improvements and tweaks. Unfortunately Obamacare’s flaws were never going to be solved by any bipartisan effort in Congress, and that’s not because of intolerant people like me.
In any case, the old system of private health care only didn’t work for most people, but that’s what R’s apparently want to return to.
Elizabeth Warren has put her cards on the table, and made her work available for scrutiny and discussion. That, in itself, shows leadership and character, and makes discussion possible.
I appreciate that McKinney has thoughtful views about Trump’s malfeasance, and that he is honest about the impeachment argument. But Trump has been enabled by politicians and citizens who either support him, or unwilling to recognize the binary nature of our political system which requires actively supporting the other side. We’re a democracy, and the people who support Trump’s malfeasance (even if only by not opposing him enough) are part of the problem.
If that makes me a one-noter, sorry about that! It’s important to me that we recognize what’s happening, and how to fix it. When people base their arguments on lies, misinformation, conspiracy theories and whataboutism, I don’t take their arguments seriously. Sorry again!
Marty, oh Marty…where did you go?
whew. the GOP sure ain’t what it used to claim to be.
they’re having a panic attack over the fact that the crook they hired has been discovered being crooked.
Marty, oh Marty…where did you go?
whew. the GOP sure ain’t what it used to claim to be.
they’re having a panic attack over the fact that the crook they hired has been discovered being crooked.
Nigel, that article on Justice Kagen was really interesting. Thanks.
Seconded.
Nigel, that article on Justice Kagen was really interesting. Thanks.
Seconded.
Thirded.
Thirded.
“This should not be tolerated”
It is tolerated by the malign “things” who will nominate and push through Calabresi’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That this sickening “scholar” enabler, indeed, champion of autocracy and fascism issues claptrap like this with numerous misspellings and typos merely endears him to the metastasizing malignancy of the republican base as an authentic one of them.
“This should not be tolerated”
It is tolerated by the malign “things” who will nominate and push through Calabresi’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.
That this sickening “scholar” enabler, indeed, champion of autocracy and fascism issues claptrap like this with numerous misspellings and typos merely endears him to the metastasizing malignancy of the republican base as an authentic one of them.
OP: today, the planet Mercury passed across the face of the Sun. The advancing perihelion of Mercury (13 arc-seconds/century!) being one of the post-dictions of GR. It wasn’t initially a big deal, because it non GR effects (perturbations from Venus, solar oblateness) greatly complicate what the answer “should be”.
Starlight and Gravity, all in one spot.
Unfortunately, I missed it. Somewhat cloudy and seriously busy. Oh well, I caught one, some years back, plus both transits of Venus, which is far far more rare.
OP: today, the planet Mercury passed across the face of the Sun. The advancing perihelion of Mercury (13 arc-seconds/century!) being one of the post-dictions of GR. It wasn’t initially a big deal, because it non GR effects (perturbations from Venus, solar oblateness) greatly complicate what the answer “should be”.
Starlight and Gravity, all in one spot.
Unfortunately, I missed it. Somewhat cloudy and seriously busy. Oh well, I caught one, some years back, plus both transits of Venus, which is far far more rare.
I’m not sure exactly how to respond…
It’s good to talk to people one disagrees with. One can get new information, or new understanding of the different priorities which cause them to reach conclusions different from yours.
But tribal chanting: “any Republican is better than any Democrat” offers none of that. Please tell us what it is in your experience, or your world view, which makes you think that a lying, corrupt, self-serving, ignorant, bullying narcissist like Trump is preferable to Obama, who, ordinary political dissimulation aside, is none of those things.
Or you could just accept my invitation.
I’m not sure exactly how to respond…
It’s good to talk to people one disagrees with. One can get new information, or new understanding of the different priorities which cause them to reach conclusions different from yours.
But tribal chanting: “any Republican is better than any Democrat” offers none of that. Please tell us what it is in your experience, or your world view, which makes you think that a lying, corrupt, self-serving, ignorant, bullying narcissist like Trump is preferable to Obama, who, ordinary political dissimulation aside, is none of those things.
Or you could just accept my invitation.
Pro Bono, That specific question is answerable but not with the time at hand. So, unsatisfactorily, the answer comes down to, for 50 years and continuing today the Democratic party has supported and implemented as they could a complete distortion of a safety net. The result of their picies is unfettered illegal immigration, failed education systems, a divided country on every possible axis,( age, sex, color, sexual preference,religion) because every person they convince that they are the “other” becomes a potential Democrat. This was expanded in the last 15 years or so to defining everyone as the other except old white men. They prey on fear and hate to convince people that the GOP is evil.
Now, in some of those contexts the GOP is wrong, particularly anything that has to do with sex, but the expansion of wrong to evildoers is also and more wrong.
The constant drive to change the constitutional protections for small state voters is frightening. Literally frightening.
Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie. Trump is a street thug and a numbers runner. That difference is meaningful, but doesnt change the policy differences.
Pro Bono, That specific question is answerable but not with the time at hand. So, unsatisfactorily, the answer comes down to, for 50 years and continuing today the Democratic party has supported and implemented as they could a complete distortion of a safety net. The result of their picies is unfettered illegal immigration, failed education systems, a divided country on every possible axis,( age, sex, color, sexual preference,religion) because every person they convince that they are the “other” becomes a potential Democrat. This was expanded in the last 15 years or so to defining everyone as the other except old white men. They prey on fear and hate to convince people that the GOP is evil.
Now, in some of those contexts the GOP is wrong, particularly anything that has to do with sex, but the expansion of wrong to evildoers is also and more wrong.
The constant drive to change the constitutional protections for small state voters is frightening. Literally frightening.
Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie. Trump is a street thug and a numbers runner. That difference is meaningful, but doesnt change the policy differences.
Marty, what makes you say Obama was a grifter, long con or otherwise? What was his grift?
Marty, what makes you say Obama was a grifter, long con or otherwise? What was his grift?
Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie.
[citation required]
Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie.
[citation required]
I think we have established, at some length, that Trump has used the office of the Presidency in several different ways for personal gain, so it would not be ridiculous to label him a grifter.
(That he labelled the emoluments clause of the constitution “phony” suggests that he doesn’t have much of a defence to the charge.)
What was Obama’s ‘grift’ ?
I think we have established, at some length, that Trump has used the office of the Presidency in several different ways for personal gain, so it would not be ridiculous to label him a grifter.
(That he labelled the emoluments clause of the constitution “phony” suggests that he doesn’t have much of a defence to the charge.)
What was Obama’s ‘grift’ ?
Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie.
Apparently, this is just standard, acceptable discourse from someone who is just misguided (but persuadable!)?
That specific question is answerable but not with the time at hand.
Never enough time to come up with facts.
Literally frightening.
’nuff quoted (in my monotone).
Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie.
Apparently, this is just standard, acceptable discourse from someone who is just misguided (but persuadable!)?
That specific question is answerable but not with the time at hand.
Never enough time to come up with facts.
Literally frightening.
’nuff quoted (in my monotone).
Kevin Drum finally drinks the kool-aid.
Good on him. Know your enemy.
Kevin Drum finally drinks the kool-aid.
Good on him. Know your enemy.
In the news:
“A new draft of the Environmental Protection Agency proposal, titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, would require that scientists disclose all of their raw data, including confidential medical records, before the agency could consider an academic study’s conclusions”.
Misguided.
In the news:
“A new draft of the Environmental Protection Agency proposal, titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, would require that scientists disclose all of their raw data, including confidential medical records, before the agency could consider an academic study’s conclusions”.
Misguided.
Oh but sapient, consider how amusing it would be to shred the climate change deniers raw “data.” Could end up a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”
Oh but sapient, consider how amusing it would be to shred the climate change deniers raw “data.” Could end up a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”
An elegy on this thread….
https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/12/13/i-dont-grieve-over-his-cruelty-i-grieve-over-yours/?fbclid=IwAR2f9x6GQ9O-3yFyh-NTadOIyqSO7ktosCFjCS4hlsRoCkea6qYUs_WYq_k
An elegy on this thread….
https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/12/13/i-dont-grieve-over-his-cruelty-i-grieve-over-yours/?fbclid=IwAR2f9x6GQ9O-3yFyh-NTadOIyqSO7ktosCFjCS4hlsRoCkea6qYUs_WYq_k
If Tulsi Gabbard did run as a third-party candidate, it’s not clear to me who that would hurt more – Rump or the Dem nominee. Whose votes would she be taking?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-tulsi-gabbards-base/
Also, too, from 538, both support and non-support of impeachment jumped in recent polling, which I can only assume means some of the previously undecided have decided.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
If Tulsi Gabbard did run as a third-party candidate, it’s not clear to me who that would hurt more – Rump or the Dem nominee. Whose votes would she be taking?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-tulsi-gabbards-base/
Also, too, from 538, both support and non-support of impeachment jumped in recent polling, which I can only assume means some of the previously undecided have decided.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo
bobbyp’s link more or less is where I am.
bobbyp’s link more or less is where I am.
Could end up a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”
Not sure how you manage to keep on the sunny side so spectacularly, wj.
bobbyp’s link more or less is where I am
Yep, it’s a good piece.
Could end up a classic case of “be careful what you wish for.”
Not sure how you manage to keep on the sunny side so spectacularly, wj.
bobbyp’s link more or less is where I am
Yep, it’s a good piece.
Marty, lest we forget the late, great (or great-ish despite much wrongheadedness) Christopher Hitchens:
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Marty, lest we forget the late, great (or great-ish despite much wrongheadedness) Christopher Hitchens:
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Not sure how you manage to keep on the sunny side so spectacularly, wj.
Brute force. It’s the only way I’ve found to avoid sinking into dispair. (Other suggestions more than welcome.)
In some ways, it’s like venture capital investing. You make a bunch of bets against the odds. In the hopes that a handful of big successes will outweigh all the misses.
Not sure how you manage to keep on the sunny side so spectacularly, wj.
Brute force. It’s the only way I’ve found to avoid sinking into dispair. (Other suggestions more than welcome.)
In some ways, it’s like venture capital investing. You make a bunch of bets against the odds. In the hopes that a handful of big successes will outweigh all the misses.
GftNC, surely that’s true. Which is the very core of my criticism if all the testimony so far. Lots if asserting, lots of we felt uncomfortable no factual evidence that a quid pro quo was presented.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Thus people who want to impeach Trump get to make it up.
There is a pretty high volume of “There is only one way to view this” with no facts to support that.
GftNC, surely that’s true. Which is the very core of my criticism if all the testimony so far. Lots if asserting, lots of we felt uncomfortable no factual evidence that a quid pro quo was presented.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Thus people who want to impeach Trump get to make it up.
There is a pretty high volume of “There is only one way to view this” with no facts to support that.
But what is your evidence for accusing Obama of grift?
But what is your evidence for accusing Obama of grift?
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
For one thing, why request a public announcement if it wasn’t political? How would publicly announcing the investigation make it more effective? The subject and timing of the announcement request (demand?) point strongly to a political motive.
There is a pretty high volume of “There is only one way to view this” with no facts to support that.
I’d say there are plenty of facts that point to a most-likely-correct way to view it.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
For one thing, why request a public announcement if it wasn’t political? How would publicly announcing the investigation make it more effective? The subject and timing of the announcement request (demand?) point strongly to a political motive.
There is a pretty high volume of “There is only one way to view this” with no facts to support that.
I’d say there are plenty of facts that point to a most-likely-correct way to view it.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Asking a foreign government to investigate (or actually, just announce that it is going to investigate) your main, American rival is illegal under American law, if I understand it correctly. And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Asking a foreign government to investigate (or actually, just announce that it is going to investigate) your main, American rival is illegal under American law, if I understand it correctly. And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Asking a foreign government to investigate (or actually, just announce that it is going to investigate) your main, American rival is illegal under American law, if I understand it correctly. And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Asking a foreign government to investigate (or actually, just announce that it is going to investigate) your main, American rival is illegal under American law, if I understand it correctly. And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.
But most of all, what is your evidence for accusing Obama of grift? Because his reputation in the rest of the world, even among people who have no reason to love him or protect his reputation, is of an almost painfully correct and careful president.
But most of all, what is your evidence for accusing Obama of grift? Because his reputation in the rest of the world, even among people who have no reason to love him or protect his reputation, is of an almost painfully correct and careful president.
“doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity”
Ah, yes, the full majesty of the LAW being upheld by the numbers-running street thug you want impeached, but merely for his incontinent tweeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLDI7Gb2FrY
Fluffing like that calls for some lip balm.
Lindsay Graham et al have a lifetime supply for when you run out.
“doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity”
Ah, yes, the full majesty of the LAW being upheld by the numbers-running street thug you want impeached, but merely for his incontinent tweeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLDI7Gb2FrY
Fluffing like that calls for some lip balm.
Lindsay Graham et al have a lifetime supply for when you run out.
“misguided”
Don’t go soft on on us now, sapient.
The proposed EPA “rule” (of lawlessness) is like Agatha Christie advocating for the efficacy of arsenic in eliminating one’s opponents in the game of Clue, or the city fathers of Athens arguing that a little hemlock poured in the ear of its citizens, like Socrates, can improve their selective hearing while, of course, silencing their voices.
The GOP is a mass murderer that enlists law enforcement in its deeds.
“misguided”
Don’t go soft on on us now, sapient.
The proposed EPA “rule” (of lawlessness) is like Agatha Christie advocating for the efficacy of arsenic in eliminating one’s opponents in the game of Clue, or the city fathers of Athens arguing that a little hemlock poured in the ear of its citizens, like Socrates, can improve their selective hearing while, of course, silencing their voices.
The GOP is a mass murderer that enlists law enforcement in its deeds.
“misguided”
Don’t go soft on on us now, sapient.
The proposed EPA “rule” (of lawlessness) is like Agatha Christie advocating for the efficacy of arsenic in eliminating one’s opponents in the game of Clue, or the city fathers of Athens arguing that a little hemlock poured in the ear of its citizens, like Socrates, can improve their selective hearing while, of course, silencing their voices.
The GOP is a mass murderer that enlists law enforcement in its deeds.
“misguided”
Don’t go soft on on us now, sapient.
The proposed EPA “rule” (of lawlessness) is like Agatha Christie advocating for the efficacy of arsenic in eliminating one’s opponents in the game of Clue, or the city fathers of Athens arguing that a little hemlock poured in the ear of its citizens, like Socrates, can improve their selective hearing while, of course, silencing their voices.
The GOP is a mass murderer that enlists law enforcement in its deeds.
Posting here is like starring in a DoubleMint commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKWEYzj79S0
Posting here is like starring in a DoubleMint commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKWEYzj79S0
no factual evidence that a quid pro quo was presented.
you have to be blind.
no factual evidence that a quid pro quo was presented.
you have to be blind.
Does she or doesn’t she?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nikki-haley-today-show-interview-impeachment-inquiry
Keep the spittoon handy.
Does she or doesn’t she?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nikki-haley-today-show-interview-impeachment-inquiry
Keep the spittoon handy.
no factual evidence that a quid pro quo was presented.
fact: multiple people who were personally involved in the back and forth of demanding it (both in and out of the official government channels) say there was.
fact: Trump’s own words. the transcript is perfectly clear about what’s going on. and when you add in what we know about the weeks of discussions before the call, there is no innocent way to read that transcript.
fact: the WH has said there was, multiple times. then they either say “but that’s how things work!” or “wait, i really meant to say the opposite of that.”
no factual evidence that a quid pro quo was presented.
fact: multiple people who were personally involved in the back and forth of demanding it (both in and out of the official government channels) say there was.
fact: Trump’s own words. the transcript is perfectly clear about what’s going on. and when you add in what we know about the weeks of discussions before the call, there is no innocent way to read that transcript.
fact: the WH has said there was, multiple times. then they either say “but that’s how things work!” or “wait, i really meant to say the opposite of that.”
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Thus people who want to impeach Trump get to make it up.
Some basic information that may be of use.
Impeachment is not about criminal activity. It is about abuse of power and corrupt behavior in office.
The grounds for impeachment in the Constitution are treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a term of art, in common usage in English common law since about the 14th C. It refers to abuse of office and/or corrupt behavior by a person in a position of public responsibility.
The authors of the Constitution were surely aware of that when they included those words in the Constitution. Especially since, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no US code, no federal law of any kind.
Impeachment is a specifically political remedy, not a criminal one, and in fact criminal liability is specifically excluded from the consequences of impeachment. All that it is allowed to accomplish is removal from office.
Criminal activity is not a necessary basis for impeachment. Abuse of power and/or corrupt behavior in office are. The basis for impeachment is not a matter of criminal law, it is a matter of Constitutional process – separation of powers and mutual accountability between the branches of government. It is, inherently, a political act.
The consequence of all of this is that it doesn’t much matter if Trump broke a law as far as impeachment goes. If that was the bar, he’d be out by now, for things like failure to pay taxes, illegally using funds raised for charitable purposes to pay for his own legal fees and buy great big pictures of himself to hang in his golf clubs, paying off porn star girlfriends to keep them quiet during election season, etc etc etc.
All of that is against the law, and none of it has been cited as the basis for impeachment.
What matters for purposes of impeachment is whether he abused the power of his office for corrupt ends.
A credible report was made that he did so, and that report has been corroborated by a number of witnesses, all of whom are also credible.
So it will land wherever it lands.
What I predict is that the House will bring articles of impeachment, and the Senate will vote to keep Trump in office.
And then we’ll all go on from there.
Thus also no facts that the reason was political rather than simply doing the job of investigating possible criminal activity.
Thus people who want to impeach Trump get to make it up.
Some basic information that may be of use.
Impeachment is not about criminal activity. It is about abuse of power and corrupt behavior in office.
The grounds for impeachment in the Constitution are treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a term of art, in common usage in English common law since about the 14th C. It refers to abuse of office and/or corrupt behavior by a person in a position of public responsibility.
The authors of the Constitution were surely aware of that when they included those words in the Constitution. Especially since, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no US code, no federal law of any kind.
Impeachment is a specifically political remedy, not a criminal one, and in fact criminal liability is specifically excluded from the consequences of impeachment. All that it is allowed to accomplish is removal from office.
Criminal activity is not a necessary basis for impeachment. Abuse of power and/or corrupt behavior in office are. The basis for impeachment is not a matter of criminal law, it is a matter of Constitutional process – separation of powers and mutual accountability between the branches of government. It is, inherently, a political act.
The consequence of all of this is that it doesn’t much matter if Trump broke a law as far as impeachment goes. If that was the bar, he’d be out by now, for things like failure to pay taxes, illegally using funds raised for charitable purposes to pay for his own legal fees and buy great big pictures of himself to hang in his golf clubs, paying off porn star girlfriends to keep them quiet during election season, etc etc etc.
All of that is against the law, and none of it has been cited as the basis for impeachment.
What matters for purposes of impeachment is whether he abused the power of his office for corrupt ends.
A credible report was made that he did so, and that report has been corroborated by a number of witnesses, all of whom are also credible.
So it will land wherever it lands.
What I predict is that the House will bring articles of impeachment, and the Senate will vote to keep Trump in office.
And then we’ll all go on from there.
Brazil’s trumpian, republican, conservative EPA under Bolsonaro:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/blood-gold-in-the-brazilian-rain-forest
Bolsanaro will be slaughtered and butchered, as a preview for his confederates around the globe.
Brazil’s trumpian, republican, conservative EPA under Bolsonaro:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/blood-gold-in-the-brazilian-rain-forest
Bolsanaro will be slaughtered and butchered, as a preview for his confederates around the globe.
“And then we’ll all go (to Hell) on from there.”
Even Russell requires an editor.
“And then we’ll all go (to Hell) on from there.”
Even Russell requires an editor.
And then we’ll all go (to Hell) on from there.
So be it.
And then we’ll all go (to Hell) on from there.
So be it.
the Wingnut Wurlitzer has been amazingly successful in teaching ‘conservatives’ a lot of incorrect things about the Constitution in the past few weeks.
as always: The Onion.
the Wingnut Wurlitzer has been amazingly successful in teaching ‘conservatives’ a lot of incorrect things about the Constitution in the past few weeks.
as always: The Onion.
Ah yes, abuse of power not illegality (although possibly illegal too). But, for the purposes of impeachment: abuse of power. Sorry.
Ah yes, abuse of power not illegality (although possibly illegal too). But, for the purposes of impeachment: abuse of power. Sorry.
I remember that brilliant Onion piece. It’s a masterpiece of theoretical journalism.
Mortensen’s passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered.
***
Mortensen told reporters that he’ll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be.
I remember that brilliant Onion piece. It’s a masterpiece of theoretical journalism.
Mortensen’s passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered.
***
Mortensen told reporters that he’ll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be.
it’s so so good.
it’s so so good.
According to sources who have read the nation’s charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments
There you go again, injecting facts into the discussion. The only recourse is the Lindsay Graham defense: close eyes and refuse to look, lest a closed mind be (inconveniently) changed.
/sarcasm
According to sources who have read the nation’s charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments
There you go again, injecting facts into the discussion. The only recourse is the Lindsay Graham defense: close eyes and refuse to look, lest a closed mind be (inconveniently) changed.
/sarcasm
Dear Marty,
I’m an older white dude living in the state that all the small red states point to as the Reason To Fear. I live in a county that used to be steadily red, but has since turned blue – in part because while whites are still the largest demographic group, we are outnumbered by our Asians and Latinx neighbors. I teach at a campus with an interest in diversity in hiring and with a student body that is even more demographically diverse than is the general population of the county.
I am at ground zero for the sort of demographic plight you most fear.
It’s a pretty nice place to be.
It will be even nicer if we can reduce the terrible inequality between the rich and the poor and fix some of our housing problems.
Come on by some time. You can hang with the white frat boy Trump supporters in front of the library and troll the DREAMers. And when you get tired of that you can go buy Bulgogi and Boba and Empanadas from one of the student groups in the booth next to the trolls and watch Hillel and the MSU demonstrate against each other.
Then you can go home and have nightmares about the death of the US.
Dear Marty,
I’m an older white dude living in the state that all the small red states point to as the Reason To Fear. I live in a county that used to be steadily red, but has since turned blue – in part because while whites are still the largest demographic group, we are outnumbered by our Asians and Latinx neighbors. I teach at a campus with an interest in diversity in hiring and with a student body that is even more demographically diverse than is the general population of the county.
I am at ground zero for the sort of demographic plight you most fear.
It’s a pretty nice place to be.
It will be even nicer if we can reduce the terrible inequality between the rich and the poor and fix some of our housing problems.
Come on by some time. You can hang with the white frat boy Trump supporters in front of the library and troll the DREAMers. And when you get tired of that you can go buy Bulgogi and Boba and Empanadas from one of the student groups in the booth next to the trolls and watch Hillel and the MSU demonstrate against each other.
Then you can go home and have nightmares about the death of the US.
Vox makes a pretty good case that there wasn’t a QPQ, there were two QPQs.
Vox makes a pretty good case that there wasn’t a QPQ, there were two QPQs.
That’s cool nous, not sure what state that is. But when you get a Senator out of 250 and your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President call me then. I dont care what the make up of the population is, people dont want to live like they are in a megalopolis. Or maybe no one will care, but I will be dead. Until then its frightening. Go to the Berkshires and ask what they think of state government favoring Boston.
That’s cool nous, not sure what state that is. But when you get a Senator out of 250 and your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President call me then. I dont care what the make up of the population is, people dont want to live like they are in a megalopolis. Or maybe no one will care, but I will be dead. Until then its frightening. Go to the Berkshires and ask what they think of state government favoring Boston.
Less than 13 million people live in NYC and LA combined. The population of the US is over 325 million. You’re being silly, Marty. And what likelihood do you think there is that the EC is going away?
Less than 13 million people live in NYC and LA combined. The population of the US is over 325 million. You’re being silly, Marty. And what likelihood do you think there is that the EC is going away?
In the Marty version of “justifiable” impeachment, even the Nixon tapes weren’t enough to warrant Senate conviction and removal from office, and all those eyewitnesses? Poof. They can be ignored.
Therefore Goldwater made a big mistake when he told that thug, “You don’t have a chance, Dickie.”
They bluffed him out of office.
In the Marty version of “justifiable” impeachment, even the Nixon tapes weren’t enough to warrant Senate conviction and removal from office, and all those eyewitnesses? Poof. They can be ignored.
Therefore Goldwater made a big mistake when he told that thug, “You don’t have a chance, Dickie.”
They bluffed him out of office.
plus, US v Nixon was wrong!
no, wait. that was Justice I LikeBeer
plus, US v Nixon was wrong!
no, wait. that was Justice I LikeBeer
Marty, there are 100 Senators. And every state gets 2.
Maybe I’m missing your point.
Marty, there are 100 Senators. And every state gets 2.
Maybe I’m missing your point.
If there were enough House members to vote to impeach, and enough Senators to vote to convict, then they could throw the prick out of the white house just because they all shared the opinion that he is a piece of shit.
This would be CONSTITUTIONAL.
They might pay a terrible political price, but that, too, is allowed.
Truly amazing that Rethuglicans seem to lack basic reading skills.
If there were enough House members to vote to impeach, and enough Senators to vote to convict, then they could throw the prick out of the white house just because they all shared the opinion that he is a piece of shit.
This would be CONSTITUTIONAL.
They might pay a terrible political price, but that, too, is allowed.
Truly amazing that Rethuglicans seem to lack basic reading skills.
your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President
Just FYI, LA doesn’t even pick California’s governor or senators. (Which is why all 3 are from San Francisco, not LA. Even though, at least for the 2 who weren’t incumbents last time, their opponents were from LA.) Amazingly enough, California voters seem to select on the basis of what the candidate says, not where they are from. I say this as someone who lives near San Francisco (not in it; rather few people actually do) and who tends to disagree with the politics of all three.
So your concerns about who will pick the President seem . . . overblown. Still, if it worries you, you could push for the straight national-popular-vote approach to electing the President. Not that it, either, would reliably select the candidate that you or I might prefer. Democracy works that way sometimes.
your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President
Just FYI, LA doesn’t even pick California’s governor or senators. (Which is why all 3 are from San Francisco, not LA. Even though, at least for the 2 who weren’t incumbents last time, their opponents were from LA.) Amazingly enough, California voters seem to select on the basis of what the candidate says, not where they are from. I say this as someone who lives near San Francisco (not in it; rather few people actually do) and who tends to disagree with the politics of all three.
So your concerns about who will pick the President seem . . . overblown. Still, if it worries you, you could push for the straight national-popular-vote approach to electing the President. Not that it, either, would reliably select the candidate that you or I might prefer. Democracy works that way sometimes.
your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President
actually the EC picks the President. and you lurve the EC.
your votes count nothing because NYC and LA pick the President
actually the EC picks the President. and you lurve the EC.
I’m also an old white dude. I live near, not a megalopolis, but a sort of medium-opolis. My state has 11 electors, and it’s next to a state with 4.
Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, the state with 4 electors gets an enormous level of attention at election time, because it’s an early primary state, and is also kind of a toss-up electorally.
My state is basically ignored, because Everybody Knows It’s Gonna Go (D).
If I was a (R) in my state – of whom there a respectable number – I’d be annoyed, because I might as well stay home. My vote would not count for a damned thing.
We’re talking a bit over a million people, in MA, in 2016, who voted for Trump. They might as well have just stayed home, their votes counted for nothing.
In any case, fear not, nobody is gonna make people in WY or ID ride the subway or eat deli sandwiches. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but the whole “making everyone live in a megalopolis” thing just seems wildly – and I do mean wildly – out of proportion to reality.
I’m also an old white dude. I live near, not a megalopolis, but a sort of medium-opolis. My state has 11 electors, and it’s next to a state with 4.
Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, the state with 4 electors gets an enormous level of attention at election time, because it’s an early primary state, and is also kind of a toss-up electorally.
My state is basically ignored, because Everybody Knows It’s Gonna Go (D).
If I was a (R) in my state – of whom there a respectable number – I’d be annoyed, because I might as well stay home. My vote would not count for a damned thing.
We’re talking a bit over a million people, in MA, in 2016, who voted for Trump. They might as well have just stayed home, their votes counted for nothing.
In any case, fear not, nobody is gonna make people in WY or ID ride the subway or eat deli sandwiches. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but the whole “making everyone live in a megalopolis” thing just seems wildly – and I do mean wildly – out of proportion to reality.
Until then its frightening. Go to the Berkshires and ask what they think of state government favoring Boston.
But of course going into a predominantly African American urban neighborhood and asking those citizens what they think about assholes in the Berkshires having absolute political veto over things would be entirely inappropriate!
Good to know.
Until then its frightening. Go to the Berkshires and ask what they think of state government favoring Boston.
But of course going into a predominantly African American urban neighborhood and asking those citizens what they think about assholes in the Berkshires having absolute political veto over things would be entirely inappropriate!
Good to know.
And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.
Let’s call it unlawful. The executive branch is generally required to spend the money appropriated by Congress (Impoundment Control Act of 1974, plus subsequent court cases). If the President wants to not spend particular funds, he must ask and get approval by both houses of Congress within 45 days. It’s a positive approval thing: if Congress takes no action, that’s a no.
From memory, so possibly wrong in some details… In the case of the aid for Ukraine, there were conditions that Ukraine had to meet that had been set by Congress. The DoD, who was responsible, had certified that the conditions were met well before the phone call. Pentagon staff had already raised the question, “Why haven’t the funds been released?” before the phone stuff.
One question that comes up is timing. For example, if the Treasury waits until the last day of the fiscal year to release the funds, is that a violation of the Impoundment Act? My inclination would be to say yes, but so far as I know it’s never been litigated.
And withholding military aid that has been authorised by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, is also (I believe) illegal.
Let’s call it unlawful. The executive branch is generally required to spend the money appropriated by Congress (Impoundment Control Act of 1974, plus subsequent court cases). If the President wants to not spend particular funds, he must ask and get approval by both houses of Congress within 45 days. It’s a positive approval thing: if Congress takes no action, that’s a no.
From memory, so possibly wrong in some details… In the case of the aid for Ukraine, there were conditions that Ukraine had to meet that had been set by Congress. The DoD, who was responsible, had certified that the conditions were met well before the phone call. Pentagon staff had already raised the question, “Why haven’t the funds been released?” before the phone stuff.
One question that comes up is timing. For example, if the Treasury waits until the last day of the fiscal year to release the funds, is that a violation of the Impoundment Act? My inclination would be to say yes, but so far as I know it’s never been litigated.
For all the demands from the White House that the whistleblower testify (in person and identified, in violation of the applicable whistleblower laws), it seems that
Apparently a flagrant enough violation that even in McConnell’s Senate nobody objected.
For all the demands from the White House that the whistleblower testify (in person and identified, in violation of the applicable whistleblower laws), it seems that
Apparently a flagrant enough violation that even in McConnell’s Senate nobody objected.
FWIW – folks in the Berkshires are not the ones who are generally bent out of shape about Boston. The folks they hate are the NY’ers who invade every summer for Tanglewood and Jacob’s Pillow and Williamstown. They like the money, but don’t like the attitude.
The folks who hate Boston are more in the middle of the state – Worcester county, probably Hampden and the hill towns up in Franklin.
Hampshire county is kind of in the same geographic area, but they have their own thing going on with Northhampton and the colleges, so Boston doesn’t really register with them quite as much.
Folks on the Cape – i.e., the real folks on the Cape, the ones who live there year round – also pretty much hate Boston. For about five months out of the year, they have to put up with annoying tourist traffic. It can take all day to go across town to buy a gallon of milk.
FWIW, 80% of the population in MA lives in metro Boston, so there’s that, too.
Nevertheless, we find ways to work it out.
FWIW – folks in the Berkshires are not the ones who are generally bent out of shape about Boston. The folks they hate are the NY’ers who invade every summer for Tanglewood and Jacob’s Pillow and Williamstown. They like the money, but don’t like the attitude.
The folks who hate Boston are more in the middle of the state – Worcester county, probably Hampden and the hill towns up in Franklin.
Hampshire county is kind of in the same geographic area, but they have their own thing going on with Northhampton and the colleges, so Boston doesn’t really register with them quite as much.
Folks on the Cape – i.e., the real folks on the Cape, the ones who live there year round – also pretty much hate Boston. For about five months out of the year, they have to put up with annoying tourist traffic. It can take all day to go across town to buy a gallon of milk.
FWIW, 80% of the population in MA lives in metro Boston, so there’s that, too.
Nevertheless, we find ways to work it out.
because NYC and LA pick the President call me then. I dont care what the make up of the population is, people dont want to live like they are in a megalopolis. Or maybe no one will care, but I will be dead. Until then its frightening.
My bold.
Obviously I am speaking from a personal history and current-day context that makes “megalopolis” something less than a frightening concept.
That said, the sentiment Marty shares here just puzzles the hell out of me.
What exactly do you think is going to happen to people in smaller states that is so “frightening”? Really, what?
Because I don’t get it. And when I say “I don’t get it”, what I mean is, it strikes me as divorced from reality.
Nobody is coming to get you.
because NYC and LA pick the President call me then. I dont care what the make up of the population is, people dont want to live like they are in a megalopolis. Or maybe no one will care, but I will be dead. Until then its frightening.
My bold.
Obviously I am speaking from a personal history and current-day context that makes “megalopolis” something less than a frightening concept.
That said, the sentiment Marty shares here just puzzles the hell out of me.
What exactly do you think is going to happen to people in smaller states that is so “frightening”? Really, what?
Because I don’t get it. And when I say “I don’t get it”, what I mean is, it strikes me as divorced from reality.
Nobody is coming to get you.
We talk about the undemocratic nature of the EC on a blog and muse about getting rid of it. That’s frightening. Run to the hills!
We talk about the undemocratic nature of the EC on a blog and muse about getting rid of it. That’s frightening. Run to the hills!
No, really. I want to understand what Marty (or whoever) is afraid of.
Let’s say the EC goes away. Not gonna happen, but let’s just play it out as a mental exercise.
What happens to people living in small states? How do their lives change? What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?
I don’t get it.
No, really. I want to understand what Marty (or whoever) is afraid of.
Let’s say the EC goes away. Not gonna happen, but let’s just play it out as a mental exercise.
What happens to people living in small states? How do their lives change? What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?
I don’t get it.
And the reason I want to know is because, if this is the thinking that is keeping a guy like Trump in office, I want to understand it so I can perhaps put “People Like Marty” at ease.
I have no interest in changing anybody’s life in small states. Certainly not in any way that I can imagine will be consequential to them, at all.
What is the threat here? I want to know, because as far as I can tell this sense of impending doom is FUBARing this country.
And the reason I want to know is because, if this is the thinking that is keeping a guy like Trump in office, I want to understand it so I can perhaps put “People Like Marty” at ease.
I have no interest in changing anybody’s life in small states. Certainly not in any way that I can imagine will be consequential to them, at all.
What is the threat here? I want to know, because as far as I can tell this sense of impending doom is FUBARing this country.
if the EC goes away, two elections in the last 120 years would have gone the other way. two!
massive upheaval. massive. so much change.
if the EC goes away, two elections in the last 120 years would have gone the other way. two!
massive upheaval. massive. so much change.
They sure make it easy for evil Democrats to convince people that they are being “othered.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/12/trump-adviser-stephen-miller-white-nationalist-agenda-breitbart
They sure make it easy for evil Democrats to convince people that they are being “othered.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/12/trump-adviser-stephen-miller-white-nationalist-agenda-breitbart
the GOP budget hawks have a fresh and brilliant idea about how to
buy a bunch of votessolve the deficit: lower ‘middle class’ tax rate to 15%.drowning the govt in a bathtun is right out. new plan is to suffocate the government in debt and bought votes.
the GOP budget hawks have a fresh and brilliant idea about how to
buy a bunch of votessolve the deficit: lower ‘middle class’ tax rate to 15%.drowning the govt in a bathtun is right out. new plan is to suffocate the government in debt and bought votes.
yes, bathtun. i have one at my house. i bathe in wine.
don’t you?
yes, bathtun. i have one at my house. i bathe in wine.
don’t you?
Wasn’t your nickname in college “Tuns o’ Fun”?
Wasn’t your nickname in college “Tuns o’ Fun”?
What I find significant in all of this is that while Marty is, to all evidence here, an individually decent human being, his voting priorities and his fears (also as evidenced here) align quite neatly with those of the White Supremacists.
I guess Trump is just good at threading the needle of white resentment.
What I find significant in all of this is that while Marty is, to all evidence here, an individually decent human being, his voting priorities and his fears (also as evidenced here) align quite neatly with those of the White Supremacists.
I guess Trump is just good at threading the needle of white resentment.
What happens to people living in small states? How do their lives change? What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?
A few weeks ago I visited some in-laws in rural Kansas. Mostly the things they were complaining about were regulations. To pick an example I heard multiple times… California drives national emissions standards just by the size of the markets there. To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability. There is a thriving underground market in replacement ROMs for the ECMs on tractors, harvesters, and farm trucks. Not just physically swapping them, but also reverse-engineering to figure out the code/data and how to change it. Swapping the ROMs is illegal; reverse-engineering is a felony DMCA IP violation.
What happens to people living in small states? How do their lives change? What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?
A few weeks ago I visited some in-laws in rural Kansas. Mostly the things they were complaining about were regulations. To pick an example I heard multiple times… California drives national emissions standards just by the size of the markets there. To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability. There is a thriving underground market in replacement ROMs for the ECMs on tractors, harvesters, and farm trucks. Not just physically swapping them, but also reverse-engineering to figure out the code/data and how to change it. Swapping the ROMs is illegal; reverse-engineering is a felony DMCA IP violation.
Meanwhile, of course, those same Kansans are likely unconcerned when a small elected board in Texas is driving national textbook standards…
Meanwhile, of course, those same Kansans are likely unconcerned when a small elected board in Texas is driving national textbook standards…
What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?
Omeone-say ight-may ake-tay away-way eir-thay uns-gay.
What are people living in (e.g.) NY or LA going to impose on them?
Omeone-say ight-may ake-tay away-way eir-thay uns-gay.
To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability.
And… reduces emissions from the farm equipment. Right?
So, I understand why it’s annoying. Don’t people in Kansas understand why it’s important?
And, I understand why it’s probably not something where they personally see the benefit, directly and immediately. Don’t they make the connection to the bigger picture?
Do they not recognize that everybody else also makes concessions in one way or another that benefit them (e.g., farmer in Kansas)?
To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability.
And… reduces emissions from the farm equipment. Right?
So, I understand why it’s annoying. Don’t people in Kansas understand why it’s important?
And, I understand why it’s probably not something where they personally see the benefit, directly and immediately. Don’t they make the connection to the bigger picture?
Do they not recognize that everybody else also makes concessions in one way or another that benefit them (e.g., farmer in Kansas)?
Since Marty made his grifter claim about Obama, and was asked for the evidence on it by me (several times) and some others (Nigel and cleek), he has commented three times on other matters without providing any evidence that Obama was any kind of grifter. Marty, I hope therefore you understand why nobody is able to take that accusation seriously, or indeed your complaints about lack of evidence in e.g. the impeachment enquiry.
Michael Cain: thank you for the interesting info above on a) the unlawfulness or otherwise of the withholding of the military aid to Ukraine, and b) the impact of the emissions standards on agricultural communities.
Since Marty made his grifter claim about Obama, and was asked for the evidence on it by me (several times) and some others (Nigel and cleek), he has commented three times on other matters without providing any evidence that Obama was any kind of grifter. Marty, I hope therefore you understand why nobody is able to take that accusation seriously, or indeed your complaints about lack of evidence in e.g. the impeachment enquiry.
Michael Cain: thank you for the interesting info above on a) the unlawfulness or otherwise of the withholding of the military aid to Ukraine, and b) the impact of the emissions standards on agricultural communities.
To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability.
Of course, regulations also force UP mileage. Although IIRC diesel engines get special, easier standards. Sounds like what they are asking for (whether they know it or not) is MORE regulation.
To meet those standards, farm equipment manufacturers do things with the diesel engines that reduce power, mileage, and indirectly, reliability.
Of course, regulations also force UP mileage. Although IIRC diesel engines get special, easier standards. Sounds like what they are asking for (whether they know it or not) is MORE regulation.
“The more meaningful feature of the Electoral College is its allocation of electoral votes among the states. The Electoral College mirrors the “federal ratio” of representation of Congress. The compromises that had been hammered out among the competing interests in creating Congress were just carried over to the selection of the president. This could have been done more naturally by letting Congress pick the president, but the founders worried that such a president would not be independent enough and Congress would become too tempting of a target for corruption. The Electoral College could serve as a temporary Congress.
…
The Electoral College is a creaky system that we would be unlikely to adopt if we were drafting a constitution today. But it makes a modest contribution toward moderating and nationalizing our politics, and it has the advantage of being familiar if not necessarily loved. We could do worse.”
The Electoral College Is Just OK: Somewhere south of “a work of genius”; somewhere north of “a disaster for our democracy.”
“The more meaningful feature of the Electoral College is its allocation of electoral votes among the states. The Electoral College mirrors the “federal ratio” of representation of Congress. The compromises that had been hammered out among the competing interests in creating Congress were just carried over to the selection of the president. This could have been done more naturally by letting Congress pick the president, but the founders worried that such a president would not be independent enough and Congress would become too tempting of a target for corruption. The Electoral College could serve as a temporary Congress.
…
The Electoral College is a creaky system that we would be unlikely to adopt if we were drafting a constitution today. But it makes a modest contribution toward moderating and nationalizing our politics, and it has the advantage of being familiar if not necessarily loved. We could do worse.”
The Electoral College Is Just OK: Somewhere south of “a work of genius”; somewhere north of “a disaster for our democracy.”
GftNC, that discussion is not a two paragraph thing I can do at work. Obama accomplished very little in his career except check boxes for a Presidential run. His grift was the power itself, disappointed in his ability to wield it he spent his last two years doing with executive orders what he couldnt accomplish otherwise.
GftNC, that discussion is not a two paragraph thing I can do at work. Obama accomplished very little in his career except check boxes for a Presidential run. His grift was the power itself, disappointed in his ability to wield it he spent his last two years doing with executive orders what he couldnt accomplish otherwise.
the blessed Founders also thought the EC would act as a buffer, to balance the public’s fleeting passions and the interests of the country. the Electors would choose the best people and reject the obviously unfit. it clearly does not do that. strike one.
the fact that it was intended to do that in the first place is absurd. strike two.
it wildly distorts how candidates actually run for President (compounded by the unrelated primary system). instead of running where the people are, they run where the EC votes are. strike three.
it erodes faith in government when every four years, a new generation of people who rightfully don’t give a crap about the arcane bargains worked out between the original thirteen states are flabbergasted to learn what it does to their votes. strike four.
the blessed Founders also thought the EC would act as a buffer, to balance the public’s fleeting passions and the interests of the country. the Electors would choose the best people and reject the obviously unfit. it clearly does not do that. strike one.
the fact that it was intended to do that in the first place is absurd. strike two.
it wildly distorts how candidates actually run for President (compounded by the unrelated primary system). instead of running where the people are, they run where the EC votes are. strike three.
it erodes faith in government when every four years, a new generation of people who rightfully don’t give a crap about the arcane bargains worked out between the original thirteen states are flabbergasted to learn what it does to their votes. strike four.
Big farms are consolidating into even bigger farms. Equipment is becoming so expensive and specialized that only very large operations can afford the financial risk of buying it.
A large farm in Minnesota: Millennial Farmer
Big farms are consolidating into even bigger farms. Equipment is becoming so expensive and specialized that only very large operations can afford the financial risk of buying it.
A large farm in Minnesota: Millennial Farmer
His grift was the power itself
E.g., his grift was getting elected. By solid majorities.
A precis of Obama’s resume before being elected:
If you want to say he had limited experience in national politics, I won’t argue the point. But he was an accomplished person, in areas that actually are relevant to the role of POTUS.
As far as executive orders, Obama is sort of average. Middling. Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Johnson, Carter, and Bush all issued more.
It’s fine if you don’t like the guy. But everything you say about him is basically false. Like, factually false, and trivially disproven.
Come on, man. Do better than this.
His grift was the power itself
E.g., his grift was getting elected. By solid majorities.
A precis of Obama’s resume before being elected:
If you want to say he had limited experience in national politics, I won’t argue the point. But he was an accomplished person, in areas that actually are relevant to the role of POTUS.
As far as executive orders, Obama is sort of average. Middling. Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Johnson, Carter, and Bush all issued more.
It’s fine if you don’t like the guy. But everything you say about him is basically false. Like, factually false, and trivially disproven.
Come on, man. Do better than this.
plus, he was a tyrant.
plus, he was a tyrant.
Yes, come on Marty, that is so eccentric a definition of grift as to be meaningless. If you were driven by annoyance to say something you didn’t actually mean, well no doubt we’ve all done that at times and you could say so and move on. I’m sure there’s plenty you could legitimately blame Obama for (god knows Donald and others have regularly done so) but let’s not get hung up in indefensible positions. And there’s plenty to legitimately blame Trump for, as you very well know and many conservatives are slowly starting to realise.
Yes, come on Marty, that is so eccentric a definition of grift as to be meaningless. If you were driven by annoyance to say something you didn’t actually mean, well no doubt we’ve all done that at times and you could say so and move on. I’m sure there’s plenty you could legitimately blame Obama for (god knows Donald and others have regularly done so) but let’s not get hung up in indefensible positions. And there’s plenty to legitimately blame Trump for, as you very well know and many conservatives are slowly starting to realise.
I’m off to bed. This one will run and run.
I’m off to bed. This one will run and run.
Omeone-say ight-may ake-tay away-way eir-thay uns-gay.
I’ve been visiting the in-laws off and on for 40 years now. Guns just never come up. I know there’s a rifle locked up somewhere in my BIL’s house, but I’d have to hunt for it. He and his two sons take three deer a year on his property to help keep the local population in check. He’ll kill a coyote if it’s getting too bold (eg, starts trying to get into the barn). No one has ever seemed concerned that anyone was going to try to take the rifles/shotguns away.
To be honest, all of the serious gun nuts I’ve ever known live in the suburbs.
Omeone-say ight-may ake-tay away-way eir-thay uns-gay.
I’ve been visiting the in-laws off and on for 40 years now. Guns just never come up. I know there’s a rifle locked up somewhere in my BIL’s house, but I’d have to hunt for it. He and his two sons take three deer a year on his property to help keep the local population in check. He’ll kill a coyote if it’s getting too bold (eg, starts trying to get into the barn). No one has ever seemed concerned that anyone was going to try to take the rifles/shotguns away.
To be honest, all of the serious gun nuts I’ve ever known live in the suburbs.
I think Marty is using ‘grift’ as some kind of metaphor.
Quite what he means by it, I have no real idea, other than that he doesn’t like the man’s politics.
That he perhaps sold the country on hope of progress that he didn’t quite deliver makes him no different from pretty well any president in history (with a possible couple of exceptions).
Trump is your actual crook, far as I can see.
“That phoney emoluments clause….”
I think Marty is using ‘grift’ as some kind of metaphor.
Quite what he means by it, I have no real idea, other than that he doesn’t like the man’s politics.
That he perhaps sold the country on hope of progress that he didn’t quite deliver makes him no different from pretty well any president in history (with a possible couple of exceptions).
Trump is your actual crook, far as I can see.
“That phoney emoluments clause….”
Michael Cain: well that’s your sample, I guess. There are “gun nuts” in deep rural/backwoods Maine, and also people whom I wouldn’t call nuts, but who are pretty obsessed about the right to keep their guns, and they sure don’t live in the suburbs.
Michael Cain: well that’s your sample, I guess. There are “gun nuts” in deep rural/backwoods Maine, and also people whom I wouldn’t call nuts, but who are pretty obsessed about the right to keep their guns, and they sure don’t live in the suburbs.
This is an interesting conversation with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/john-roberts-court-abandoned-bipartisan-consensus-dark-money-republican-donors.html
I think the first thing is to highlight the record. Most Americans have no idea that under Chief Justice Roberts, there are 73 of these 5–4 partisan decisions in which there was a big Republican donor interest implicated. And in 73 out of 73, the big Republican donor interest won…
This is an interesting conversation with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/john-roberts-court-abandoned-bipartisan-consensus-dark-money-republican-donors.html
I think the first thing is to highlight the record. Most Americans have no idea that under Chief Justice Roberts, there are 73 of these 5–4 partisan decisions in which there was a big Republican donor interest implicated. And in 73 out of 73, the big Republican donor interest won…
Obama is a grifter because he wasn’t up to the job and hoodwinked a bunch of people into voting for him. he’s a con man. he’s an unqualified nobody who fooled all the dumb liberals.
or so goes the myth.
Obama is a grifter because he wasn’t up to the job and hoodwinked a bunch of people into voting for him. he’s a con man. he’s an unqualified nobody who fooled all the dumb liberals.
or so goes the myth.
or so goes the myth.
Not to mention he had a GOP House 2011 to the end of his 2nd term and a GOP Senate 2015 to the end of his second term.
But other than that…no cliffhangers here! Smooth sailing!
As for executive orders…GW Bush issued more than Obama, and Trump on on a pace to exceed even that number.
or so goes the myth.
Not to mention he had a GOP House 2011 to the end of his 2nd term and a GOP Senate 2015 to the end of his second term.
But other than that…no cliffhangers here! Smooth sailing!
As for executive orders…GW Bush issued more than Obama, and Trump on on a pace to exceed even that number.
To pick an example I heard multiple times… California drives national emissions standards just by the size of the markets there.
Michael,
I could find EPA regs about this matter issued in 2011, 2018 (TRUMP/PERRY!), and 2019(TRUMP/PERRY!) but nothing to substantiate the claim that California standards drove these regulations.
Is this another example of an “Obama Phone” slander?….a hearty favorite amongst my rural in-laws.
To pick an example I heard multiple times… California drives national emissions standards just by the size of the markets there.
Michael,
I could find EPA regs about this matter issued in 2011, 2018 (TRUMP/PERRY!), and 2019(TRUMP/PERRY!) but nothing to substantiate the claim that California standards drove these regulations.
Is this another example of an “Obama Phone” slander?….a hearty favorite amongst my rural in-laws.
To be honest, all of the serious gun nuts I’ve ever known live in the suburbs.
You need to get out more. I suggest NE Washington State and Northern Idaho for a start.
To be honest, all of the serious gun nuts I’ve ever known live in the suburbs.
You need to get out more. I suggest NE Washington State and Northern Idaho for a start.
I think what Marty is saying about the Electoral College is that a small number of people in rural areas, receiving federal subsidies, must continue to have the same electoral weight as a much larger number of people in cities, paying federal taxes. Because otherwise the Democrats would bring in too much welfare for the wrong sort of people.
Meanwhile, I’m trying to work out what the real issue is with “unfettered illegal immigration”. Illegal immigration happens because illegal immigrants can get jobs in the USA, for example with Republican-voting farmers. And because legal immigration is made too difficult – after all, no one actual wants to be illegal. So if you want to stop it, you either make legal immigration easy enough, or you crack down on people employing illegal immigrants – that might leave crops to rot in the fields, but at least there would be fewer brown people in the country.
Which of those approaches do you favour Marty?
I think what Marty is saying about the Electoral College is that a small number of people in rural areas, receiving federal subsidies, must continue to have the same electoral weight as a much larger number of people in cities, paying federal taxes. Because otherwise the Democrats would bring in too much welfare for the wrong sort of people.
Meanwhile, I’m trying to work out what the real issue is with “unfettered illegal immigration”. Illegal immigration happens because illegal immigrants can get jobs in the USA, for example with Republican-voting farmers. And because legal immigration is made too difficult – after all, no one actual wants to be illegal. So if you want to stop it, you either make legal immigration easy enough, or you crack down on people employing illegal immigrants – that might leave crops to rot in the fields, but at least there would be fewer brown people in the country.
Which of those approaches do you favour Marty?
Is this another example of an “Obama Phone” slander?….a hearty favorite amongst my rural in-laws.
For whatever reason, that bit of silliness popped in my head today. Started under Bush to give people a way to manage their lives, including finding work. Turned into Obama giving stuff away to black people (even if they would never come out and say it in those words, publicly anyway).
Is this another example of an “Obama Phone” slander?….a hearty favorite amongst my rural in-laws.
For whatever reason, that bit of silliness popped in my head today. Started under Bush to give people a way to manage their lives, including finding work. Turned into Obama giving stuff away to black people (even if they would never come out and say it in those words, publicly anyway).
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut, plus the farmers on welfare meme. Any other divisive talking points you want to throw out?
Nothing to worry about there.
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut, plus the farmers on welfare meme. Any other divisive talking points you want to throw out?
Nothing to worry about there.
or you crack down on people employing illegal immigrants
But that would inconvenience people like . . . Trump. Not to mention cost them money.
And you omit the detail that hiring illegal immigrants means that you have leverage to keep wages low. One of the upsides to restricting legal immigration which doesn’t get much play.
or you crack down on people employing illegal immigrants
But that would inconvenience people like . . . Trump. Not to mention cost them money.
And you omit the detail that hiring illegal immigrants means that you have leverage to keep wages low. One of the upsides to restricting legal immigration which doesn’t get much play.
Because otherwise the Democrats would bring in too much welfare
for the wrong sort of people.FIFY
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut, plus the farmers on welfare meme.
Agriculture subsidies are just a variation of crony capitalism.
Because otherwise the Democrats would bring in too much welfare
for the wrong sort of people.FIFY
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut, plus the farmers on welfare meme.
Agriculture subsidies are just a variation of crony capitalism.
You want to cut illegal immigration by 60%? Don’t issue any visas….NONE. But I guess our fine “Know Nothings” believe that issuing visas is an acceptable price to pay….and as an added benefit…maybe, just maybe, these types don’t come from, you know, those “shithole” countries.
You want to stop the other 40%? Make hiring of illegals a capital offence. A few executions would go a long way. After all, our good conservative assholes generally favor capital punishment. But that punishment is too much in relation to the crime? Well, just WTF do you want?
I know what you want. You want cheap labor.
Why can’t you just come out and say it? At least that would have the benefit of being honest.
You want to cut illegal immigration by 60%? Don’t issue any visas….NONE. But I guess our fine “Know Nothings” believe that issuing visas is an acceptable price to pay….and as an added benefit…maybe, just maybe, these types don’t come from, you know, those “shithole” countries.
You want to stop the other 40%? Make hiring of illegals a capital offence. A few executions would go a long way. After all, our good conservative assholes generally favor capital punishment. But that punishment is too much in relation to the crime? Well, just WTF do you want?
I know what you want. You want cheap labor.
Why can’t you just come out and say it? At least that would have the benefit of being honest.
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut…
Well, maybe those farmers should just go out and buy some under the counter illegal diesel tractors. That would teach those condescending libs!
Take that!
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut…
Well, maybe those farmers should just go out and buy some under the counter illegal diesel tractors. That would teach those condescending libs!
Take that!
You need to get out more. I suggest NE Washington State and Northern Idaho for a start.
I’ll admit the possibility. A lot of people that tolerate rollin’ into town and shootin’ people up living there? Lots of the ones that really believe, so they’ve got 20 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammunition tucked away in the basement? Damn, NE Washington must be a lot richer than rural Kansas. The really dangerous nuts — the kind that people were implying in a bunch of “Civil War” remarks a hundred comments or so back — live in the suburbs/exurbs. Look where the mass shooters come from.
On the “Civil War” sort of topic, I’m the lunatic that says a partition of the United States is going to happen, approximately when, where at least one of the borders will be, and what the reasons will be. But “Civil War” with the rural folks shooting at the urban folks (or vice versa) isn’t going to happen. Nor will eastern and western states be shooting at each other across the 500-mile-wide depopulated Great Plains.
You need to get out more. I suggest NE Washington State and Northern Idaho for a start.
I’ll admit the possibility. A lot of people that tolerate rollin’ into town and shootin’ people up living there? Lots of the ones that really believe, so they’ve got 20 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammunition tucked away in the basement? Damn, NE Washington must be a lot richer than rural Kansas. The really dangerous nuts — the kind that people were implying in a bunch of “Civil War” remarks a hundred comments or so back — live in the suburbs/exurbs. Look where the mass shooters come from.
On the “Civil War” sort of topic, I’m the lunatic that says a partition of the United States is going to happen, approximately when, where at least one of the borders will be, and what the reasons will be. But “Civil War” with the rural folks shooting at the urban folks (or vice versa) isn’t going to happen. Nor will eastern and western states be shooting at each other across the 500-mile-wide depopulated Great Plains.
Re: crops rotting in the fields, it’s not like liberals make this shit up:
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt–politics/farmers-tie-labor-shortage-state-new-immigration-law-ask-for-help/3l4Zm7QfEVbP9zI8QIovXP/
Took less than a minute to find that article (that I remembered reading when it came out).
Re: crops rotting in the fields, it’s not like liberals make this shit up:
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt–politics/farmers-tie-labor-shortage-state-new-immigration-law-ask-for-help/3l4Zm7QfEVbP9zI8QIovXP/
Took less than a minute to find that article (that I remembered reading when it came out).
Michael Cain: A lot of people that tolerate rollin’ into town and shootin’ people up living there? Lots of the ones that really believe, so they’ve got 20 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammunition tucked away in the basement?
I believe bobbyp and I are the only ones who addressed the issue of guns, and I’m the one who brought it up. I brought it up in the context of russell’s question about what the people Marty purports to be speaking for (who are so frightened, says Marty, of what the liberals and the city folks are going to do to them) are actualy afraid of. I suggested, admittedly snarkily, that one of the things they’re afraid of is that liberals and city people will take their guns away.
I totally stand by that. I could walk up the road and find people like that in rural Maine. It has very little to do with what you’re on about, except that mass shootings are part of what’s driving the movement for the tighter gun control that a lot of people who aren’t “gun nuts” or mass shooters are afraid of.
Michael Cain: A lot of people that tolerate rollin’ into town and shootin’ people up living there? Lots of the ones that really believe, so they’ve got 20 weapons and 10,000 rounds of ammunition tucked away in the basement?
I believe bobbyp and I are the only ones who addressed the issue of guns, and I’m the one who brought it up. I brought it up in the context of russell’s question about what the people Marty purports to be speaking for (who are so frightened, says Marty, of what the liberals and the city folks are going to do to them) are actualy afraid of. I suggested, admittedly snarkily, that one of the things they’re afraid of is that liberals and city people will take their guns away.
I totally stand by that. I could walk up the road and find people like that in rural Maine. It has very little to do with what you’re on about, except that mass shootings are part of what’s driving the movement for the tighter gun control that a lot of people who aren’t “gun nuts” or mass shooters are afraid of.
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut
Is it true, or is it not true? Who actually picks produce?
Who works in meat packing houses?
Who are the line cooks in restaurants?
Who are the cleaning people in offices and hospitals?
Who are the health aides and orderlies in nursing homes and hospitals?
Who are the grunt labor in building trades?
Who?
All fucking myths, obvs.
I love that old crops to rot in the fields chestnut
Is it true, or is it not true? Who actually picks produce?
Who works in meat packing houses?
Who are the line cooks in restaurants?
Who are the cleaning people in offices and hospitals?
Who are the health aides and orderlies in nursing homes and hospitals?
Who are the grunt labor in building trades?
Who?
All fucking myths, obvs.
I totally stand by that.
My sister, her husband, one of my nieces, and niece’s entire entourage of in-laws, all believe that liberals want to take away the guns. My brother in law frequently talks about the time when “Obama came for the guns”, which is an episode in the annals of Obama that I apparently missed.
And they need the guns, to defend themselves from the government, in case the government comes to take the guns away.
It makes my freaking head hurt to even try to unpack all of that.
I love them all, and they’re all out of their freaking gourds.
FWIW, all of my other current brothers-in-law also own and (on occasion) carry firearms. Brother in law from Montana can recite the muzzle velocities of his various firearms from memory, but he goes camping in remote areas of the mountain west fairly regularly, and that information is actually relevant, because bears etc. You actually want the bear to stop before it has a chance to reach you.
Ohio brother in law has a pistol he acquired when an employee threatened to come and kill everybody in his shop when he was laid off, and he also has an old rifle that’s kind of a family heirloom. To allay any sense of alarm, Ohio BIL met with disgruntled employee (with the gun in his desk) along with said employee’s manager, generally talked him down off the ledge, gave him a month’s severance, and got him into some counseling. All ended basically well. Ohio BIL is a stand-up guy, about whom many edifying stories could be told. Another time.
In any case, neither of those guys freaks out about it, they just have guns and don’t make a big deal about it. Because they’re not out of their freaking gourds.
I’d blame it on something in the water in Arizona, but I suspect it’s more widely spread than that.
I totally stand by that.
My sister, her husband, one of my nieces, and niece’s entire entourage of in-laws, all believe that liberals want to take away the guns. My brother in law frequently talks about the time when “Obama came for the guns”, which is an episode in the annals of Obama that I apparently missed.
And they need the guns, to defend themselves from the government, in case the government comes to take the guns away.
It makes my freaking head hurt to even try to unpack all of that.
I love them all, and they’re all out of their freaking gourds.
FWIW, all of my other current brothers-in-law also own and (on occasion) carry firearms. Brother in law from Montana can recite the muzzle velocities of his various firearms from memory, but he goes camping in remote areas of the mountain west fairly regularly, and that information is actually relevant, because bears etc. You actually want the bear to stop before it has a chance to reach you.
Ohio brother in law has a pistol he acquired when an employee threatened to come and kill everybody in his shop when he was laid off, and he also has an old rifle that’s kind of a family heirloom. To allay any sense of alarm, Ohio BIL met with disgruntled employee (with the gun in his desk) along with said employee’s manager, generally talked him down off the ledge, gave him a month’s severance, and got him into some counseling. All ended basically well. Ohio BIL is a stand-up guy, about whom many edifying stories could be told. Another time.
In any case, neither of those guys freaks out about it, they just have guns and don’t make a big deal about it. Because they’re not out of their freaking gourds.
I’d blame it on something in the water in Arizona, but I suspect it’s more widely spread than that.
And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don’t want to do?
OK, if the small state is RI then maybe everybody is trying to get them to stop electing gangsters for public office.
But I don’t think Marty’s talking about RI.
Really, I’d like to know. I really hope it’s not “don’t swap out the ROMs and ECMs on your tractors”.
And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don’t want to do?
OK, if the small state is RI then maybe everybody is trying to get them to stop electing gangsters for public office.
But I don’t think Marty’s talking about RI.
Really, I’d like to know. I really hope it’s not “don’t swap out the ROMs and ECMs on your tractors”.
And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don’t want to do?
Eat tacos? 😉
I’m so old I remember when the local spaghetti joint in my home town was considered by some people to be “foreign food.”
How times change.
And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don’t want to do?
Eat tacos? 😉
I’m so old I remember when the local spaghetti joint in my home town was considered by some people to be “foreign food.”
How times change.
Just so we can keep track of what’s happening right now.
McKinney (and his friends) find people like me exhausting. You know what? This sh*t is what’s exhausting. In fact, I’m worn out with reading about it. If you’re demoralized by me, and not by this, then I don’t know what to say.
Just so we can keep track of what’s happening right now.
McKinney (and his friends) find people like me exhausting. You know what? This sh*t is what’s exhausting. In fact, I’m worn out with reading about it. If you’re demoralized by me, and not by this, then I don’t know what to say.
And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don’t want to do?
My guess (and it’s only a guess, not something I’ve researched): make them accept the other people, different people, are only that — not threatening, just different. Make them accept that someone can be different, and still be a good, a real American. In short, accept that their narrow image of America has been too narrow.
It’s a lesson learned in past generations. In many cases, by people who didn’t want to accept their ancestors. But, eventually, did. (For an interesting parlor game, try to guess what group will be the exestential threat when they arrive half a century hence.)
And what in hell is anybody in SF LA or NY trying to make anybody in [insert small state here] do that they don’t want to do?
My guess (and it’s only a guess, not something I’ve researched): make them accept the other people, different people, are only that — not threatening, just different. Make them accept that someone can be different, and still be a good, a real American. In short, accept that their narrow image of America has been too narrow.
It’s a lesson learned in past generations. In many cases, by people who didn’t want to accept their ancestors. But, eventually, did. (For an interesting parlor game, try to guess what group will be the exestential threat when they arrive half a century hence.)
And please scroll up to see how Sherrilyn Ifill started the thread. As she said, it’s only Tuesday.
And please scroll up to see how Sherrilyn Ifill started the thread. As she said, it’s only Tuesday.
With a passing connection to the thread’s major topic…
“Tractor hacking is growing increasingly popular because John Deere and other manufacturers have made it impossible to perform “unauthorized” repair on farm equipment, which farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty and quite possibly an existential threat to their livelihood if their tractor breaks at an inopportune time.”
Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware: A dive into the thriving black market of John Deere tractor hacking.
“For much of the last decade, American corporations have been doing their absolute best to limit the purchasing and servicing power of consumers. For instance, you may have heard that Apple was recently forced, after a long battle with the Right to Repair movement, to roll back their anti-consumer policies against self-repair and third-party repair.”
How American Farmers Are Outsmarting John Deere
With a passing connection to the thread’s major topic…
“Tractor hacking is growing increasingly popular because John Deere and other manufacturers have made it impossible to perform “unauthorized” repair on farm equipment, which farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty and quite possibly an existential threat to their livelihood if their tractor breaks at an inopportune time.”
Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware: A dive into the thriving black market of John Deere tractor hacking.
“For much of the last decade, American corporations have been doing their absolute best to limit the purchasing and servicing power of consumers. For instance, you may have heard that Apple was recently forced, after a long battle with the Right to Repair movement, to roll back their anti-consumer policies against self-repair and third-party repair.”
How American Farmers Are Outsmarting John Deere
I think that even rank and file Trumpers eat tacos.
I can tell you what I’m afraid of.
I’m afraid of people being bullied and threatened because they’re gay, or seem gay, or speak Spanish. That’s not an academic fear, it happens and has happened to people I know.
I’m afraid of people being literally snatched from their homes and schools and places of work and then being held, somewhere, where their families find it difficult to locate and contact them, and then being sent “back” to some place that in many cases they have no memory of and perhaps don’t even speak the language. This has happened to people that I know of, but don’t know personally, so one degree of separation from me. More than once.
I’m afraid for the Jewish people in my neighborhood, who are numerous, who have to worry if they’re looking at the beginning of yet another episode of “throw the Jew down the well so my country can be free”. Is it just a fluke, or a number of flukes? Or do they actually have to start worrying about this crap? Yet again?
I’m afraid for the black people who seem to be the only people in my white-bread town who ever get pulled over by the cops, and who in many places have to realistically look at any encounter with the cops as a possible threat on their life.
I’m afraid for the many married gay couples I know who have children and have to wonder if both their marriages and their parenthood are at risk. Again.
Right? Those are the kinds of things I worry about.
I am in fact an old straight white dude suburban householder with a pretty good 401k and a pretty good resume and nice white color job and a mostly-paid-off ranch house in the suburbs. I have not one freaking thing in the world to worry about other than maybe hemorrhoids and occasional lower back pain. I’m all good.
All of the above is the stuff I worry about. And it’s not hypothetical, and it’s not remote from me. I worry about it because people close to me are affected by it and worry about it.
I don’t give one single solitary crap if people want guns, just don’t kill harm or threaten other people with them. I don’t care if people go to NASCAR or church or hunt or eat at Applebees or the Waffle House or whatever freaking thing they want to do. If you want to say “Merry Christmas” to me instead of “Happy Holidays”, it’s all good with me.
Go for it. Live your life. I sure as hell am living mine.
But get over this god-damned corrosive pernicious bullshit sense of victimhood and resentment. I hate to break it to you, but nobody’s even really paying all that much attention to you other than NYTimes reporters looking for a human interest story. Get the hell over it. It’s ruining a lot of other people’s lives. Probably yours, too.
Find a way to get past it.
I think that even rank and file Trumpers eat tacos.
I can tell you what I’m afraid of.
I’m afraid of people being bullied and threatened because they’re gay, or seem gay, or speak Spanish. That’s not an academic fear, it happens and has happened to people I know.
I’m afraid of people being literally snatched from their homes and schools and places of work and then being held, somewhere, where their families find it difficult to locate and contact them, and then being sent “back” to some place that in many cases they have no memory of and perhaps don’t even speak the language. This has happened to people that I know of, but don’t know personally, so one degree of separation from me. More than once.
I’m afraid for the Jewish people in my neighborhood, who are numerous, who have to worry if they’re looking at the beginning of yet another episode of “throw the Jew down the well so my country can be free”. Is it just a fluke, or a number of flukes? Or do they actually have to start worrying about this crap? Yet again?
I’m afraid for the black people who seem to be the only people in my white-bread town who ever get pulled over by the cops, and who in many places have to realistically look at any encounter with the cops as a possible threat on their life.
I’m afraid for the many married gay couples I know who have children and have to wonder if both their marriages and their parenthood are at risk. Again.
Right? Those are the kinds of things I worry about.
I am in fact an old straight white dude suburban householder with a pretty good 401k and a pretty good resume and nice white color job and a mostly-paid-off ranch house in the suburbs. I have not one freaking thing in the world to worry about other than maybe hemorrhoids and occasional lower back pain. I’m all good.
All of the above is the stuff I worry about. And it’s not hypothetical, and it’s not remote from me. I worry about it because people close to me are affected by it and worry about it.
I don’t give one single solitary crap if people want guns, just don’t kill harm or threaten other people with them. I don’t care if people go to NASCAR or church or hunt or eat at Applebees or the Waffle House or whatever freaking thing they want to do. If you want to say “Merry Christmas” to me instead of “Happy Holidays”, it’s all good with me.
Go for it. Live your life. I sure as hell am living mine.
But get over this god-damned corrosive pernicious bullshit sense of victimhood and resentment. I hate to break it to you, but nobody’s even really paying all that much attention to you other than NYTimes reporters looking for a human interest story. Get the hell over it. It’s ruining a lot of other people’s lives. Probably yours, too.
Find a way to get past it.
I think that even rank and file Trumpers eat tacos.
Yes. That was kind of my point. The bogeyman actually drives a taco truck and is hardly scary at all.
I think that even rank and file Trumpers eat tacos.
Yes. That was kind of my point. The bogeyman actually drives a taco truck and is hardly scary at all.
A good article in the Atlantic talking to the point:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/
The Republican party needs to find a way to reject xenophobia, and for now it is racing in the opposite direction.
A healthy conservatism is not about the rejection of change, but a clear sighted management of it.
A good article in the Atlantic talking to the point:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/how-america-ends/600757/
The Republican party needs to find a way to reject xenophobia, and for now it is racing in the opposite direction.
A healthy conservatism is not about the rejection of change, but a clear sighted management of it.
farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty
Dear farmers of America: it saddens me to inform you that you are not sovereign. Not even over your tractor.
John deere is, however, after your wallet.
That was kind of my point
D’oh. Sorry Janie.
farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty
Dear farmers of America: it saddens me to inform you that you are not sovereign. Not even over your tractor.
John deere is, however, after your wallet.
That was kind of my point
D’oh. Sorry Janie.
@russell — 🙂
@russell — 🙂
I’m afraid for the Sikh people who, after centuries of being hassled** elsewhere by Muslims, now find themselves targeted by ignorant bigots here who think they are Muslims.
** Actually, a) a war between the Sikh Empire and Muslims, and b) millions of Sikhs fleeing Pakistan during the partition of India (and for good reason).
I’m afraid for the Sikh people who, after centuries of being hassled** elsewhere by Muslims, now find themselves targeted by ignorant bigots here who think they are Muslims.
** Actually, a) a war between the Sikh Empire and Muslims, and b) millions of Sikhs fleeing Pakistan during the partition of India (and for good reason).
A healthy conservatism is not about the rejection of change, but a clear sighted management of it.
Well put, Nigel. It’s how we know that most of today’s self-proclaimed conservatives . . . aren’t.
A healthy conservatism is not about the rejection of change, but a clear sighted management of it.
Well put, Nigel. It’s how we know that most of today’s self-proclaimed conservatives . . . aren’t.
farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty
What are they going to make of the plans of the engine manufacturers like Cummins to transition entirely to electric power ?
(FWIW, they ought eventually to appreciate it given the probable significantly lower operating costs, and far greater torque, controllability etc.)
farmers see as an attack on their sovereignty
What are they going to make of the plans of the engine manufacturers like Cummins to transition entirely to electric power ?
(FWIW, they ought eventually to appreciate it given the probable significantly lower operating costs, and far greater torque, controllability etc.)
plus the farmers on welfare meme
Trump’s farm bailout, which he personally caused the need for, cost double what Obama’s Detroit bailout cost.
why has there been no Tea Party revival?
where are the clowns in tricorns?
where are the bold populist budget hawks?
From the ice-age to the dole-age
There is but one concern
I have just discovered :
Some welfare’s better than others.
Some guys’ bailouts are better than other guys’ bailouts.
plus the farmers on welfare meme
Trump’s farm bailout, which he personally caused the need for, cost double what Obama’s Detroit bailout cost.
why has there been no Tea Party revival?
where are the clowns in tricorns?
where are the bold populist budget hawks?
From the ice-age to the dole-age
There is but one concern
I have just discovered :
Some welfare’s better than others.
Some guys’ bailouts are better than other guys’ bailouts.
Venice.
Frightening, and sad.
Venice.
Frightening, and sad.
This is another interesting article of some relevance to the thread discussion.
And gives a good idea of where the Republican whataboutery comes from :
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/joe-bidens-hillary-clinton-problem/601870/
That is not to say, of course, that either Biden or Clinton were criminals, or determined to trash the constitution to which they had sworn oaths.
But good leaders surround themselves with critical friends, rather than toadies.
This is another interesting article of some relevance to the thread discussion.
And gives a good idea of where the Republican whataboutery comes from :
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/joe-bidens-hillary-clinton-problem/601870/
That is not to say, of course, that either Biden or Clinton were criminals, or determined to trash the constitution to which they had sworn oaths.
But good leaders surround themselves with critical friends, rather than toadies.
Republican whataboutery does not come from genuine concerns about Clinton or Biden. For example, see Marty’s “Obama is a grifter.” It comes from their dishonesty.
Please don’t further their narrative, Nigel. My guess is that if you cherrypicked anyone’s professional life, you can find advice that people didn’t listen to, perhaps to their detriment. (Although, the “emailz!” which weren’t a problem for any R who handled emails similarly, and don’t seem to be a problem for the current White House which is egregiously careless, especially shouldn’t have been a problem for Hillary Clinton, because she was careful, the situation was investigated ad nauseam, and no problem was found.)
Republican whataboutery does not come from genuine concerns about Clinton or Biden. For example, see Marty’s “Obama is a grifter.” It comes from their dishonesty.
Please don’t further their narrative, Nigel. My guess is that if you cherrypicked anyone’s professional life, you can find advice that people didn’t listen to, perhaps to their detriment. (Although, the “emailz!” which weren’t a problem for any R who handled emails similarly, and don’t seem to be a problem for the current White House which is egregiously careless, especially shouldn’t have been a problem for Hillary Clinton, because she was careful, the situation was investigated ad nauseam, and no problem was found.)
watching Taylor’s opening statement.
holy. crap.
watching Taylor’s opening statement.
holy. crap.
Heard Nunez opening statement on radio driving to work…really insane cuckoo land stuff!
Heard Nunez opening statement on radio driving to work…really insane cuckoo land stuff!
not sure i can take 45 minutes of Nunes. all of his screws are loose.
not sure i can take 45 minutes of Nunes. all of his screws are loose.
not sure i can take 45 minutes of Nunes. all of his screws are loose.
Not all of them. A fair number seem to be flat missing.
not sure i can take 45 minutes of Nunes. all of his screws are loose.
Not all of them. A fair number seem to be flat missing.
i might not make it through five minutes.
“The Democrats are not trying to discover acts, they’re trying to make up a narrative” says Nunes as part of his narrative, instead of asking questions.
i might not make it through five minutes.
“The Democrats are not trying to discover acts, they’re trying to make up a narrative” says Nunes as part of his narrative, instead of asking questions.
facts, not acts.
facts, not acts.
Just read Ambassador Taylor’s opening statement. Damning.
But not sure I saw anything which will make a great sound bite. And I’m afraid it’s going to take a couple of those creating viral moments to make a difference. Merely overwhelming evidence? Sadly, unlikely to be enough.
Just read Ambassador Taylor’s opening statement. Damning.
But not sure I saw anything which will make a great sound bite. And I’m afraid it’s going to take a couple of those creating viral moments to make a difference. Merely overwhelming evidence? Sadly, unlikely to be enough.
it’s amazing watching Nunes and the GOP counsel quiz Taylor about the tenets of “conservative” mythology. Taylor is struggling to find out WTF is actually being asked.
it’s amazing watching Nunes and the GOP counsel quiz Taylor about the tenets of “conservative” mythology. Taylor is struggling to find out WTF is actually being asked.
Just listened to Bill Taylor’s opening statement. He’s an impressive and conscientious public servant, and his recollections and notes are extremely damning. However, what wj says is probably right: “Merely overwhelming evidence? Sadly, unlikely to be enough,”
Just listened to Bill Taylor’s opening statement. He’s an impressive and conscientious public servant, and his recollections and notes are extremely damning. However, what wj says is probably right: “Merely overwhelming evidence? Sadly, unlikely to be enough,”
Nothing will make a difference in terms of whether Trump will be impeached. Nothing will make a difference in changing Republicans’ behavior for the reasons we’ve discussed.
It’s the right thing to do for Democrats to create a historical record. The hearings might also motivate Democrats. Watching these honorable public servants makes me proud, and that inspires me.
Nothing will make a difference in terms of whether Trump will be impeached. Nothing will make a difference in changing Republicans’ behavior for the reasons we’ve discussed.
It’s the right thing to do for Democrats to create a historical record. The hearings might also motivate Democrats. Watching these honorable public servants makes me proud, and that inspires me.
Nothing will make a difference in terms of whether Trump will be impeached.
Quite true. What’s already on the public record, and admitted to by the White House and by Trump personally, is more than sufficiently damning.
Nothing will make a difference in changing Republicans’ behavior for the reasons we’ve discussed.
I think “nothing” may be an overstatement. Call it my usual compulsive optimism if you like. But I think some Republican Senators may be induced to remember that their oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, and not to protect and defend Donald Trump. Probably not enough, but some.
Nothing will make a difference in terms of whether Trump will be impeached.
Quite true. What’s already on the public record, and admitted to by the White House and by Trump personally, is more than sufficiently damning.
Nothing will make a difference in changing Republicans’ behavior for the reasons we’ve discussed.
I think “nothing” may be an overstatement. Call it my usual compulsive optimism if you like. But I think some Republican Senators may be induced to remember that their oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, and not to protect and defend Donald Trump. Probably not enough, but some.
One interesting nugget: Ambassador Taylor mentioning that one of his staffers was sitting next to Ambassador Sondland when he was on the phone with President Trump. And could hear Trump asking about the “investigations.” That’s new. It’s also second hand. Expect the Republicans to jump on that.
But here’s the thing. It sets up the possibility of calling that (so far unnamed) staffer as a witness. Which just might be the damning sound bite that’s needed.
One interesting nugget: Ambassador Taylor mentioning that one of his staffers was sitting next to Ambassador Sondland when he was on the phone with President Trump. And could hear Trump asking about the “investigations.” That’s new. It’s also second hand. Expect the Republicans to jump on that.
But here’s the thing. It sets up the possibility of calling that (so far unnamed) staffer as a witness. Which just might be the damning sound bite that’s needed.
Yes, wj, I also noticed that and hoped so, but even that may not be enough. The goalposts of what is acceptable seem to have moved so far, and with such slipperiness, that it’s hard to envisage “what’s needed”.
Yes, wj, I also noticed that and hoped so, but even that may not be enough. The goalposts of what is acceptable seem to have moved so far, and with such slipperiness, that it’s hard to envisage “what’s needed”.
The Strong Support!
Rep Stewart thinks this is about Obama for some reason.
The Strong Support!
Rep Stewart thinks this is about Obama for some reason.
the GOP apparently thinks everyone is very very stupid.
the GOP apparently thinks everyone is very very stupid.
WaPo helpfully provides an annotated version of Nunes’ opening remarks which explains the various references to ‘conservative’ mythology for those who aren’t familiar.
WaPo helpfully provides an annotated version of Nunes’ opening remarks which explains the various references to ‘conservative’ mythology for those who aren’t familiar.
the GOP apparently thinks everyone is very very stupid.
Everyone? Or just everyone in their base? The evidence (over the years) rather suggests the latter.
the GOP apparently thinks everyone is very very stupid.
Everyone? Or just everyone in their base? The evidence (over the years) rather suggests the latter.
Nothing will make a difference…
Empirically, that seems to be the case….
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/poll-voters-impeachment-070311
…A majority of voters, 62 percent, say there is no chance they could change their minds about impeachment, the poll shows. Another 19 percent say there’s only a small chance they change their minds.
The persuadables are are relatively tiny category – but the future of the US might depend upon them.
Nothing will make a difference…
Empirically, that seems to be the case….
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/poll-voters-impeachment-070311
…A majority of voters, 62 percent, say there is no chance they could change their minds about impeachment, the poll shows. Another 19 percent say there’s only a small chance they change their minds.
The persuadables are are relatively tiny category – but the future of the US might depend upon them.
The persuadables are are relatively tiny category – but the future of the US might depend upon them.
But that is true in every election. The number of (real) independents, nationwide and specifically in the “swing” states, is not all that large. But the winner of every election depends on which way they jump.
The persuadables are are relatively tiny category – but the future of the US might depend upon them.
But that is true in every election. The number of (real) independents, nationwide and specifically in the “swing” states, is not all that large. But the winner of every election depends on which way they jump.
The persuadables are are relatively tiny category – but the future of the US might depend upon them.
If this is true (and I’m not sure it is), it’s important to find out who the true persuadables are, and not spin wheels looking for Marty types to see the light.
Young people are the ticket. They also have the most at stake.
The persuadables are are relatively tiny category – but the future of the US might depend upon them.
If this is true (and I’m not sure it is), it’s important to find out who the true persuadables are, and not spin wheels looking for Marty types to see the light.
Young people are the ticket. They also have the most at stake.
Not only who they are, but what arguments will persuade them.
I see a tendency (both here and amongst politicians and campaigners generally) to focus on the arguments which are most persuasive to the folks making the argument — which they therefore assume must persuade others. And not on what arguments actually will persuade the target audience.
Not only who they are, but what arguments will persuade them.
I see a tendency (both here and amongst politicians and campaigners generally) to focus on the arguments which are most persuasive to the folks making the argument — which they therefore assume must persuade others. And not on what arguments actually will persuade the target audience.
De-lurking for a moment to express my amusement at the silly ride y’all are allowing Marty to take you on.
Marty: “GftNC, that discussion is not a two paragraph thing I can do at work. Obama accomplished very little in his career except check boxes for a Presidential run. His grift was the power itself, disappointed in his ability to wield it he spent his last two years doing with executive orders what he couldnt accomplish otherwise.”
Upon reading Marty’s response, I was reminded of nothing so much as one of my favorite passages from “Alice in Wonderland”:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Verbal Calvinball, if you will…
The definition of grift is pretty simple. These 2 are from Merriam Webster (other dictionaries are quite similar):
: to obtain money or property illicitly (as in a confidence game)
: to acquire money or property illicitly
There was discussion earlier about how to judge whether a person is arguing in good faith. When somebody uses a common word to allege dishonesty on the part of another and then when called on it supplies a personal, dissembling definition orthogonal to its true meaning, this strikes me as a perfect example.
De-lurking for a moment to express my amusement at the silly ride y’all are allowing Marty to take you on.
Marty: “GftNC, that discussion is not a two paragraph thing I can do at work. Obama accomplished very little in his career except check boxes for a Presidential run. His grift was the power itself, disappointed in his ability to wield it he spent his last two years doing with executive orders what he couldnt accomplish otherwise.”
Upon reading Marty’s response, I was reminded of nothing so much as one of my favorite passages from “Alice in Wonderland”:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Verbal Calvinball, if you will…
The definition of grift is pretty simple. These 2 are from Merriam Webster (other dictionaries are quite similar):
: to obtain money or property illicitly (as in a confidence game)
: to acquire money or property illicitly
There was discussion earlier about how to judge whether a person is arguing in good faith. When somebody uses a common word to allege dishonesty on the part of another and then when called on it supplies a personal, dissembling definition orthogonal to its true meaning, this strikes me as a perfect example.
don’t be so tyrannical, worn. it’s like you’re plotting a coup.
or a regicide.
don’t be so tyrannical, worn. it’s like you’re plotting a coup.
or a regicide.
I have to admit, worn, I did immediately think of humpty dumpty when I read Marty’s explanation. However, for reasons I have made clear, I don’t think it’s a silly ride. And if I’m wrong, and it is, no harm done in my opinion, and some others have been kind enough to agree, or at least be tolerant.
I have to admit, worn, I did immediately think of humpty dumpty when I read Marty’s explanation. However, for reasons I have made clear, I don’t think it’s a silly ride. And if I’m wrong, and it is, no harm done in my opinion, and some others have been kind enough to agree, or at least be tolerant.
Thanks for delurking, worn. Please do so again.
And, yeah, wws
Thanks for delurking, worn. Please do so again.
And, yeah, wws
grifter
a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud
Ex
But if the media is to tell the whole story of the rise and demise of America’s Mayor, they need to confess to their role in this grifter’s ascension.
The likelihood that Trump ran numbers is pretty low, but of course everyone understood that piece description.
grifter
a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud
Ex
But if the media is to tell the whole story of the rise and demise of America’s Mayor, they need to confess to their role in this grifter’s ascension.
The likelihood that Trump ran numbers is pretty low, but of course everyone understood that piece description.
The likelihood that Trump ran numbers is pretty low, but of course everyone understood that piece description.
I was not aware that anyone had suggested that Trump ran numbers. (I.e. an illegal lottery.) Conned a lot of people, yes. Stiffed a lot of small contractors? That, too. But not running numbers. Where did that come from?
The likelihood that Trump ran numbers is pretty low, but of course everyone understood that piece description.
I was not aware that anyone had suggested that Trump ran numbers. (I.e. an illegal lottery.) Conned a lot of people, yes. Stiffed a lot of small contractors? That, too. But not running numbers. Where did that come from?
It came from the paragraph where Marty called Obama a grifter.
Marty is saying that so long as he makes a figurative aside about Trump, his entire case against Obama can be a lie.
It came from the paragraph where Marty called Obama a grifter.
Marty is saying that so long as he makes a figurative aside about Trump, his entire case against Obama can be a lie.
I have a hard time lately understanding what Marty is saying, at least not more specifically than “Democrats suck, especially Obama.”
I have a hard time lately understanding what Marty is saying, at least not more specifically than “Democrats suck, especially Obama.”
Godspeed to the impeachment inquiry. Let’s get this over and done, send it to the Senate so they can do whatever the hell they are going to do with it, and then move on.
Get the freaking vote out in 2020 and crush the (R)’s like bugs. Trump or no Trump. Kick their @sses. They won’t understand anything other than utter humiliating defeat.
Persuadable swing voters are, I think, gonna have to figure all of this out for themselves. Anything I do or say is just gonna be Another Liberal Hating On Trump, so other than here and with a very small circle of friends and family, I just don’t talk about it.
Slightly more than half of eligible voters voted in 2016. Get the damned vote out and this problem will right itself.
That is all.
Godspeed to the impeachment inquiry. Let’s get this over and done, send it to the Senate so they can do whatever the hell they are going to do with it, and then move on.
Get the freaking vote out in 2020 and crush the (R)’s like bugs. Trump or no Trump. Kick their @sses. They won’t understand anything other than utter humiliating defeat.
Persuadable swing voters are, I think, gonna have to figure all of this out for themselves. Anything I do or say is just gonna be Another Liberal Hating On Trump, so other than here and with a very small circle of friends and family, I just don’t talk about it.
Slightly more than half of eligible voters voted in 2016. Get the damned vote out and this problem will right itself.
That is all.
key point: Obama didn’t swindle anybody.
other than that: spot on
key point: Obama didn’t swindle anybody.
other than that: spot on
it seems like what we have here is that the GOP has decide its new rhetorical strategy is: anything anyone has accused Trump of must be turned back on the left [do not bother seeing if it makes sense]. Trump’s a grifter? no, Obama is a grifter! Trump is pursuing electoral shenanigans in Ukraine? no, Clinton was!
it explains at least 50% of Nunes’ rantings.
it seems like what we have here is that the GOP has decide its new rhetorical strategy is: anything anyone has accused Trump of must be turned back on the left [do not bother seeing if it makes sense]. Trump’s a grifter? no, Obama is a grifter! Trump is pursuing electoral shenanigans in Ukraine? no, Clinton was!
it explains at least 50% of Nunes’ rantings.
I was not aware that anyone had suggested that Trump ran numbers.
how many casinos did Trump bankrupt?
I was not aware that anyone had suggested that Trump ran numbers.
how many casinos did Trump bankrupt?
how many casinos did Trump bankrupt?
But that was swindling** the investors. Whereas running numbers would swindle the gamblers.
** Although I suppose you could argue that, rather than being swindled, they were just victims of Trump’s massive incompetence.
how many casinos did Trump bankrupt?
But that was swindling** the investors. Whereas running numbers would swindle the gamblers.
** Although I suppose you could argue that, rather than being swindled, they were just victims of Trump’s massive incompetence.
the GOP has decide its new rhetorical strategy is: anything anyone has accused Trump of must be turned back on the left
It is a characteristic of Trump that he invariably accuses opponents of his own glaring faults. It’s a reflex.
The party of Trump has slavishly assumed the playground habit.
the GOP has decide its new rhetorical strategy is: anything anyone has accused Trump of must be turned back on the left
It is a characteristic of Trump that he invariably accuses opponents of his own glaring faults. It’s a reflex.
The party of Trump has slavishly assumed the playground habit.
Imo the degree of that has just increased under Trumpy Gumby but it was already SOP before.
Imo the degree of that has just increased under Trumpy Gumby but it was already SOP before.
Swiftboating
Swiftboating
just increased under Trumpy Gumby but it was already SOP before.
True, but with Trump, it’s clearly ingrained from childhood, rather than a strategy.
just increased under Trumpy Gumby but it was already SOP before.
True, but with Trump, it’s clearly ingrained from childhood, rather than a strategy.
Swiftboating
A pretty perfect example, given Dubya’s absurd military swanking when seen in the context of his actual “military” experience.
Swiftboating
A pretty perfect example, given Dubya’s absurd military swanking when seen in the context of his actual “military” experience.
“silly ride y’all are allowing Marty to take you on.”
The Adventures of Spin and MARTY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-aK47tMlGE
He passed the audition.
“Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie.”
Leo? In blackface? Figures.
Poitier, Jamie, and Denzel not available?
Fancy, was he? Tan suit got yer conservative hernia belt in a twist you wear for all that pro-Trump conservative heavy-lifting you heft round here?
At least Obama could make dem ponies do dose tricks up the asses of the pollution-loving, racist, payday-lending, corrupt, Armenian-murdering, McConnell obstructionist plantation masters you elect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O7gaOLwxGY&t=2s
“silly ride y’all are allowing Marty to take you on.”
The Adventures of Spin and MARTY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-aK47tMlGE
He passed the audition.
“Obama was a fancy grifter, a top notch long con guy. He is the kind of crook that Leo plays in a movie.”
Leo? In blackface? Figures.
Poitier, Jamie, and Denzel not available?
Fancy, was he? Tan suit got yer conservative hernia belt in a twist you wear for all that pro-Trump conservative heavy-lifting you heft round here?
At least Obama could make dem ponies do dose tricks up the asses of the pollution-loving, racist, payday-lending, corrupt, Armenian-murdering, McConnell obstructionist plantation masters you elect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O7gaOLwxGY&t=2s