by Doctor Science
Since Hillary Clinton announced (via text message!) her choice of Tim Kaine as her running mate, I’ve seen people say that he was chosen for governing experience, not for what he brings to the campaign; or for some sort of general “pivot to the center” policy quality, without the ability to fire up the Democratic base.
What no-one seems to be pointing out is that Kaine appeals to a specific demographic, and that choosing him is part of a coordinated effort by the Clinton Campaign.
That demographic is Nice White Republican Women. They’re risk-averse and conflict-averse, they try hard to be nice, and they’re only happy with a political choice if they can say, “they seem like a nice person.”
Donald Trump is not a Nice Person. He’s angry, he shouts, he insults people, he’s crude. He’s also specifically threatening to white women because he’s almost a caricature of The Guy Who Will Dump You, the man whose loyalty only extends as far as he thinks you’re “hot”.
Most NWRW will still vote for him, out of party & tribal loyalty or because they hate Hillary even more. But some of them are “Dem-curious”, willing to consider breaking their usual habit of voting Republican.
Tim Kaine is, by all accounts, really nice. Notably, many Senate Republicans like him and have worked with him. NWRW hate conflict and wish people could just get along, and they’ll find Kaine’s collegial track record very reassuring.
Kaine’s contribution to the ticket, for NWRW, isn’t so much his policies or experience as his personality. He reassures them that Democrats can be nice people, and his niceness makes Trump’s nastiness more obvious by contrast. He’s also reassuring, frankly, because he’s a white male, so will come across as more “normal” and safe to NWRW who are twitchy about breaking ranks.
Samantha Bee saw some of this right away:
@FullFrontalSamB pic.twitter.com/93tk3wMmwf
— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) July 23, 2016
I’m pretty sure the Clinton Campaign, no fools, is targeting NWRW voters with ads like April’s Love and Kindness and the recent Role Models. The message expressed here isn’t “Hillary will fight for you” or “Hillary will work with you”, as she says to progressive supporters. Instead, these ads say “Hillary values what you do: kindness, children, getting along. Being nice.”
How well is this going to work? We’ll see, of course, but yesterday I noticed a comment at Balloon Juice by Kay, a regular from Ohio IIRC:
I sometimes listen to Right wing religious radio in the car when I’m driving around for work. Our “local” FM station is very popular- it’s listener supported with donations- some kind of local franchise of a national company.
Anyway, they were doing a wrap up of the convention and a lot of the religious Righties calling in hate Trump and say he’s taken over the GOP and made it godless. The callers were like 90% women- one after another. They don’t believe he’s anti-abortion and they hate, hate, hate that he has multiple ex-wives. Several said his grown children didn’t talk about their mothers at the convention. Obviously they probably can’t talk about their mothers at the Trump Show with Melania sitting there, but these women thought that was hugely disrespectful- that they didn’t mention their mothers.
Most of those callers will NEVER vote for Hillary, they’re too strongly anti-abortion. But some of their friends might (though without telling anyone) because they’re so repelled by Trump and reassured by That Nice Tim Kaine.
I also noticed this tweet from James Fallows:
Very interesting to watch Fox right now.
They are *all* saying Kaine did very well, and voters want to hear some hope.— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) July 23, 2016
Roger Ailes is barely out the door, and Fox News is already becoming less all-Republican-all-the-time. If they start to reflect the values of conservative women where they diverge from conservative men–a preference for compromise over anger, for instance–this change could be enormously consequential. Policy is still important, of course, but what voters respond to first is personality and emotional style. Kaine’s personality is going to draw some Republican voters over to the Democratic side, and that’s a powerful reason he’s on the ticket.
NWRW hate conflict and wish people could just get along, and they’ll find Kaine’s collegial track record very reassuring.
That was also one of Obama’s strengths in 2008: he was someone who visibly wanted to reduce the strife that had infected the Federal government since Newt Gingrich first became Speaker. In the event, he failed to achieve that end. Whose fault that was is a matter of dispute, but the failure is not.
NWRW hate conflict and wish people could just get along, and they’ll find Kaine’s collegial track record very reassuring.
That was also one of Obama’s strengths in 2008: he was someone who visibly wanted to reduce the strife that had infected the Federal government since Newt Gingrich first became Speaker. In the event, he failed to achieve that end. Whose fault that was is a matter of dispute, but the failure is not.
NWRW hate conflict and wish people could just get along, and they’ll find Kaine’s collegial track record very reassuring.
That was also one of Obama’s strengths in 2008: he was someone who visibly wanted to reduce the strife that had infected the Federal government since Newt Gingrich first became Speaker. In the event, he failed to achieve that end. Whose fault that was is a matter of dispute, but the failure is not.
I just don’t think there’s any evidence that vice presidential candidates affect people’s votes much at all. Like half a percent in their home state, maybe, but that’s it.
I just don’t think there’s any evidence that vice presidential candidates affect people’s votes much at all. Like half a percent in their home state, maybe, but that’s it.
I just don’t think there’s any evidence that vice presidential candidates affect people’s votes much at all. Like half a percent in their home state, maybe, but that’s it.
Doc Science, to me this resonates very powerfully as a thing that rings true. If Fox actually covers it without too much sabotage, and if it changes the numbers at all significantly, even if just a little, that is definitely a cheery thought. Rather hard to entertain a cheery thought at the moment, I’m so out of practice!
Doc Science, to me this resonates very powerfully as a thing that rings true. If Fox actually covers it without too much sabotage, and if it changes the numbers at all significantly, even if just a little, that is definitely a cheery thought. Rather hard to entertain a cheery thought at the moment, I’m so out of practice!
Doc Science, to me this resonates very powerfully as a thing that rings true. If Fox actually covers it without too much sabotage, and if it changes the numbers at all significantly, even if just a little, that is definitely a cheery thought. Rather hard to entertain a cheery thought at the moment, I’m so out of practice!
Great observations, Doc. Another thing that strikes me about going with Kaine is that if Hillary went with someone like Cory Booker or Perez or Warren or someone who is non-white male, it is really gloves are off time. Adam’s suggestion that the VP pick doesn’t affect people’s votes is a bit off. It may not add votes, it seems like a bad VP pick could reduce votes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-cost-john-mccain-2-million-votes-in-2008/
While it is depressing to suggest that having an African-American or a Hispanic as VP or a 2 women ticket is problematic, given the fact that Trump is the republican nominee, it seems an unavoidable conclusion.
Great observations, Doc. Another thing that strikes me about going with Kaine is that if Hillary went with someone like Cory Booker or Perez or Warren or someone who is non-white male, it is really gloves are off time. Adam’s suggestion that the VP pick doesn’t affect people’s votes is a bit off. It may not add votes, it seems like a bad VP pick could reduce votes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-cost-john-mccain-2-million-votes-in-2008/
While it is depressing to suggest that having an African-American or a Hispanic as VP or a 2 women ticket is problematic, given the fact that Trump is the republican nominee, it seems an unavoidable conclusion.
Great observations, Doc. Another thing that strikes me about going with Kaine is that if Hillary went with someone like Cory Booker or Perez or Warren or someone who is non-white male, it is really gloves are off time. Adam’s suggestion that the VP pick doesn’t affect people’s votes is a bit off. It may not add votes, it seems like a bad VP pick could reduce votes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-cost-john-mccain-2-million-votes-in-2008/
While it is depressing to suggest that having an African-American or a Hispanic as VP or a 2 women ticket is problematic, given the fact that Trump is the republican nominee, it seems an unavoidable conclusion.
Both Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, have worked all of their lives for justice. They are the real thing in every way. I am thrilled with this choice.
Both Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, have worked all of their lives for justice. They are the real thing in every way. I am thrilled with this choice.
Both Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, have worked all of their lives for justice. They are the real thing in every way. I am thrilled with this choice.
Hmm.
I’ve been hearing a lot of people complaining angrily that Kaine does nothing to reach the gettable groups that Clinton doesn’t already have sewn up–he’s not the firebreathing economic populist that they think she needs. Now that I think about it, all of the complainers are male.
I would have liked the two-women ticket or the white-woman-plus-POC option (or, even better, a non-white woman), but I don’t think Kaine is a bad choice.
Hmm.
I’ve been hearing a lot of people complaining angrily that Kaine does nothing to reach the gettable groups that Clinton doesn’t already have sewn up–he’s not the firebreathing economic populist that they think she needs. Now that I think about it, all of the complainers are male.
I would have liked the two-women ticket or the white-woman-plus-POC option (or, even better, a non-white woman), but I don’t think Kaine is a bad choice.
Hmm.
I’ve been hearing a lot of people complaining angrily that Kaine does nothing to reach the gettable groups that Clinton doesn’t already have sewn up–he’s not the firebreathing economic populist that they think she needs. Now that I think about it, all of the complainers are male.
I would have liked the two-women ticket or the white-woman-plus-POC option (or, even better, a non-white woman), but I don’t think Kaine is a bad choice.
I can see why the Sanders variety of economic populists would have preferred one of their own. But seriously, how many of them would opt for Trump instead? I suppose a few of them may decide to sulk. But unless they are under the delusion that a President Trump would be able (and willing) to drive a populist program thru a Republican Congress, they aren’t going to let that happen.
Bitch and moan? Sure. Maybe even for several weeks. But by the middle of September, look for them to be back on board.
Meanwhile, Kaine avoids driving away moderately conservative voters. Voters who might have recoiled from an economic populist on the ticket. But instead will now be much more likely to be recoiling from Trump.
I can see why the Sanders variety of economic populists would have preferred one of their own. But seriously, how many of them would opt for Trump instead? I suppose a few of them may decide to sulk. But unless they are under the delusion that a President Trump would be able (and willing) to drive a populist program thru a Republican Congress, they aren’t going to let that happen.
Bitch and moan? Sure. Maybe even for several weeks. But by the middle of September, look for them to be back on board.
Meanwhile, Kaine avoids driving away moderately conservative voters. Voters who might have recoiled from an economic populist on the ticket. But instead will now be much more likely to be recoiling from Trump.
I can see why the Sanders variety of economic populists would have preferred one of their own. But seriously, how many of them would opt for Trump instead? I suppose a few of them may decide to sulk. But unless they are under the delusion that a President Trump would be able (and willing) to drive a populist program thru a Republican Congress, they aren’t going to let that happen.
Bitch and moan? Sure. Maybe even for several weeks. But by the middle of September, look for them to be back on board.
Meanwhile, Kaine avoids driving away moderately conservative voters. Voters who might have recoiled from an economic populist on the ticket. But instead will now be much more likely to be recoiling from Trump.
Yeah, this may sound very strange to say, but I would suggest that a liberal white male complaining angrily about HRC not choosing a firebreathing populist (and, if you think about it, Elizabeth Warren is probably the only non white male who can get away with that) is an example of white male privilege. I realize that some may strongly take issue with that, but it is the same dynamic as those who bitterly complain that Obama has been too nice, and has never gotten ‘angry’. They look back and say ‘gee Obama should have known that he was going to get no cooperation, so he should have let the Republicans have it from the get-go’. To assume that a black man, or a woman candidate for president, has the same range of tools to push back is to not understand how our society works.
I should add that I’m not calling anyone out here, especially not Matt. I too would have liked another woman or a POC, but the inverse of all those articles about Kaine being a safe choice would have been ‘Hillary wants to go toe to toe with the Republicans and is picking a fight with them by choosing [name]’ Given the media’s complicity in the rise of Trump, you can be sure that the received wisdom would be to make the election into a grudge match.
Yeah, this may sound very strange to say, but I would suggest that a liberal white male complaining angrily about HRC not choosing a firebreathing populist (and, if you think about it, Elizabeth Warren is probably the only non white male who can get away with that) is an example of white male privilege. I realize that some may strongly take issue with that, but it is the same dynamic as those who bitterly complain that Obama has been too nice, and has never gotten ‘angry’. They look back and say ‘gee Obama should have known that he was going to get no cooperation, so he should have let the Republicans have it from the get-go’. To assume that a black man, or a woman candidate for president, has the same range of tools to push back is to not understand how our society works.
I should add that I’m not calling anyone out here, especially not Matt. I too would have liked another woman or a POC, but the inverse of all those articles about Kaine being a safe choice would have been ‘Hillary wants to go toe to toe with the Republicans and is picking a fight with them by choosing [name]’ Given the media’s complicity in the rise of Trump, you can be sure that the received wisdom would be to make the election into a grudge match.
Yeah, this may sound very strange to say, but I would suggest that a liberal white male complaining angrily about HRC not choosing a firebreathing populist (and, if you think about it, Elizabeth Warren is probably the only non white male who can get away with that) is an example of white male privilege. I realize that some may strongly take issue with that, but it is the same dynamic as those who bitterly complain that Obama has been too nice, and has never gotten ‘angry’. They look back and say ‘gee Obama should have known that he was going to get no cooperation, so he should have let the Republicans have it from the get-go’. To assume that a black man, or a woman candidate for president, has the same range of tools to push back is to not understand how our society works.
I should add that I’m not calling anyone out here, especially not Matt. I too would have liked another woman or a POC, but the inverse of all those articles about Kaine being a safe choice would have been ‘Hillary wants to go toe to toe with the Republicans and is picking a fight with them by choosing [name]’ Given the media’s complicity in the rise of Trump, you can be sure that the received wisdom would be to make the election into a grudge match.
If his speech on Saturday is any guide, Tim Kaine will be a tremendous campaigner. I was in the car, listening to the radio. Hillary introducing him almost bored me to the point of just popping in my old Tom Lehrer tape, but I decided to hang on and hear at least a bit of what Kaine had to say. He was about halfway through when I got to the mall, and I was so absorbed that I sat in the car for another 20 minutes to hear the rest of it. As I was walking into the store, my NWDW and early Bernie supporting sister texted me: “Phew…Kaine is cool!” So Tim Kaine made a great impression on at least two people (who, to be clear, were going to vote for Hillary anyway) with low tolerance for generic pablum in political oratory. Whether the NWRW of America will react the same way is not something I can predict.
To the extent that the defeat of He, Trump depends on enthusiasm for Clinton-Kaine among lefties like me and my sister, I have to pass on a rare bit of wisdom from Tweetie (aka Chris Matthews) earlier today: some of the biggest liberal successes in recent history were accomplished by Democratic presidents whose running mates were NOT favorites of the Left. Tweetie cited FDR’s John Nance Garner, JFK’s Lyndon Johnson, and arguably Barack Obama’s Joe (“BFD”) Biden. I would add that two or maybe all three of those presidents ended up more liberal as office-holders than as campaigners.
Anyway, FWIW given that I only fit one of the categories in the NWRW acronym, I am looking forward to seeing more of Tim Kaine as campaigner.
–TP
If his speech on Saturday is any guide, Tim Kaine will be a tremendous campaigner. I was in the car, listening to the radio. Hillary introducing him almost bored me to the point of just popping in my old Tom Lehrer tape, but I decided to hang on and hear at least a bit of what Kaine had to say. He was about halfway through when I got to the mall, and I was so absorbed that I sat in the car for another 20 minutes to hear the rest of it. As I was walking into the store, my NWDW and early Bernie supporting sister texted me: “Phew…Kaine is cool!” So Tim Kaine made a great impression on at least two people (who, to be clear, were going to vote for Hillary anyway) with low tolerance for generic pablum in political oratory. Whether the NWRW of America will react the same way is not something I can predict.
To the extent that the defeat of He, Trump depends on enthusiasm for Clinton-Kaine among lefties like me and my sister, I have to pass on a rare bit of wisdom from Tweetie (aka Chris Matthews) earlier today: some of the biggest liberal successes in recent history were accomplished by Democratic presidents whose running mates were NOT favorites of the Left. Tweetie cited FDR’s John Nance Garner, JFK’s Lyndon Johnson, and arguably Barack Obama’s Joe (“BFD”) Biden. I would add that two or maybe all three of those presidents ended up more liberal as office-holders than as campaigners.
Anyway, FWIW given that I only fit one of the categories in the NWRW acronym, I am looking forward to seeing more of Tim Kaine as campaigner.
–TP
If his speech on Saturday is any guide, Tim Kaine will be a tremendous campaigner. I was in the car, listening to the radio. Hillary introducing him almost bored me to the point of just popping in my old Tom Lehrer tape, but I decided to hang on and hear at least a bit of what Kaine had to say. He was about halfway through when I got to the mall, and I was so absorbed that I sat in the car for another 20 minutes to hear the rest of it. As I was walking into the store, my NWDW and early Bernie supporting sister texted me: “Phew…Kaine is cool!” So Tim Kaine made a great impression on at least two people (who, to be clear, were going to vote for Hillary anyway) with low tolerance for generic pablum in political oratory. Whether the NWRW of America will react the same way is not something I can predict.
To the extent that the defeat of He, Trump depends on enthusiasm for Clinton-Kaine among lefties like me and my sister, I have to pass on a rare bit of wisdom from Tweetie (aka Chris Matthews) earlier today: some of the biggest liberal successes in recent history were accomplished by Democratic presidents whose running mates were NOT favorites of the Left. Tweetie cited FDR’s John Nance Garner, JFK’s Lyndon Johnson, and arguably Barack Obama’s Joe (“BFD”) Biden. I would add that two or maybe all three of those presidents ended up more liberal as office-holders than as campaigners.
Anyway, FWIW given that I only fit one of the categories in the NWRW acronym, I am looking forward to seeing more of Tim Kaine as campaigner.
–TP
@wh: I hear a bunch of them insisting that they don’t think it’ll make any difference to them whether Trump or Clinton wins, so they’re voting for Jill Stein. One or two actually insisting that they’d prefer if Trump won, because Trump is evil and incompetent whereas Hillary is evil and competent, so she’ll do more evil (and they’re voting for Jill Stein).
They are, as far as I can tell, all white men. The female Bernie supporters I know are 100% with Hillary now. The non-white people are seriously frightened and treating Trump as an existential threat; will vote for Hillary in a heartbeat to defeat him.
@wh: I hear a bunch of them insisting that they don’t think it’ll make any difference to them whether Trump or Clinton wins, so they’re voting for Jill Stein. One or two actually insisting that they’d prefer if Trump won, because Trump is evil and incompetent whereas Hillary is evil and competent, so she’ll do more evil (and they’re voting for Jill Stein).
They are, as far as I can tell, all white men. The female Bernie supporters I know are 100% with Hillary now. The non-white people are seriously frightened and treating Trump as an existential threat; will vote for Hillary in a heartbeat to defeat him.
@wh: I hear a bunch of them insisting that they don’t think it’ll make any difference to them whether Trump or Clinton wins, so they’re voting for Jill Stein. One or two actually insisting that they’d prefer if Trump won, because Trump is evil and incompetent whereas Hillary is evil and competent, so she’ll do more evil (and they’re voting for Jill Stein).
They are, as far as I can tell, all white men. The female Bernie supporters I know are 100% with Hillary now. The non-white people are seriously frightened and treating Trump as an existential threat; will vote for Hillary in a heartbeat to defeat him.
Even Bernie, who professes disappointment with the choice, calls him “very very smart”, and “very nice” – which is a highly unusual combination in any politician.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197
Don’t know much about Kaine, but he looks a good pick, much as I like Warren.
Even Bernie, who professes disappointment with the choice, calls him “very very smart”, and “very nice” – which is a highly unusual combination in any politician.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197
Don’t know much about Kaine, but he looks a good pick, much as I like Warren.
Even Bernie, who professes disappointment with the choice, calls him “very very smart”, and “very nice” – which is a highly unusual combination in any politician.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197
Don’t know much about Kaine, but he looks a good pick, much as I like Warren.
Just out of curiosity, do these guys see Trump and Clinton as the same kind of evil? And to the next same degree? Just trying to get a feel for how divorced from reality they are. (Having known a fair number of folks who are seriously part of the delusional left, I’m aware that there are degrees there. 😊)
Just out of curiosity, do these guys see Trump and Clinton as the same kind of evil? And to the next same degree? Just trying to get a feel for how divorced from reality they are. (Having known a fair number of folks who are seriously part of the delusional left, I’m aware that there are degrees there. 😊)
Just out of curiosity, do these guys see Trump and Clinton as the same kind of evil? And to the next same degree? Just trying to get a feel for how divorced from reality they are. (Having known a fair number of folks who are seriously part of the delusional left, I’m aware that there are degrees there. 😊)
A quick point, I think the Tim Kaine pick ensured her win. Smart, thoughtful, personable. Everything she isn’t in some of those ways. I would vote for him if he were at the top of the ticket this election. (I won’t vote for her).
wj,
Hillary is another level of evil beyond Trump. He is crass, a blowhard, a racist and completely unlikeable for sixty percent of the population.
She is a malevolent human being under the guise of an incredibly good politician. Her level of evil has no regard for the rules everyone else plays by. She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence. The outcome of investigations that say we can’t make charges stick in court but she is clearly implicated (every one of them) get transformed into statements completely exonerating her through magical thinking.
She has no conscience, he has no shame.
Literally two evils. I could not possibly pick between them.
I have no idea who I will vote but most likely Johnson/Weld.
A quick point, I think the Tim Kaine pick ensured her win. Smart, thoughtful, personable. Everything she isn’t in some of those ways. I would vote for him if he were at the top of the ticket this election. (I won’t vote for her).
wj,
Hillary is another level of evil beyond Trump. He is crass, a blowhard, a racist and completely unlikeable for sixty percent of the population.
She is a malevolent human being under the guise of an incredibly good politician. Her level of evil has no regard for the rules everyone else plays by. She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence. The outcome of investigations that say we can’t make charges stick in court but she is clearly implicated (every one of them) get transformed into statements completely exonerating her through magical thinking.
She has no conscience, he has no shame.
Literally two evils. I could not possibly pick between them.
I have no idea who I will vote but most likely Johnson/Weld.
A quick point, I think the Tim Kaine pick ensured her win. Smart, thoughtful, personable. Everything she isn’t in some of those ways. I would vote for him if he were at the top of the ticket this election. (I won’t vote for her).
wj,
Hillary is another level of evil beyond Trump. He is crass, a blowhard, a racist and completely unlikeable for sixty percent of the population.
She is a malevolent human being under the guise of an incredibly good politician. Her level of evil has no regard for the rules everyone else plays by. She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence. The outcome of investigations that say we can’t make charges stick in court but she is clearly implicated (every one of them) get transformed into statements completely exonerating her through magical thinking.
She has no conscience, he has no shame.
Literally two evils. I could not possibly pick between them.
I have no idea who I will vote but most likely Johnson/Weld.
Marty needs some CDS rehab, stat.
Marty needs some CDS rehab, stat.
Marty needs some CDS rehab, stat.
@ Liberal Japonicus
That seems completely reasonable, there just doesn’t seem to be much evidence for it.
I mean, I’m sure it’s true at the margins. If the ticket included some utterly ignorant, wildly erratic, openly racist and misogynistic… ah f¥€%.
@ Liberal Japonicus
That seems completely reasonable, there just doesn’t seem to be much evidence for it.
I mean, I’m sure it’s true at the margins. If the ticket included some utterly ignorant, wildly erratic, openly racist and misogynistic… ah f¥€%.
@ Liberal Japonicus
That seems completely reasonable, there just doesn’t seem to be much evidence for it.
I mean, I’m sure it’s true at the margins. If the ticket included some utterly ignorant, wildly erratic, openly racist and misogynistic… ah f¥€%.
“She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence.”
That’s right up there with “all Saddam has to do is turn over his WMDs”.
And no, the RW-GOP NEVER gets to live that down.
“She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence.”
That’s right up there with “all Saddam has to do is turn over his WMDs”.
And no, the RW-GOP NEVER gets to live that down.
“She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence.”
That’s right up there with “all Saddam has to do is turn over his WMDs”.
And no, the RW-GOP NEVER gets to live that down.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-philadelphia-000000725.html
Scroll down a bit and this doesn’t look like a picture of white Bernie bros protesting DWS.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-philadelphia-000000725.html
Scroll down a bit and this doesn’t look like a picture of white Bernie bros protesting DWS.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-philadelphia-000000725.html
Scroll down a bit and this doesn’t look like a picture of white Bernie bros protesting DWS.
What is this CDS for which Marty needs rehab?
What is this CDS for which Marty needs rehab?
What is this CDS for which Marty needs rehab?
Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Aha!
Aha!
Aha!
Regarding those DNC emails:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/are-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-really-bffs
Putin had a much better week than even I thought:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-gets-sizeable-convention-bounce-polls
The polls among world leaders who murder their own people show an even bigger bump for Trump.
You want evil, we’re going to get f*cking Evil.
And lots of dead motherf*ckers along with.
Regarding those DNC emails:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/are-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-really-bffs
Putin had a much better week than even I thought:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-gets-sizeable-convention-bounce-polls
The polls among world leaders who murder their own people show an even bigger bump for Trump.
You want evil, we’re going to get f*cking Evil.
And lots of dead motherf*ckers along with.
Regarding those DNC emails:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/are-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-really-bffs
Putin had a much better week than even I thought:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-gets-sizeable-convention-bounce-polls
The polls among world leaders who murder their own people show an even bigger bump for Trump.
You want evil, we’re going to get f*cking Evil.
And lots of dead motherf*ckers along with.
Nate Silvers take? It isn’t panic time for Clinton, but it ain’t a walk in the park either:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-gets-convention-bounce-drawing-polls-to-dead-heat/
Nate Silvers take? It isn’t panic time for Clinton, but it ain’t a walk in the park either:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-gets-convention-bounce-drawing-polls-to-dead-heat/
Nate Silvers take? It isn’t panic time for Clinton, but it ain’t a walk in the park either:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-gets-convention-bounce-drawing-polls-to-dead-heat/
It’s pretty clear from everything I’m seeing that one mistake that the Clinton campaign is unlikely to make is overconfidence.
It’s pretty clear from everything I’m seeing that one mistake that the Clinton campaign is unlikely to make is overconfidence.
It’s pretty clear from everything I’m seeing that one mistake that the Clinton campaign is unlikely to make is overconfidence.
Marty’s a conservative. Insisting that Trump and Clinton are both evil but Clinton is more evil is at least ideologically coherent for him. What drives me nuts are liberals saying this.
That said, I’m also now starting to see Bernie supporters who still insist that Clinton is a criminal who rigged the primaries… and that it’s important to vote for her.
Marty’s a conservative. Insisting that Trump and Clinton are both evil but Clinton is more evil is at least ideologically coherent for him. What drives me nuts are liberals saying this.
That said, I’m also now starting to see Bernie supporters who still insist that Clinton is a criminal who rigged the primaries… and that it’s important to vote for her.
Marty’s a conservative. Insisting that Trump and Clinton are both evil but Clinton is more evil is at least ideologically coherent for him. What drives me nuts are liberals saying this.
That said, I’m also now starting to see Bernie supporters who still insist that Clinton is a criminal who rigged the primaries… and that it’s important to vote for her.
The optics of the booing of Clinton’s name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful, and Sanders being booed by his own supporters as he endorses her candidature…
Aaargh.
The optics of the booing of Clinton’s name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful, and Sanders being booed by his own supporters as he endorses her candidature…
Aaargh.
The optics of the booing of Clinton’s name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful, and Sanders being booed by his own supporters as he endorses her candidature…
Aaargh.
Eventually a cure will be found for CDS.
Not like CDO, which is like OCD, except that the letters are arranged alphabetically.
Eventually a cure will be found for CDS.
Not like CDO, which is like OCD, except that the letters are arranged alphabetically.
Eventually a cure will be found for CDS.
Not like CDO, which is like OCD, except that the letters are arranged alphabetically.
“eventually a cure will be found…”
Hopefully before the end of the convention.
“eventually a cure will be found…”
Hopefully before the end of the convention.
“eventually a cure will be found…”
Hopefully before the end of the convention.
Except OCD is arranged perfectly by ink usage.
Except OCD is arranged perfectly by ink usage.
Except OCD is arranged perfectly by ink usage.
You all may have seen this, but I thought it was an extremely handy compilation of links to all the appalling things Trump has said, and all the appalling people who have endorsed him, all in one place. I know it would be naive to think that if you forward this to decent people thinking of voting Trump they might change their minds, but a girl can dream.
All you need to know about Trump
You all may have seen this, but I thought it was an extremely handy compilation of links to all the appalling things Trump has said, and all the appalling people who have endorsed him, all in one place. I know it would be naive to think that if you forward this to decent people thinking of voting Trump they might change their minds, but a girl can dream.
All you need to know about Trump
You all may have seen this, but I thought it was an extremely handy compilation of links to all the appalling things Trump has said, and all the appalling people who have endorsed him, all in one place. I know it would be naive to think that if you forward this to decent people thinking of voting Trump they might change their minds, but a girl can dream.
All you need to know about Trump
Thank you, GftNC. I ‘m going to go door to door, and I’ll have this with me.
Thank you, GftNC. I ‘m going to go door to door, and I’ll have this with me.
Thank you, GftNC. I ‘m going to go door to door, and I’ll have this with me.
Thanks Donald, I was trying to find some details on the make up of the FL delegation, but was unable to. However, this AP video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnVJOQoZMc4
seems to point to the division as being age based among white delegates. To me, it is underlined by this
The same thing [crowd booing] happened as Rep. Elijah Cummings delivered a speech centering on social justice.
As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders’ supporters shouted, “No TPP, No TPP,” in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487385184/raucous-repeated-chants-of-bernie-and-hillary-fill-convention-hall-on-day-1
I’m trying to wrap my head around booing and interrupting Elijah Cummings talking about social justice because Bernie.
And this tweet
“Iowa delegate @chris_laursen: Bernie basically fed us a bunch of Mountain Dew and now he wants us to go to bed. It’s not going to happen.”
the WaPo live updates have tons of this, if you can tolerate the number of facepalms you’ll adminster to yourself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/07/25/the-daily-trail-breaking-apparently-the-revolution-will-be-televised-after-all/57967e084acce2050515b979/
Thanks Donald, I was trying to find some details on the make up of the FL delegation, but was unable to. However, this AP video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnVJOQoZMc4
seems to point to the division as being age based among white delegates. To me, it is underlined by this
The same thing [crowd booing] happened as Rep. Elijah Cummings delivered a speech centering on social justice.
As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders’ supporters shouted, “No TPP, No TPP,” in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487385184/raucous-repeated-chants-of-bernie-and-hillary-fill-convention-hall-on-day-1
I’m trying to wrap my head around booing and interrupting Elijah Cummings talking about social justice because Bernie.
And this tweet
“Iowa delegate @chris_laursen: Bernie basically fed us a bunch of Mountain Dew and now he wants us to go to bed. It’s not going to happen.”
the WaPo live updates have tons of this, if you can tolerate the number of facepalms you’ll adminster to yourself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/07/25/the-daily-trail-breaking-apparently-the-revolution-will-be-televised-after-all/57967e084acce2050515b979/
Thanks Donald, I was trying to find some details on the make up of the FL delegation, but was unable to. However, this AP video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnVJOQoZMc4
seems to point to the division as being age based among white delegates. To me, it is underlined by this
The same thing [crowd booing] happened as Rep. Elijah Cummings delivered a speech centering on social justice.
As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders’ supporters shouted, “No TPP, No TPP,” in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487385184/raucous-repeated-chants-of-bernie-and-hillary-fill-convention-hall-on-day-1
I’m trying to wrap my head around booing and interrupting Elijah Cummings talking about social justice because Bernie.
And this tweet
“Iowa delegate @chris_laursen: Bernie basically fed us a bunch of Mountain Dew and now he wants us to go to bed. It’s not going to happen.”
the WaPo live updates have tons of this, if you can tolerate the number of facepalms you’ll adminster to yourself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/07/25/the-daily-trail-breaking-apparently-the-revolution-will-be-televised-after-all/57967e084acce2050515b979/
sapient, given the “mood” in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a “Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He’ll do what needs to be done.”
%-/
Now, for general consumption:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/late-night-creepsters-open-thread-watch-out-for-the-alt-right/
This passage:
“I don’t think people have fully recognized the degree to which he’s (Trump) transformed the party,” said Richard Spencer, a clean-cut 38-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, who sipped Manhattans as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States…”
This stops now. We’re not going to do this again in America. Here we have another chance to kill the Confederacy and Hitler and his minions and all of the filth Republicans who have fluffed these racist fascists all these years and called it party unity for the sake of tax cuts and all we do is report their fucking choice of beverage, like it’s merely picturesque, instead of big E Evil on its way to the White House?
Yum, they loved their beer, too. Never mind the rest:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVzZ4uJZXvqoA9AZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMWtpNGdnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI0MDdfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=The+Beer+Hall+Putsch+of+1923&fr=mcafee
Winning is bad enough, but what do we think these murderers are going to do if they lose?
I tell you, they will have to be killed. And the government can protect us from them by killing the lot of them, or it can be carried out by vigilante, mercenary action with enough savageness that they never come back again.
But, hamfisted, cloth-eared Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster via clumsy, politically correct email protocols, so let’s do whatever we can to enable in big E Evil because we’re so principled, virtuous, and cosset our consciences in moralistic chastity belts.
sapient, given the “mood” in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a “Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He’ll do what needs to be done.”
%-/
Now, for general consumption:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/late-night-creepsters-open-thread-watch-out-for-the-alt-right/
This passage:
“I don’t think people have fully recognized the degree to which he’s (Trump) transformed the party,” said Richard Spencer, a clean-cut 38-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, who sipped Manhattans as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States…”
This stops now. We’re not going to do this again in America. Here we have another chance to kill the Confederacy and Hitler and his minions and all of the filth Republicans who have fluffed these racist fascists all these years and called it party unity for the sake of tax cuts and all we do is report their fucking choice of beverage, like it’s merely picturesque, instead of big E Evil on its way to the White House?
Yum, they loved their beer, too. Never mind the rest:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVzZ4uJZXvqoA9AZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMWtpNGdnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI0MDdfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=The+Beer+Hall+Putsch+of+1923&fr=mcafee
Winning is bad enough, but what do we think these murderers are going to do if they lose?
I tell you, they will have to be killed. And the government can protect us from them by killing the lot of them, or it can be carried out by vigilante, mercenary action with enough savageness that they never come back again.
But, hamfisted, cloth-eared Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster via clumsy, politically correct email protocols, so let’s do whatever we can to enable in big E Evil because we’re so principled, virtuous, and cosset our consciences in moralistic chastity belts.
sapient, given the “mood” in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a “Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He’ll do what needs to be done.”
%-/
Now, for general consumption:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/late-night-creepsters-open-thread-watch-out-for-the-alt-right/
This passage:
“I don’t think people have fully recognized the degree to which he’s (Trump) transformed the party,” said Richard Spencer, a clean-cut 38-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, who sipped Manhattans as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States…”
This stops now. We’re not going to do this again in America. Here we have another chance to kill the Confederacy and Hitler and his minions and all of the filth Republicans who have fluffed these racist fascists all these years and called it party unity for the sake of tax cuts and all we do is report their fucking choice of beverage, like it’s merely picturesque, instead of big E Evil on its way to the White House?
Yum, they loved their beer, too. Never mind the rest:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVzZ4uJZXvqoA9AZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMWtpNGdnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI0MDdfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=The+Beer+Hall+Putsch+of+1923&fr=mcafee
Winning is bad enough, but what do we think these murderers are going to do if they lose?
I tell you, they will have to be killed. And the government can protect us from them by killing the lot of them, or it can be carried out by vigilante, mercenary action with enough savageness that they never come back again.
But, hamfisted, cloth-eared Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster via clumsy, politically correct email protocols, so let’s do whatever we can to enable in big E Evil because we’re so principled, virtuous, and cosset our consciences in moralistic chastity belts.
sapient, given the “mood” in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a “Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He’ll do what needs to be done.”
No, you’re mistaken as to what I want it for. It’s a reminder of why I’m going to be working so hard to smile and give out campaign literature, asking every “maybe” to please vote for Democratic. If I said what I really think, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t make it back home.
sapient, given the “mood” in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a “Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He’ll do what needs to be done.”
No, you’re mistaken as to what I want it for. It’s a reminder of why I’m going to be working so hard to smile and give out campaign literature, asking every “maybe” to please vote for Democratic. If I said what I really think, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t make it back home.
sapient, given the “mood” in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a “Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He’ll do what needs to be done.”
No, you’re mistaken as to what I want it for. It’s a reminder of why I’m going to be working so hard to smile and give out campaign literature, asking every “maybe” to please vote for Democratic. If I said what I really think, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t make it back home.
This stops now. We’re not going to do this again in America.
It’s bred in our bone. You aren’t going to change it by shooting people.
Some people have really hateful, dangerous aspects of their personality, that they have to keep an eye on and balance with other aspects. You can’t surgically remove it, it’s in their freaking DNA. They just have to learn constructive ways to live with it.
Better angels, right?
Did I say “some”? Most.
Nations are like people that way.
Just my opinion, obviously, but I think it’s historically pretty well founded.
Guns aren’t going to solve this.
This stops now. We’re not going to do this again in America.
It’s bred in our bone. You aren’t going to change it by shooting people.
Some people have really hateful, dangerous aspects of their personality, that they have to keep an eye on and balance with other aspects. You can’t surgically remove it, it’s in their freaking DNA. They just have to learn constructive ways to live with it.
Better angels, right?
Did I say “some”? Most.
Nations are like people that way.
Just my opinion, obviously, but I think it’s historically pretty well founded.
Guns aren’t going to solve this.
This stops now. We’re not going to do this again in America.
It’s bred in our bone. You aren’t going to change it by shooting people.
Some people have really hateful, dangerous aspects of their personality, that they have to keep an eye on and balance with other aspects. You can’t surgically remove it, it’s in their freaking DNA. They just have to learn constructive ways to live with it.
Better angels, right?
Did I say “some”? Most.
Nations are like people that way.
Just my opinion, obviously, but I think it’s historically pretty well founded.
Guns aren’t going to solve this.
Guns aren’t going to solve this.
Not this time by any stretch, but that does not entirely eliminate the possibility.
On another note: How ’bout that Michelle O! Some speech! No guns needed!
Trump goes down to crushing defeat. Mark my words (said the anonymous internet commenter).
Guns aren’t going to solve this.
Not this time by any stretch, but that does not entirely eliminate the possibility.
On another note: How ’bout that Michelle O! Some speech! No guns needed!
Trump goes down to crushing defeat. Mark my words (said the anonymous internet commenter).
Guns aren’t going to solve this.
Not this time by any stretch, but that does not entirely eliminate the possibility.
On another note: How ’bout that Michelle O! Some speech! No guns needed!
Trump goes down to crushing defeat. Mark my words (said the anonymous internet commenter).
bobbyp:
Back in the day when you were a Commie dupe, like me, ;), did you ever run across Trump’s Kremlin connection, Paul Manafort?
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/open-thread-donald-trumps-foreign-affaires/
Gingrich’s reprise of UnAmerican Activities Committee’s first session,on C-Span is going to be fascinating as he calls himself as a witness and he asks himself “Sir, have you no shame?”
Well, no.
Tell me something. What are the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and Homeland Security doing to round these traitors up for their obligatory trials and, one hopes, their public executions?
bobbyp:
Back in the day when you were a Commie dupe, like me, ;), did you ever run across Trump’s Kremlin connection, Paul Manafort?
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/open-thread-donald-trumps-foreign-affaires/
Gingrich’s reprise of UnAmerican Activities Committee’s first session,on C-Span is going to be fascinating as he calls himself as a witness and he asks himself “Sir, have you no shame?”
Well, no.
Tell me something. What are the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and Homeland Security doing to round these traitors up for their obligatory trials and, one hopes, their public executions?
bobbyp:
Back in the day when you were a Commie dupe, like me, ;), did you ever run across Trump’s Kremlin connection, Paul Manafort?
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/open-thread-donald-trumps-foreign-affaires/
Gingrich’s reprise of UnAmerican Activities Committee’s first session,on C-Span is going to be fascinating as he calls himself as a witness and he asks himself “Sir, have you no shame?”
Well, no.
Tell me something. What are the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and Homeland Security doing to round these traitors up for their obligatory trials and, one hopes, their public executions?
Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together, with Booker, Sanders, and especially Michelle Obama, performing rather well.
Clinton is an awful candidate, but I suspect she’ll make a decent president. And the alternative bears contemplating only in the same way that the prospect of global warming or nuclear war bear contemplating.
Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together, with Booker, Sanders, and especially Michelle Obama, performing rather well.
Clinton is an awful candidate, but I suspect she’ll make a decent president. And the alternative bears contemplating only in the same way that the prospect of global warming or nuclear war bear contemplating.
Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together, with Booker, Sanders, and especially Michelle Obama, performing rather well.
Clinton is an awful candidate, but I suspect she’ll make a decent president. And the alternative bears contemplating only in the same way that the prospect of global warming or nuclear war bear contemplating.
I think my views on the candidates are pretty clear, but some of this stuff is more outrageous than even Trump. We won’t be taking up arms, Trump won’t be starting a nuclear war, we won’t have marshall law (except in the way we have it now). We will bluster and tweet stupid sh*t maybe, but I suspect a President Trump would find himself pretty busy.
OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.
I think my views on the candidates are pretty clear, but some of this stuff is more outrageous than even Trump. We won’t be taking up arms, Trump won’t be starting a nuclear war, we won’t have marshall law (except in the way we have it now). We will bluster and tweet stupid sh*t maybe, but I suspect a President Trump would find himself pretty busy.
OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.
I think my views on the candidates are pretty clear, but some of this stuff is more outrageous than even Trump. We won’t be taking up arms, Trump won’t be starting a nuclear war, we won’t have marshall law (except in the way we have it now). We will bluster and tweet stupid sh*t maybe, but I suspect a President Trump would find himself pretty busy.
OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.
Apologies if my hyperbole offended you, Marty.
OTOH, given his policy pronouncements, the comparison of the prospect of a Trump presidency with that of global warming was entirely apposite.
On that topic, it appears there is good evidence for the earth’s having an inbuilt thermostat to counter the effects of CO2 induced heating. Disappointingly, it seems to work over the order of 100,000 years or so…
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2757.html
Apologies if my hyperbole offended you, Marty.
OTOH, given his policy pronouncements, the comparison of the prospect of a Trump presidency with that of global warming was entirely apposite.
On that topic, it appears there is good evidence for the earth’s having an inbuilt thermostat to counter the effects of CO2 induced heating. Disappointingly, it seems to work over the order of 100,000 years or so…
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2757.html
Apologies if my hyperbole offended you, Marty.
OTOH, given his policy pronouncements, the comparison of the prospect of a Trump presidency with that of global warming was entirely apposite.
On that topic, it appears there is good evidence for the earth’s having an inbuilt thermostat to counter the effects of CO2 induced heating. Disappointingly, it seems to work over the order of 100,000 years or so…
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2757.html
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is. Red Skull? Dr. Doom? Magneto? Thanos? or if he’s a DC kind of guy, Lex Luthor? Darkseid? The Joker? Ra’s al Ghul? if I could have a model of this ‘other level of evil’, I could figure out whether to send Spidey, the Avengers, Superman or the Green Lantern out…
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is. Red Skull? Dr. Doom? Magneto? Thanos? or if he’s a DC kind of guy, Lex Luthor? Darkseid? The Joker? Ra’s al Ghul? if I could have a model of this ‘other level of evil’, I could figure out whether to send Spidey, the Avengers, Superman or the Green Lantern out…
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is. Red Skull? Dr. Doom? Magneto? Thanos? or if he’s a DC kind of guy, Lex Luthor? Darkseid? The Joker? Ra’s al Ghul? if I could have a model of this ‘other level of evil’, I could figure out whether to send Spidey, the Avengers, Superman or the Green Lantern out…
I think Ra’s al Ghul. Or a combination of Albert Fall and Richard Nixon.
I think Ra’s al Ghul. Or a combination of Albert Fall and Richard Nixon.
I think Ra’s al Ghul. Or a combination of Albert Fall and Richard Nixon.
Wait, so you mean that Richard Nixon should be considered a comic-book villain?
Because he was too liberal?
Wait, so you mean that Richard Nixon should be considered a comic-book villain?
Because he was too liberal?
Wait, so you mean that Richard Nixon should be considered a comic-book villain?
Because he was too liberal?
Marty has been listening to too much Noam Chomsky…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html
Marty has been listening to too much Noam Chomsky…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html
Marty has been listening to too much Noam Chomsky…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html
Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together
Historically, Republican conventions have been tightly managed, whereas Democratic conventions have been moderately chaotic. This year, the Democrats look to be somewhere near their norm — just looking like they might go off the rails is nothing exceptional for them. As opposed to the Republicans, who looked like “management” was a rather foreign concept to them.
It’s probably best to look at conventions as doing only two things:
1) introduce the candidate to that portion of the public which hasn’t been paying attention during the primaries.
2) throwing a party for the party leaders, and give them a chance to schmooze.
The rest is basically fluff, but doesn’t have a real impact on the course of the election except in really, really exceptional circumstances.
Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together
Historically, Republican conventions have been tightly managed, whereas Democratic conventions have been moderately chaotic. This year, the Democrats look to be somewhere near their norm — just looking like they might go off the rails is nothing exceptional for them. As opposed to the Republicans, who looked like “management” was a rather foreign concept to them.
It’s probably best to look at conventions as doing only two things:
1) introduce the candidate to that portion of the public which hasn’t been paying attention during the primaries.
2) throwing a party for the party leaders, and give them a chance to schmooze.
The rest is basically fluff, but doesn’t have a real impact on the course of the election except in really, really exceptional circumstances.
Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together
Historically, Republican conventions have been tightly managed, whereas Democratic conventions have been moderately chaotic. This year, the Democrats look to be somewhere near their norm — just looking like they might go off the rails is nothing exceptional for them. As opposed to the Republicans, who looked like “management” was a rather foreign concept to them.
It’s probably best to look at conventions as doing only two things:
1) introduce the candidate to that portion of the public which hasn’t been paying attention during the primaries.
2) throwing a party for the party leaders, and give them a chance to schmooze.
The rest is basically fluff, but doesn’t have a real impact on the course of the election except in really, really exceptional circumstances.
Clinton’s tendencies for defensiveness and secrecy; which are understandable given the decades of attack, scrutiny, and conspiracy theories she’s been subject to; are, none the less, self-defeating in terms of how she’s perceived. I don’t have any way of knowing exactly how corrupt she actually is, if at all, but I’m confident that she’s not nearly as corrupt as many on the right think (or claim to think) she is.
On top of that, add her tone deafness (or optics blindness), which allows her to do things like hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz almost immediately after the DNC email thing, and she seems to be brazen as well as corrupt.
Perhaps a litmus test for the virulence of CDS one may be suffering would be whether or not one believes the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. Finer resolutions of CDS severity can be determined after that based on opinions on Benghazi, Whitewater, private email servers, etc.
Clinton’s tendencies for defensiveness and secrecy; which are understandable given the decades of attack, scrutiny, and conspiracy theories she’s been subject to; are, none the less, self-defeating in terms of how she’s perceived. I don’t have any way of knowing exactly how corrupt she actually is, if at all, but I’m confident that she’s not nearly as corrupt as many on the right think (or claim to think) she is.
On top of that, add her tone deafness (or optics blindness), which allows her to do things like hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz almost immediately after the DNC email thing, and she seems to be brazen as well as corrupt.
Perhaps a litmus test for the virulence of CDS one may be suffering would be whether or not one believes the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. Finer resolutions of CDS severity can be determined after that based on opinions on Benghazi, Whitewater, private email servers, etc.
Clinton’s tendencies for defensiveness and secrecy; which are understandable given the decades of attack, scrutiny, and conspiracy theories she’s been subject to; are, none the less, self-defeating in terms of how she’s perceived. I don’t have any way of knowing exactly how corrupt she actually is, if at all, but I’m confident that she’s not nearly as corrupt as many on the right think (or claim to think) she is.
On top of that, add her tone deafness (or optics blindness), which allows her to do things like hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz almost immediately after the DNC email thing, and she seems to be brazen as well as corrupt.
Perhaps a litmus test for the virulence of CDS one may be suffering would be whether or not one believes the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. Finer resolutions of CDS severity can be determined after that based on opinions on Benghazi, Whitewater, private email servers, etc.
Marty:
Trump won’t be starting a nuclear war
Foreign policy experts are REALLY UPSET about what Trump has said about NATO. In particular, saying that the Baltic states can’t automatically assume the US will back them up if Russia rolls in is, in fact, a WWIII-level threat. Saying we’ll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.
Marty:
Trump won’t be starting a nuclear war
Foreign policy experts are REALLY UPSET about what Trump has said about NATO. In particular, saying that the Baltic states can’t automatically assume the US will back them up if Russia rolls in is, in fact, a WWIII-level threat. Saying we’ll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.
Marty:
Trump won’t be starting a nuclear war
Foreign policy experts are REALLY UPSET about what Trump has said about NATO. In particular, saying that the Baltic states can’t automatically assume the US will back them up if Russia rolls in is, in fact, a WWIII-level threat. Saying we’ll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.
I should amend that. It’s not just people on the right who have overblown perceptions of how corrupt she is. There seem to be plenty of people on the farther left end of the spectrum who are at least generally of the same opinion, though maybe not agreeing with those on the right on specific examples.
I should amend that. It’s not just people on the right who have overblown perceptions of how corrupt she is. There seem to be plenty of people on the farther left end of the spectrum who are at least generally of the same opinion, though maybe not agreeing with those on the right on specific examples.
I should amend that. It’s not just people on the right who have overblown perceptions of how corrupt she is. There seem to be plenty of people on the farther left end of the spectrum who are at least generally of the same opinion, though maybe not agreeing with those on the right on specific examples.
Albert Fall?! Now there’s a blast from the past.
I’m kinda’ with Marty here-a bit more sanguine about the damage Trump could inflict wrt foreign policy…even with a nutball like Trump in the Oval Office there would be institutional constraints that would tend to box in his more extravagant tendencies. I don’t think he could just unilaterally tear the NATO treaty up, for example, or wake up one morning to play with the nuclear codes for fun. But I, for one, don’t wish to find out…..especially if he has a nutcase GOP House and a supine GOP Senate. If that came to pass the real Armageddon would take place on the domestic front as the GOP joyfully and abruptly terminated the New Deal state to take us back to the Gilded Age….truly an utter social catastrophe.
For those of you who believe “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” here, I would simply reply, “Some dime.”
Albert Fall?! Now there’s a blast from the past.
I’m kinda’ with Marty here-a bit more sanguine about the damage Trump could inflict wrt foreign policy…even with a nutball like Trump in the Oval Office there would be institutional constraints that would tend to box in his more extravagant tendencies. I don’t think he could just unilaterally tear the NATO treaty up, for example, or wake up one morning to play with the nuclear codes for fun. But I, for one, don’t wish to find out…..especially if he has a nutcase GOP House and a supine GOP Senate. If that came to pass the real Armageddon would take place on the domestic front as the GOP joyfully and abruptly terminated the New Deal state to take us back to the Gilded Age….truly an utter social catastrophe.
For those of you who believe “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” here, I would simply reply, “Some dime.”
Albert Fall?! Now there’s a blast from the past.
I’m kinda’ with Marty here-a bit more sanguine about the damage Trump could inflict wrt foreign policy…even with a nutball like Trump in the Oval Office there would be institutional constraints that would tend to box in his more extravagant tendencies. I don’t think he could just unilaterally tear the NATO treaty up, for example, or wake up one morning to play with the nuclear codes for fun. But I, for one, don’t wish to find out…..especially if he has a nutcase GOP House and a supine GOP Senate. If that came to pass the real Armageddon would take place on the domestic front as the GOP joyfully and abruptly terminated the New Deal state to take us back to the Gilded Age….truly an utter social catastrophe.
For those of you who believe “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” here, I would simply reply, “Some dime.”
Michelle’s the best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3wAdRAim4
Michelle’s the best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3wAdRAim4
Michelle’s the best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3wAdRAim4
I don’t read Avik Roy much, but …
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy
I don’t read Avik Roy much, but …
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy
I don’t read Avik Roy much, but …
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy
Excerpts from the Count’s link:
If I had a pipe to smoke while rubbing my chin, I’d be smoking it right now.
Excerpts from the Count’s link:
If I had a pipe to smoke while rubbing my chin, I’d be smoking it right now.
Excerpts from the Count’s link:
If I had a pipe to smoke while rubbing my chin, I’d be smoking it right now.
I don’t see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.
Unfortunately, that’s *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.
But throwing a temper-tantrum, for some thin-skinned reason? Yeah, Trump might very well do that.
Or just being neglectful and ignorant, at the level of “The US does not intervene in intra-Arab disputes”, as was told to Saddam by Bush Sr, and was taken as a green-light to invade Kuwait.
Most likely: Trump would be an absentee president, more interested in doing real-estate deals, and ignorant of the corruption and malfeasance in his own administration. Think “Harding, 2016”.
I don’t see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.
Unfortunately, that’s *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.
But throwing a temper-tantrum, for some thin-skinned reason? Yeah, Trump might very well do that.
Or just being neglectful and ignorant, at the level of “The US does not intervene in intra-Arab disputes”, as was told to Saddam by Bush Sr, and was taken as a green-light to invade Kuwait.
Most likely: Trump would be an absentee president, more interested in doing real-estate deals, and ignorant of the corruption and malfeasance in his own administration. Think “Harding, 2016”.
I don’t see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.
Unfortunately, that’s *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.
But throwing a temper-tantrum, for some thin-skinned reason? Yeah, Trump might very well do that.
Or just being neglectful and ignorant, at the level of “The US does not intervene in intra-Arab disputes”, as was told to Saddam by Bush Sr, and was taken as a green-light to invade Kuwait.
Most likely: Trump would be an absentee president, more interested in doing real-estate deals, and ignorant of the corruption and malfeasance in his own administration. Think “Harding, 2016”.
Re: Hillary’s honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she’s a politician–yet a fundamentally honest one. She’s neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.
She’s also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:
Re: Hillary’s honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she’s a politician–yet a fundamentally honest one. She’s neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.
She’s also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:
One point of these psychological studies is that you (yes, you) probably have such biases unless you work consciously against them. Being “a good person” won’t protect you.
When you say “she’s a terrible campaigner”, bear in mind that Hillary campaigns *differently* than most male politicians do: her building block is the listening tour, that’s how she got votes in upstate NY. She *listens*, she forms relationships with people, she changes her mind.
I’ll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children. This isn’t considered a “serious” issue by the press, the pundits, or any political establishment. It’s a “women’s issue”, you see, it goes on the Style page.
Yeah, I’m cranky. What about it?
Re: Hillary’s honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she’s a politician–yet a fundamentally honest one. She’s neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.
She’s also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:
Re: Hillary’s honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she’s a politician–yet a fundamentally honest one. She’s neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.
She’s also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:
One point of these psychological studies is that you (yes, you) probably have such biases unless you work consciously against them. Being “a good person” won’t protect you.
When you say “she’s a terrible campaigner”, bear in mind that Hillary campaigns *differently* than most male politicians do: her building block is the listening tour, that’s how she got votes in upstate NY. She *listens*, she forms relationships with people, she changes her mind.
I’ll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children. This isn’t considered a “serious” issue by the press, the pundits, or any political establishment. It’s a “women’s issue”, you see, it goes on the Style page.
Yeah, I’m cranky. What about it?
Re: Hillary’s honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she’s a politician–yet a fundamentally honest one. She’s neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.
She’s also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:
Re: Hillary’s honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she’s a politician–yet a fundamentally honest one. She’s neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.
She’s also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:
One point of these psychological studies is that you (yes, you) probably have such biases unless you work consciously against them. Being “a good person” won’t protect you.
When you say “she’s a terrible campaigner”, bear in mind that Hillary campaigns *differently* than most male politicians do: her building block is the listening tour, that’s how she got votes in upstate NY. She *listens*, she forms relationships with people, she changes her mind.
I’ll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children. This isn’t considered a “serious” issue by the press, the pundits, or any political establishment. It’s a “women’s issue”, you see, it goes on the Style page.
Yeah, I’m cranky. What about it?
Yeah, I’m cranky. What about it?
Typical female! *runs and hides*
Yeah, I’m cranky. What about it?
Typical female! *runs and hides*
Yeah, I’m cranky. What about it?
Typical female! *runs and hides*
Avik Roy dates the problem of white nationalist racism to Goldwater, 1964. But also dates “the conservative movement” to the founding of the National Review by Wm. F. Buckley.
Considering Buckley’s WRITTEN STATEMENTS PUBLISHED in the NR, about how “the negro must be kept down”, prior to 1964, I’d say that the white nationalist racism was baked into the cake right at the very beginning, no matter how Roy tries to salvage some of his preferred creation myth.
Avik Roy dates the problem of white nationalist racism to Goldwater, 1964. But also dates “the conservative movement” to the founding of the National Review by Wm. F. Buckley.
Considering Buckley’s WRITTEN STATEMENTS PUBLISHED in the NR, about how “the negro must be kept down”, prior to 1964, I’d say that the white nationalist racism was baked into the cake right at the very beginning, no matter how Roy tries to salvage some of his preferred creation myth.
Avik Roy dates the problem of white nationalist racism to Goldwater, 1964. But also dates “the conservative movement” to the founding of the National Review by Wm. F. Buckley.
Considering Buckley’s WRITTEN STATEMENTS PUBLISHED in the NR, about how “the negro must be kept down”, prior to 1964, I’d say that the white nationalist racism was baked into the cake right at the very beginning, no matter how Roy tries to salvage some of his preferred creation myth.
Doctor Science, your 1:04 pm is very good, and helpful to people who want to have an open mind.
I think that a lot of people were persuaded by the Benghazi hearings, not only because Hillary handled herself so spectacularly, but because they were actually able to spend some time with her.
Doctor Science, your 1:04 pm is very good, and helpful to people who want to have an open mind.
I think that a lot of people were persuaded by the Benghazi hearings, not only because Hillary handled herself so spectacularly, but because they were actually able to spend some time with her.
Doctor Science, your 1:04 pm is very good, and helpful to people who want to have an open mind.
I think that a lot of people were persuaded by the Benghazi hearings, not only because Hillary handled herself so spectacularly, but because they were actually able to spend some time with her.
Okay, horrible sexist comment: my take on Hillary? She’s one tough broad.
Seems like a job qualification to me.
Okay, horrible sexist comment: my take on Hillary? She’s one tough broad.
Seems like a job qualification to me.
Okay, horrible sexist comment: my take on Hillary? She’s one tough broad.
Seems like a job qualification to me.
HSTH:
You don’t get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.
If he’s a “typical male”, then men are too emotional to be allowed near the levers of power.
HSTH:
You don’t get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.
If he’s a “typical male”, then men are too emotional to be allowed near the levers of power.
HSTH:
You don’t get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.
If he’s a “typical male”, then men are too emotional to be allowed near the levers of power.
Dr. S: “I’ll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children.”
You know what the technical term is for species that do not work toward the success of their offspring? EXTINCT.
All else flows from making the “taking care of children” a priority.
Dr. S: “I’ll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children.”
You know what the technical term is for species that do not work toward the success of their offspring? EXTINCT.
All else flows from making the “taking care of children” a priority.
Dr. S: “I’ll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children.”
You know what the technical term is for species that do not work toward the success of their offspring? EXTINCT.
All else flows from making the “taking care of children” a priority.
Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.
Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.
Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.
I don’t see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.
Unfortunately, that’s *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.
The thing is, I could see Trump getting us into a war anyway. Without bothering to get the pieces in place.** Which would make it even more of a disaster.
**Justification, of course, would be off-the-cuff. And not particularly important to him anyway.
I don’t see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.
Unfortunately, that’s *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.
The thing is, I could see Trump getting us into a war anyway. Without bothering to get the pieces in place.** Which would make it even more of a disaster.
**Justification, of course, would be off-the-cuff. And not particularly important to him anyway.
I don’t see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.
Unfortunately, that’s *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.
The thing is, I could see Trump getting us into a war anyway. Without bothering to get the pieces in place.** Which would make it even more of a disaster.
**Justification, of course, would be off-the-cuff. And not particularly important to him anyway.
You don’t get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.
If Trump were to read this, I’d guess the stubby-fingered part would bother him the most. He would then lash out in a cranky, thin-skinned, vindictive and petty way in response.
You don’t get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.
If Trump were to read this, I’d guess the stubby-fingered part would bother him the most. He would then lash out in a cranky, thin-skinned, vindictive and petty way in response.
You don’t get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.
If Trump were to read this, I’d guess the stubby-fingered part would bother him the most. He would then lash out in a cranky, thin-skinned, vindictive and petty way in response.
I’d have to say Trump could certainly stir up a lot of sh1t if he wanted to. He could tell Putin the US will not honor its NATO treaty obligations should Russian invade the Baltics (hell he could indeed rip up the NATO treaty). He could ramp up the US posture w/r/t China in the South China Sea. He could tell, e.g., Japan and Saudi Arabia that it’s time for them to get their own nukes. Pull US troops from South Korea while belligerently threatening the North. Order bombing of Iran under the AUMF. Etc. etc.
I’m not sure there are any institutional constraints stopping any of that.
I’d have to say Trump could certainly stir up a lot of sh1t if he wanted to. He could tell Putin the US will not honor its NATO treaty obligations should Russian invade the Baltics (hell he could indeed rip up the NATO treaty). He could ramp up the US posture w/r/t China in the South China Sea. He could tell, e.g., Japan and Saudi Arabia that it’s time for them to get their own nukes. Pull US troops from South Korea while belligerently threatening the North. Order bombing of Iran under the AUMF. Etc. etc.
I’m not sure there are any institutional constraints stopping any of that.
I’d have to say Trump could certainly stir up a lot of sh1t if he wanted to. He could tell Putin the US will not honor its NATO treaty obligations should Russian invade the Baltics (hell he could indeed rip up the NATO treaty). He could ramp up the US posture w/r/t China in the South China Sea. He could tell, e.g., Japan and Saudi Arabia that it’s time for them to get their own nukes. Pull US troops from South Korea while belligerently threatening the North. Order bombing of Iran under the AUMF. Etc. etc.
I’m not sure there are any institutional constraints stopping any of that.
Yes, on Snarki’s comments vis a vis Buckley, but it was the wooing of racist, segregationist Confederate Dixiecrats by the Republican Party since the Truman era and solidified under Reagan/Gingrich that completed the creation of this contemporary, white nationalist monster.
Doctor Science is right on the money.
I’ve been self-examining my reticent dislike of Hillary Clinton, despite that the fact that I plan on stuffing the ballot box for her, and maybe its my problem, not hers, though I don’t think being a female precludes a person from being a ruthless, pitiless as8hole.
Not saying she is. I do think that if there is a cow pie in the road, she has a tendency to veer toward it, step in it, and then declare that it isn’t poop.
I don’t get that. But that has been duly noted here in various degrees.
Of course, maybe acting that way at times comes from interacting in a man’s world or politics and/or business, where being an asshole pays dividends.
I mean, plenty of far right republican women in the spotlight have proven they can be just as misguidedly and ruthlessly manhanded as their male counterparts.
I wouldn’t let any of THEM in my bathroom either.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such visceral, primal hate that I hear men and women in my world express toward Hillary Clinton. especially among women. It’s a disgust usually reserved for other women who commit adultery.
Maybe Yoko Ono. Who I defended too.
One of my John Lennon-loving female friends hated Ono, not the least of the reasons being that she has retained her Japanese accent after living in America for so long. Duh.
One time I said, so what’s John Lennon’s excuse?
He still speaks Liverpudlian.
Or did, before the gun lobby got him.
Yes, on Snarki’s comments vis a vis Buckley, but it was the wooing of racist, segregationist Confederate Dixiecrats by the Republican Party since the Truman era and solidified under Reagan/Gingrich that completed the creation of this contemporary, white nationalist monster.
Doctor Science is right on the money.
I’ve been self-examining my reticent dislike of Hillary Clinton, despite that the fact that I plan on stuffing the ballot box for her, and maybe its my problem, not hers, though I don’t think being a female precludes a person from being a ruthless, pitiless as8hole.
Not saying she is. I do think that if there is a cow pie in the road, she has a tendency to veer toward it, step in it, and then declare that it isn’t poop.
I don’t get that. But that has been duly noted here in various degrees.
Of course, maybe acting that way at times comes from interacting in a man’s world or politics and/or business, where being an asshole pays dividends.
I mean, plenty of far right republican women in the spotlight have proven they can be just as misguidedly and ruthlessly manhanded as their male counterparts.
I wouldn’t let any of THEM in my bathroom either.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such visceral, primal hate that I hear men and women in my world express toward Hillary Clinton. especially among women. It’s a disgust usually reserved for other women who commit adultery.
Maybe Yoko Ono. Who I defended too.
One of my John Lennon-loving female friends hated Ono, not the least of the reasons being that she has retained her Japanese accent after living in America for so long. Duh.
One time I said, so what’s John Lennon’s excuse?
He still speaks Liverpudlian.
Or did, before the gun lobby got him.
Yes, on Snarki’s comments vis a vis Buckley, but it was the wooing of racist, segregationist Confederate Dixiecrats by the Republican Party since the Truman era and solidified under Reagan/Gingrich that completed the creation of this contemporary, white nationalist monster.
Doctor Science is right on the money.
I’ve been self-examining my reticent dislike of Hillary Clinton, despite that the fact that I plan on stuffing the ballot box for her, and maybe its my problem, not hers, though I don’t think being a female precludes a person from being a ruthless, pitiless as8hole.
Not saying she is. I do think that if there is a cow pie in the road, she has a tendency to veer toward it, step in it, and then declare that it isn’t poop.
I don’t get that. But that has been duly noted here in various degrees.
Of course, maybe acting that way at times comes from interacting in a man’s world or politics and/or business, where being an asshole pays dividends.
I mean, plenty of far right republican women in the spotlight have proven they can be just as misguidedly and ruthlessly manhanded as their male counterparts.
I wouldn’t let any of THEM in my bathroom either.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such visceral, primal hate that I hear men and women in my world express toward Hillary Clinton. especially among women. It’s a disgust usually reserved for other women who commit adultery.
Maybe Yoko Ono. Who I defended too.
One of my John Lennon-loving female friends hated Ono, not the least of the reasons being that she has retained her Japanese accent after living in America for so long. Duh.
One time I said, so what’s John Lennon’s excuse?
He still speaks Liverpudlian.
Or did, before the gun lobby got him.
Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.
I agree with Dr. S….what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?
Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?
Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.
I agree with Dr. S….what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?
Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?
Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.
I agree with Dr. S….what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?
Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?
Trump expresses admiration for Putin, because Putin apparently finds him a very handsome man.
Doctor Science and a bunch of us hate Trump.
I’d say there is a slightly better chance that Trump sends goons to beat the crap out of Us, then there is that that Trump would defend Latvia against Soviet tanks after Putin gifted him finger extensions at their first summit.
Trump expresses admiration for Putin, because Putin apparently finds him a very handsome man.
Doctor Science and a bunch of us hate Trump.
I’d say there is a slightly better chance that Trump sends goons to beat the crap out of Us, then there is that that Trump would defend Latvia against Soviet tanks after Putin gifted him finger extensions at their first summit.
Trump expresses admiration for Putin, because Putin apparently finds him a very handsome man.
Doctor Science and a bunch of us hate Trump.
I’d say there is a slightly better chance that Trump sends goons to beat the crap out of Us, then there is that that Trump would defend Latvia against Soviet tanks after Putin gifted him finger extensions at their first summit.
I mean, hell, I’m not sure NATO would intervene to kick Russia out of the Baltics should it launch a full scale land invasion and present it as a fait accompli NOW. But there’s no need to go telling Putin that.
I mean, hell, I’m not sure NATO would intervene to kick Russia out of the Baltics should it launch a full scale land invasion and present it as a fait accompli NOW. But there’s no need to go telling Putin that.
I mean, hell, I’m not sure NATO would intervene to kick Russia out of the Baltics should it launch a full scale land invasion and present it as a fait accompli NOW. But there’s no need to go telling Putin that.
I don’t worry so much about He, Trump starting WW3 off the cuff or demolishing the New Deal single-handedly. It’s not the next 4 years I worry about; it’s the next 40, which is to say the rest of my life and then some.
Think Supreme Court nominations, people. Think carbon emmissions encouraged. Think educations deferred. It’s the stuff whose long-term effects will still be felt long after He, Trump himself is dead that really worry me.
Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.
–TP
I don’t worry so much about He, Trump starting WW3 off the cuff or demolishing the New Deal single-handedly. It’s not the next 4 years I worry about; it’s the next 40, which is to say the rest of my life and then some.
Think Supreme Court nominations, people. Think carbon emmissions encouraged. Think educations deferred. It’s the stuff whose long-term effects will still be felt long after He, Trump himself is dead that really worry me.
Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.
–TP
I don’t worry so much about He, Trump starting WW3 off the cuff or demolishing the New Deal single-handedly. It’s not the next 4 years I worry about; it’s the next 40, which is to say the rest of my life and then some.
Think Supreme Court nominations, people. Think carbon emmissions encouraged. Think educations deferred. It’s the stuff whose long-term effects will still be felt long after He, Trump himself is dead that really worry me.
Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.
–TP
Is it really possible that a conservative movement which traces its origins to Buckley can consider itself a champion of civil rights?
This is beyond laughable. It really is psychotic, if not clinically, at least in the sense of being utterly out of touch with reality. I know all about the Republicans who supported the 1964 CRA. I wonder what party Jacob Javits would belong to today.
I disagree with Roy that it is entirely a party of white nationalism, though that is on the increase. Basically we have a Republican Party dedicated to fruitcake economics, including never-ending tax cuts for the wealthy, opposing science, supporting theocracy, supporting corpocracy, etc. This is a part whose great legislative leader is Paul Ryan, one of the great political frauds of our time.
It is, IMO, Republican “intellectuals” like Roy and others who are much to blame for this. They have provided cover, not to mention fairy stories about federalism, balanced budgets, “free market healthcare,” climate change conspiracies, etc.
Is it really possible that a conservative movement which traces its origins to Buckley can consider itself a champion of civil rights?
This is beyond laughable. It really is psychotic, if not clinically, at least in the sense of being utterly out of touch with reality. I know all about the Republicans who supported the 1964 CRA. I wonder what party Jacob Javits would belong to today.
I disagree with Roy that it is entirely a party of white nationalism, though that is on the increase. Basically we have a Republican Party dedicated to fruitcake economics, including never-ending tax cuts for the wealthy, opposing science, supporting theocracy, supporting corpocracy, etc. This is a part whose great legislative leader is Paul Ryan, one of the great political frauds of our time.
It is, IMO, Republican “intellectuals” like Roy and others who are much to blame for this. They have provided cover, not to mention fairy stories about federalism, balanced budgets, “free market healthcare,” climate change conspiracies, etc.
Is it really possible that a conservative movement which traces its origins to Buckley can consider itself a champion of civil rights?
This is beyond laughable. It really is psychotic, if not clinically, at least in the sense of being utterly out of touch with reality. I know all about the Republicans who supported the 1964 CRA. I wonder what party Jacob Javits would belong to today.
I disagree with Roy that it is entirely a party of white nationalism, though that is on the increase. Basically we have a Republican Party dedicated to fruitcake economics, including never-ending tax cuts for the wealthy, opposing science, supporting theocracy, supporting corpocracy, etc. This is a part whose great legislative leader is Paul Ryan, one of the great political frauds of our time.
It is, IMO, Republican “intellectuals” like Roy and others who are much to blame for this. They have provided cover, not to mention fairy stories about federalism, balanced budgets, “free market healthcare,” climate change conspiracies, etc.
what Tony P said.
Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.
Palin was the precedent….candidate Kardashian can’t be far behind.*
No jokes about behinds, please.
what Tony P said.
Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.
Palin was the precedent….candidate Kardashian can’t be far behind.*
No jokes about behinds, please.
what Tony P said.
Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.
Palin was the precedent….candidate Kardashian can’t be far behind.*
No jokes about behinds, please.
“Saying we’ll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.”
Which is not what he said, at all, I watched it. He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay. Not protection money, not a hold up, WHAT THE CHARTER AND AGREEMENTS SAY THEY ARE GOING TO PAY.
Then the questioner said, but money aside we would go help them anyway… And to his credit he said “Have they paid?”
One of the few things I have no problem with is an American President standing up and saying that all that money we spend to make you safe incurs an obligation you should meet. These are supposedly our friends for gods sake, they shouldn’t be stiffing us.
“Saying we’ll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.”
Which is not what he said, at all, I watched it. He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay. Not protection money, not a hold up, WHAT THE CHARTER AND AGREEMENTS SAY THEY ARE GOING TO PAY.
Then the questioner said, but money aside we would go help them anyway… And to his credit he said “Have they paid?”
One of the few things I have no problem with is an American President standing up and saying that all that money we spend to make you safe incurs an obligation you should meet. These are supposedly our friends for gods sake, they shouldn’t be stiffing us.
“Saying we’ll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.”
Which is not what he said, at all, I watched it. He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay. Not protection money, not a hold up, WHAT THE CHARTER AND AGREEMENTS SAY THEY ARE GOING TO PAY.
Then the questioner said, but money aside we would go help them anyway… And to his credit he said “Have they paid?”
One of the few things I have no problem with is an American President standing up and saying that all that money we spend to make you safe incurs an obligation you should meet. These are supposedly our friends for gods sake, they shouldn’t be stiffing us.
Marty,
What are the numbers? Who is stiffing us, and for how much?
No snark here. I really want to know.
–TP
Marty,
What are the numbers? Who is stiffing us, and for how much?
No snark here. I really want to know.
–TP
Marty,
What are the numbers? Who is stiffing us, and for how much?
No snark here. I really want to know.
–TP
Has Trump paid back the money Russian oligarchs have injected into his indebted business enterprises?
What if Putin decides to take Latvia as collateral for those debts?
Has Trump paid back the contractors and workers in this country, you know, the white male ones, that he has stiffed over the decades?
Too bad they don’t possess a nuclear arsenal to take the deadbeat out.
For a guy with such stubby fingers, Trump is one hell of a pickpocket.
Has Trump paid back the money Russian oligarchs have injected into his indebted business enterprises?
What if Putin decides to take Latvia as collateral for those debts?
Has Trump paid back the contractors and workers in this country, you know, the white male ones, that he has stiffed over the decades?
Too bad they don’t possess a nuclear arsenal to take the deadbeat out.
For a guy with such stubby fingers, Trump is one hell of a pickpocket.
Has Trump paid back the money Russian oligarchs have injected into his indebted business enterprises?
What if Putin decides to take Latvia as collateral for those debts?
Has Trump paid back the contractors and workers in this country, you know, the white male ones, that he has stiffed over the decades?
Too bad they don’t possess a nuclear arsenal to take the deadbeat out.
For a guy with such stubby fingers, Trump is one hell of a pickpocket.
TP,
It’s hard for me to get a sense for exact numbers over time but here is an article on it:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/index.html
TP,
It’s hard for me to get a sense for exact numbers over time but here is an article on it:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/index.html
TP,
It’s hard for me to get a sense for exact numbers over time but here is an article on it:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/index.html
He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay.
The thing is, it’s one of the Baltics (Latvia or Estonia, don’t remember which) that is the ONLY member of NATO who has paid what it committed to. So how do we justify not defending them?
Of course, Trump’s information-free mind doesn’t include that inconvenient detail. So it doesn’t matter at all that they have done what he says should be done.
He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay.
The thing is, it’s one of the Baltics (Latvia or Estonia, don’t remember which) that is the ONLY member of NATO who has paid what it committed to. So how do we justify not defending them?
Of course, Trump’s information-free mind doesn’t include that inconvenient detail. So it doesn’t matter at all that they have done what he says should be done.
He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay.
The thing is, it’s one of the Baltics (Latvia or Estonia, don’t remember which) that is the ONLY member of NATO who has paid what it committed to. So how do we justify not defending them?
Of course, Trump’s information-free mind doesn’t include that inconvenient detail. So it doesn’t matter at all that they have done what he says should be done.
I like this one. Just a taste of what Trump will throw at Hillary.
https://youtu.be/uLm4w-z91B4
I like this one. Just a taste of what Trump will throw at Hillary.
https://youtu.be/uLm4w-z91B4
I like this one. Just a taste of what Trump will throw at Hillary.
https://youtu.be/uLm4w-z91B4
Trump doesn’t know Latvia from labia.
Trump doesn’t know Latvia from labia.
Trump doesn’t know Latvia from labia.
Regarding children, I googled “Marian Wright Edelman Clinton” and of course interesting things popped up.
Here is the first–
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-hillary-clintons-long-tense-relationship-with-her-liberal-mentor/2016/06/02/b204f6de-22af-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
Her record is complicated. Seriously, it is.
On comparisons to Nixon, the Clintons are real good friends with Kissinger. I find that remarkable for alleged progressives.
I wrote a long rant about her foreign policy record last night, focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating, but I decided not to post it. It was quite angry and I decided I didn’t want to fight about it. Children come up there too.
I don’t agree with centrist liberal Democrats. They turn their moral outrage buttons on and off at different times from when I would, in ways I find bizarre. They are capable of overlooking the obvious flaws in their candidates and then accuse everyone else of having a cult of personality. Much of how they try to get people to unite behind the Democrats seems to involve denigrating or downplaying the seriousness of some issues that I think matter. I do not wish to be told to be mature by people who I think avoid talking about certain issues if it would make their candidate or party look bad.. I wish the Sanders diehards would get behind her in roughly the way I am, which means saying that I am voting for Clinton, but won’t pretend to applaud her record or her branch of the party. It’s just that the Republicans are worse, sometimes much worse. That’s enough of a reason. I am partly hopeful she might be good on some domestic issues. On FP, people should watch her like a, well, hawk.
Regarding children, I googled “Marian Wright Edelman Clinton” and of course interesting things popped up.
Here is the first–
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-hillary-clintons-long-tense-relationship-with-her-liberal-mentor/2016/06/02/b204f6de-22af-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
Her record is complicated. Seriously, it is.
On comparisons to Nixon, the Clintons are real good friends with Kissinger. I find that remarkable for alleged progressives.
I wrote a long rant about her foreign policy record last night, focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating, but I decided not to post it. It was quite angry and I decided I didn’t want to fight about it. Children come up there too.
I don’t agree with centrist liberal Democrats. They turn their moral outrage buttons on and off at different times from when I would, in ways I find bizarre. They are capable of overlooking the obvious flaws in their candidates and then accuse everyone else of having a cult of personality. Much of how they try to get people to unite behind the Democrats seems to involve denigrating or downplaying the seriousness of some issues that I think matter. I do not wish to be told to be mature by people who I think avoid talking about certain issues if it would make their candidate or party look bad.. I wish the Sanders diehards would get behind her in roughly the way I am, which means saying that I am voting for Clinton, but won’t pretend to applaud her record or her branch of the party. It’s just that the Republicans are worse, sometimes much worse. That’s enough of a reason. I am partly hopeful she might be good on some domestic issues. On FP, people should watch her like a, well, hawk.
Regarding children, I googled “Marian Wright Edelman Clinton” and of course interesting things popped up.
Here is the first–
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-hillary-clintons-long-tense-relationship-with-her-liberal-mentor/2016/06/02/b204f6de-22af-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
Her record is complicated. Seriously, it is.
On comparisons to Nixon, the Clintons are real good friends with Kissinger. I find that remarkable for alleged progressives.
I wrote a long rant about her foreign policy record last night, focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating, but I decided not to post it. It was quite angry and I decided I didn’t want to fight about it. Children come up there too.
I don’t agree with centrist liberal Democrats. They turn their moral outrage buttons on and off at different times from when I would, in ways I find bizarre. They are capable of overlooking the obvious flaws in their candidates and then accuse everyone else of having a cult of personality. Much of how they try to get people to unite behind the Democrats seems to involve denigrating or downplaying the seriousness of some issues that I think matter. I do not wish to be told to be mature by people who I think avoid talking about certain issues if it would make their candidate or party look bad.. I wish the Sanders diehards would get behind her in roughly the way I am, which means saying that I am voting for Clinton, but won’t pretend to applaud her record or her branch of the party. It’s just that the Republicans are worse, sometimes much worse. That’s enough of a reason. I am partly hopeful she might be good on some domestic issues. On FP, people should watch her like a, well, hawk.
wj,
I’m not sure how that would even impact his point, or mine since this is really something that I believe. I couldn’t have told you which 5 of the 20 something countries had paid. But I would not have just said sure we’ll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.
wj,
I’m not sure how that would even impact his point, or mine since this is really something that I believe. I couldn’t have told you which 5 of the 20 something countries had paid. But I would not have just said sure we’ll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.
wj,
I’m not sure how that would even impact his point, or mine since this is really something that I believe. I couldn’t have told you which 5 of the 20 something countries had paid. But I would not have just said sure we’ll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.
update on DNC
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814
This is about campaign money raising.
update on DNC
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814
This is about campaign money raising.
update on DNC
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814
This is about campaign money raising.
I thought we filled the twit gap in January 2001?
I thought we filled the twit gap in January 2001?
I thought we filled the twit gap in January 2001?
Marty,
I read your link. It says many NATO countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on “defense”. I figured that’s what He, Trump was talking about, while making it sound like “they owe us money”.
The US, I notice, spends 3.6% of its GDP on “defense”. He, Trump complains that’s too little. So how much should Canada (1.0%) or Germany (1.2%) spend? Should they pay that extra to us, as He, Trump seems to imply? If they spend it themselves, does that mean we can spend less ourselves? Or do still have to spend more, because our military is soooo depleted?
He, Trump is not just a grifter, he’s bad at it.
–TP
Marty,
I read your link. It says many NATO countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on “defense”. I figured that’s what He, Trump was talking about, while making it sound like “they owe us money”.
The US, I notice, spends 3.6% of its GDP on “defense”. He, Trump complains that’s too little. So how much should Canada (1.0%) or Germany (1.2%) spend? Should they pay that extra to us, as He, Trump seems to imply? If they spend it themselves, does that mean we can spend less ourselves? Or do still have to spend more, because our military is soooo depleted?
He, Trump is not just a grifter, he’s bad at it.
–TP
Marty,
I read your link. It says many NATO countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on “defense”. I figured that’s what He, Trump was talking about, while making it sound like “they owe us money”.
The US, I notice, spends 3.6% of its GDP on “defense”. He, Trump complains that’s too little. So how much should Canada (1.0%) or Germany (1.2%) spend? Should they pay that extra to us, as He, Trump seems to imply? If they spend it themselves, does that mean we can spend less ourselves? Or do still have to spend more, because our military is soooo depleted?
He, Trump is not just a grifter, he’s bad at it.
–TP
The optics of the booing of Clinton’s name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful,
Watching Bernie’s speech, it was remarkable how loud the boos were for his endorsement of Clinton when contrasted by the relative silence when he went on to bash Trump. Just sayin’.
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is.
Marty has to answer for himself, but what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about “grandkids,” and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down. The Clintons don’t even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.
And let’s not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.
No, this is not a sexist perception. I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more).
The optics of the booing of Clinton’s name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful,
Watching Bernie’s speech, it was remarkable how loud the boos were for his endorsement of Clinton when contrasted by the relative silence when he went on to bash Trump. Just sayin’.
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is.
Marty has to answer for himself, but what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about “grandkids,” and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down. The Clintons don’t even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.
And let’s not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.
No, this is not a sexist perception. I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more).
The optics of the booing of Clinton’s name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful,
Watching Bernie’s speech, it was remarkable how loud the boos were for his endorsement of Clinton when contrasted by the relative silence when he went on to bash Trump. Just sayin’.
I’m still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is.
Marty has to answer for himself, but what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about “grandkids,” and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down. The Clintons don’t even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.
And let’s not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.
No, this is not a sexist perception. I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more).
We have a lot of wealth. We spread some of it around. That’s good business. A great deal of what we hand out comes back as material contracts for our hungry defense industrialists.
….and yes, some of it doesn’t come back at all.*
But I digress,
Writing off debts owed us has a long history…going back to the forgiveness of debts to the US wracked up by the Allies in WWI.
For starters, you can rummage around in here, for example.
One might also notice that if you loan folks money, you tend to have influence over their actions. This is known as “promoting the national interest.”
Essentially, when Trump gets lathered up about NATO debts, he is talking peanuts and being stupidly short sided.
Who doesn’t want a remilitarized Europe and Japan! What could possibly go wrong!
*somebody told me debt forgiveness was in the Bible. True story!
We have a lot of wealth. We spread some of it around. That’s good business. A great deal of what we hand out comes back as material contracts for our hungry defense industrialists.
….and yes, some of it doesn’t come back at all.*
But I digress,
Writing off debts owed us has a long history…going back to the forgiveness of debts to the US wracked up by the Allies in WWI.
For starters, you can rummage around in here, for example.
One might also notice that if you loan folks money, you tend to have influence over their actions. This is known as “promoting the national interest.”
Essentially, when Trump gets lathered up about NATO debts, he is talking peanuts and being stupidly short sided.
Who doesn’t want a remilitarized Europe and Japan! What could possibly go wrong!
*somebody told me debt forgiveness was in the Bible. True story!
We have a lot of wealth. We spread some of it around. That’s good business. A great deal of what we hand out comes back as material contracts for our hungry defense industrialists.
….and yes, some of it doesn’t come back at all.*
But I digress,
Writing off debts owed us has a long history…going back to the forgiveness of debts to the US wracked up by the Allies in WWI.
For starters, you can rummage around in here, for example.
One might also notice that if you loan folks money, you tend to have influence over their actions. This is known as “promoting the national interest.”
Essentially, when Trump gets lathered up about NATO debts, he is talking peanuts and being stupidly short sided.
Who doesn’t want a remilitarized Europe and Japan! What could possibly go wrong!
*somebody told me debt forgiveness was in the Bible. True story!
Bill Clinton + AG, Clintons + Kissinger, RBG + Scalia.
Friendship isn’t necessarily about the job you have, or the political tribe you’re in; so I refuse to use “A is friends with B” as a reason to disparage anyone. People are more complicated than that, and this isn’t high-school any more.
Bill Clinton + AG, Clintons + Kissinger, RBG + Scalia.
Friendship isn’t necessarily about the job you have, or the political tribe you’re in; so I refuse to use “A is friends with B” as a reason to disparage anyone. People are more complicated than that, and this isn’t high-school any more.
Bill Clinton + AG, Clintons + Kissinger, RBG + Scalia.
Friendship isn’t necessarily about the job you have, or the political tribe you’re in; so I refuse to use “A is friends with B” as a reason to disparage anyone. People are more complicated than that, and this isn’t high-school any more.
” I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more). ”
I have always despised Bill more, well since Monica Lewinski. I don’t know what other Presidents did in the WH but the complete lack of shame by Bill, coupled with his complete lack of conscience makes him Trump and Hillary combined.
I do agree with TP that, as grifter’s go, Trump is not good at it, he just does it enough to occasionally get by. And the long con is not really his strength(see Trump University), so time is ticking.
” I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more). ”
I have always despised Bill more, well since Monica Lewinski. I don’t know what other Presidents did in the WH but the complete lack of shame by Bill, coupled with his complete lack of conscience makes him Trump and Hillary combined.
I do agree with TP that, as grifter’s go, Trump is not good at it, he just does it enough to occasionally get by. And the long con is not really his strength(see Trump University), so time is ticking.
” I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more). ”
I have always despised Bill more, well since Monica Lewinski. I don’t know what other Presidents did in the WH but the complete lack of shame by Bill, coupled with his complete lack of conscience makes him Trump and Hillary combined.
I do agree with TP that, as grifter’s go, Trump is not good at it, he just does it enough to occasionally get by. And the long con is not really his strength(see Trump University), so time is ticking.
No, this is not a sexist perception.
At least you admit that it’s a perception, bc.
No, this is not a sexist perception.
At least you admit that it’s a perception, bc.
No, this is not a sexist perception.
At least you admit that it’s a perception, bc.
Pay up, Donald. The little girls have tactical nukes:
http://juanitajean.com/tops-in-goofy/
“I don’t know what other Presidents did in the WH”
Clinton got a few blow jobs. GWB blew up the Middle East.
Now you know.
Pay up, Donald. The little girls have tactical nukes:
http://juanitajean.com/tops-in-goofy/
“I don’t know what other Presidents did in the WH”
Clinton got a few blow jobs. GWB blew up the Middle East.
Now you know.
Pay up, Donald. The little girls have tactical nukes:
http://juanitajean.com/tops-in-goofy/
“I don’t know what other Presidents did in the WH”
Clinton got a few blow jobs. GWB blew up the Middle East.
Now you know.
what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about “grandkids,”
since you apparently know what they talked about, how about you share it with the rest of us?
and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down.
how is this corrupt? where is the quid-pro-quo? what crimes has DWS committed ?
they are reportedly old and close friends. Clinton gave her an “honorary chair” position, not a Chief of Staff job.
The Clintons don’t even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.
nothing can hide from people who invent what they want to see.
And let’s not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.
no, let’s.
Clinton gave speeches to dozens and dozens of different groups. what is she going to get from The Gap, The Society for Human Resource Management, American Jewish University, American Society for Clinical Pathology, National Association of Convenience Stores, the Beth El Synagogue of Minneapolis, The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, etc., etc. ?
please, tell us. since you clearly already know everything that goes on in Clinton’s head, tell us what the exact fuck she’s going to get from the Massachusetts Conference for Women.
what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about “grandkids,”
since you apparently know what they talked about, how about you share it with the rest of us?
and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down.
how is this corrupt? where is the quid-pro-quo? what crimes has DWS committed ?
they are reportedly old and close friends. Clinton gave her an “honorary chair” position, not a Chief of Staff job.
The Clintons don’t even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.
nothing can hide from people who invent what they want to see.
And let’s not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.
no, let’s.
Clinton gave speeches to dozens and dozens of different groups. what is she going to get from The Gap, The Society for Human Resource Management, American Jewish University, American Society for Clinical Pathology, National Association of Convenience Stores, the Beth El Synagogue of Minneapolis, The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, etc., etc. ?
please, tell us. since you clearly already know everything that goes on in Clinton’s head, tell us what the exact fuck she’s going to get from the Massachusetts Conference for Women.
what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about “grandkids,”
since you apparently know what they talked about, how about you share it with the rest of us?
and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down.
how is this corrupt? where is the quid-pro-quo? what crimes has DWS committed ?
they are reportedly old and close friends. Clinton gave her an “honorary chair” position, not a Chief of Staff job.
The Clintons don’t even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.
nothing can hide from people who invent what they want to see.
And let’s not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.
no, let’s.
Clinton gave speeches to dozens and dozens of different groups. what is she going to get from The Gap, The Society for Human Resource Management, American Jewish University, American Society for Clinical Pathology, National Association of Convenience Stores, the Beth El Synagogue of Minneapolis, The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, etc., etc. ?
please, tell us. since you clearly already know everything that goes on in Clinton’s head, tell us what the exact fuck she’s going to get from the Massachusetts Conference for Women.
I agree with Dr. S….what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?
Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?
Hmm. Thatcher got a lot of extremely patronising class-based stuff of course (a British speciality) and didn’t help herself by changing her accent/voice etc. She always got tons of criticism for bossiness etc when in a man it might have been perceived as something different (e.g. “This woman is headstrong, obstinate and dangerously self-opinionated.” ICI personnel department assessment, rejecting job application from the then Margaret Roberts in 1948) and treating her ministers badly (e.g. in Spitting Image, a satirical puppet show on TV at the time:
I certainly remember many sexist comments about who fancied her (Alan Clark, and others) or her attractiveness (or lack thereof) and how she used it:
And of course she was often criticised for being a bad mother, which looks like straight up and down sexism.
My memory of Indira Gandhi is shockingly sparse, and coloured by her portrayal in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, and of Golda Mair is even sparser. Perhaps others can say something about them?
I agree with Dr. S….what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?
Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?
Hmm. Thatcher got a lot of extremely patronising class-based stuff of course (a British speciality) and didn’t help herself by changing her accent/voice etc. She always got tons of criticism for bossiness etc when in a man it might have been perceived as something different (e.g. “This woman is headstrong, obstinate and dangerously self-opinionated.” ICI personnel department assessment, rejecting job application from the then Margaret Roberts in 1948) and treating her ministers badly (e.g. in Spitting Image, a satirical puppet show on TV at the time:
I certainly remember many sexist comments about who fancied her (Alan Clark, and others) or her attractiveness (or lack thereof) and how she used it:
And of course she was often criticised for being a bad mother, which looks like straight up and down sexism.
My memory of Indira Gandhi is shockingly sparse, and coloured by her portrayal in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, and of Golda Mair is even sparser. Perhaps others can say something about them?
I agree with Dr. S….what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?
Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?
Hmm. Thatcher got a lot of extremely patronising class-based stuff of course (a British speciality) and didn’t help herself by changing her accent/voice etc. She always got tons of criticism for bossiness etc when in a man it might have been perceived as something different (e.g. “This woman is headstrong, obstinate and dangerously self-opinionated.” ICI personnel department assessment, rejecting job application from the then Margaret Roberts in 1948) and treating her ministers badly (e.g. in Spitting Image, a satirical puppet show on TV at the time:
I certainly remember many sexist comments about who fancied her (Alan Clark, and others) or her attractiveness (or lack thereof) and how she used it:
And of course she was often criticised for being a bad mother, which looks like straight up and down sexism.
My memory of Indira Gandhi is shockingly sparse, and coloured by her portrayal in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, and of Golda Mair is even sparser. Perhaps others can say something about them?
People are more complicated than that, and this isn’t high-school any more.
I think this is 180 from my point (correct me if I’m wrong). When you have someone under investigation, you do not meet with their spouse semi-clandestinely or otherwise in private to discuss “grandkids”. If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel. If you are friends, you are the AG, and your office is investigating your friend and you meet with them just prior to the FBI issuing findings and you DON’T recuse yourself, then congratulations! You have now joined the group of formerly ethical people who have been coopted by the Clintons. In fact, you don’t even have to be friends to accomplish that.
And yes, HSH, this is my perception based upon the available info. One would have to be quite naive to think that the Clintons are paragons of promoting child welfare. It’s all about money and power. They certainly succeeded at monetizing federal elected positions.
People are more complicated than that, and this isn’t high-school any more.
I think this is 180 from my point (correct me if I’m wrong). When you have someone under investigation, you do not meet with their spouse semi-clandestinely or otherwise in private to discuss “grandkids”. If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel. If you are friends, you are the AG, and your office is investigating your friend and you meet with them just prior to the FBI issuing findings and you DON’T recuse yourself, then congratulations! You have now joined the group of formerly ethical people who have been coopted by the Clintons. In fact, you don’t even have to be friends to accomplish that.
And yes, HSH, this is my perception based upon the available info. One would have to be quite naive to think that the Clintons are paragons of promoting child welfare. It’s all about money and power. They certainly succeeded at monetizing federal elected positions.
People are more complicated than that, and this isn’t high-school any more.
I think this is 180 from my point (correct me if I’m wrong). When you have someone under investigation, you do not meet with their spouse semi-clandestinely or otherwise in private to discuss “grandkids”. If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel. If you are friends, you are the AG, and your office is investigating your friend and you meet with them just prior to the FBI issuing findings and you DON’T recuse yourself, then congratulations! You have now joined the group of formerly ethical people who have been coopted by the Clintons. In fact, you don’t even have to be friends to accomplish that.
And yes, HSH, this is my perception based upon the available info. One would have to be quite naive to think that the Clintons are paragons of promoting child welfare. It’s all about money and power. They certainly succeeded at monetizing federal elected positions.
If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that the AG was not involved in the investigation (that was the FBI). Or are you saying that the FBI was influenced by the AG in their findings and recommendations?
If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that the AG was not involved in the investigation (that was the FBI). Or are you saying that the FBI was influenced by the AG in their findings and recommendations?
If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that the AG was not involved in the investigation (that was the FBI). Or are you saying that the FBI was influenced by the AG in their findings and recommendations?
I’ll just non-comment “what Donald said” @ 3:20 PM, with an underscores beneath the “don’t want to fight about it” weariness.
I’ll just non-comment “what Donald said” @ 3:20 PM, with an underscores beneath the “don’t want to fight about it” weariness.
I’ll just non-comment “what Donald said” @ 3:20 PM, with an underscores beneath the “don’t want to fight about it” weariness.
“Loretta, you gotta stomp on Comey, babe. I mean, maybe you can’t order him to call off his investigation, because we both know he’d run right to the mikes and declare he can’t be intimidated, so he can keep up his integrity schtick. But cantcha hint he should keep his personal trap shut and just announce whether or not the FBI will ask for indictment?”
“Now, Bill, you know very well that even if there’s nothing the FBI can indict on, Mr. Honest Republican Comey won’t be able to resist trashing Hillary because, well, he’s Republican and she’s Hillary. And now that you have grandkids you ought to be old enough to know there’s nothing I can do about that, so just suck it up.”
“Oh, right. Grandkids. That’s what we talked about, right?”
“Right.”
“Say, don’t you think Comey will be just a little intimidated when he reads in the papers that you and I talked?”
“Bill, honey, you just gave him one more reason to trash Hillary as much as he personally can. And you just gave the media one more excuse to call him Mr. Integrity after he uses his official position to push his personal partisan preferences. Seriously, are the grandkids keeping you awake nights, or what?”
–TP
“Loretta, you gotta stomp on Comey, babe. I mean, maybe you can’t order him to call off his investigation, because we both know he’d run right to the mikes and declare he can’t be intimidated, so he can keep up his integrity schtick. But cantcha hint he should keep his personal trap shut and just announce whether or not the FBI will ask for indictment?”
“Now, Bill, you know very well that even if there’s nothing the FBI can indict on, Mr. Honest Republican Comey won’t be able to resist trashing Hillary because, well, he’s Republican and she’s Hillary. And now that you have grandkids you ought to be old enough to know there’s nothing I can do about that, so just suck it up.”
“Oh, right. Grandkids. That’s what we talked about, right?”
“Right.”
“Say, don’t you think Comey will be just a little intimidated when he reads in the papers that you and I talked?”
“Bill, honey, you just gave him one more reason to trash Hillary as much as he personally can. And you just gave the media one more excuse to call him Mr. Integrity after he uses his official position to push his personal partisan preferences. Seriously, are the grandkids keeping you awake nights, or what?”
–TP
“Loretta, you gotta stomp on Comey, babe. I mean, maybe you can’t order him to call off his investigation, because we both know he’d run right to the mikes and declare he can’t be intimidated, so he can keep up his integrity schtick. But cantcha hint he should keep his personal trap shut and just announce whether or not the FBI will ask for indictment?”
“Now, Bill, you know very well that even if there’s nothing the FBI can indict on, Mr. Honest Republican Comey won’t be able to resist trashing Hillary because, well, he’s Republican and she’s Hillary. And now that you have grandkids you ought to be old enough to know there’s nothing I can do about that, so just suck it up.”
“Oh, right. Grandkids. That’s what we talked about, right?”
“Right.”
“Say, don’t you think Comey will be just a little intimidated when he reads in the papers that you and I talked?”
“Bill, honey, you just gave him one more reason to trash Hillary as much as he personally can. And you just gave the media one more excuse to call him Mr. Integrity after he uses his official position to push his personal partisan preferences. Seriously, are the grandkids keeping you awake nights, or what?”
–TP
I enjoyed Donald’s link on the Edelman / Clinton friendship. A quotation that struck me was: “In those early days, the Clintons ‘had an exaggerated view of their own combined capacity,’ recalled Peter Edelman.”
I think that most people have an exaggerated view of a President’s capacity in the realm of legislation, especially with a divided government. And without being reelected, Clinton would have given the government wholly to Republican control. Yes, the situation is complicated, which is why purists have to consider carefully what they’re really looking to accomplish.
I enjoyed Donald’s link on the Edelman / Clinton friendship. A quotation that struck me was: “In those early days, the Clintons ‘had an exaggerated view of their own combined capacity,’ recalled Peter Edelman.”
I think that most people have an exaggerated view of a President’s capacity in the realm of legislation, especially with a divided government. And without being reelected, Clinton would have given the government wholly to Republican control. Yes, the situation is complicated, which is why purists have to consider carefully what they’re really looking to accomplish.
I enjoyed Donald’s link on the Edelman / Clinton friendship. A quotation that struck me was: “In those early days, the Clintons ‘had an exaggerated view of their own combined capacity,’ recalled Peter Edelman.”
I think that most people have an exaggerated view of a President’s capacity in the realm of legislation, especially with a divided government. And without being reelected, Clinton would have given the government wholly to Republican control. Yes, the situation is complicated, which is why purists have to consider carefully what they’re really looking to accomplish.
Marty, speaking of NATO: “But I would not have just said sure we’ll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.”
Here is why that plan is horrifically unwise and could lead to the deaths of tens of millions–
The entire point of NATO is to avoid.
The word, again, is avoid.
Avoid.
A – v – o – i- d.
Warfare with between nuclear powers.
If you make it UNCLEAR that you will defend Europe against Russian aggression, you INVITE Russia to FIND OUT whether you will defend against Russian aggression. Then, once they embark upon a military campaign to take European territory (thinking the U.S. won’t intervene), if you DO intervene, you risk warfare that could lead to nuclear escalation.
This is even more true now that Russia’s nonnuclear military capabilities have weakened. As those capabilities weaken, their willingness to use nuclear means will go up (according to what I have read of military thought).
So you see, they thought of this when they formed NATO. And they decided that your proposed idea was insane. That’s why they didn’t do it.
Ukraine is not in NATO, by the way, if you’d like an example of what happens to Russia’s neighbors when they don’t have our protection.
Marty, speaking of NATO: “But I would not have just said sure we’ll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.”
Here is why that plan is horrifically unwise and could lead to the deaths of tens of millions–
The entire point of NATO is to avoid.
The word, again, is avoid.
Avoid.
A – v – o – i- d.
Warfare with between nuclear powers.
If you make it UNCLEAR that you will defend Europe against Russian aggression, you INVITE Russia to FIND OUT whether you will defend against Russian aggression. Then, once they embark upon a military campaign to take European territory (thinking the U.S. won’t intervene), if you DO intervene, you risk warfare that could lead to nuclear escalation.
This is even more true now that Russia’s nonnuclear military capabilities have weakened. As those capabilities weaken, their willingness to use nuclear means will go up (according to what I have read of military thought).
So you see, they thought of this when they formed NATO. And they decided that your proposed idea was insane. That’s why they didn’t do it.
Ukraine is not in NATO, by the way, if you’d like an example of what happens to Russia’s neighbors when they don’t have our protection.
Marty, speaking of NATO: “But I would not have just said sure we’ll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.”
Here is why that plan is horrifically unwise and could lead to the deaths of tens of millions–
The entire point of NATO is to avoid.
The word, again, is avoid.
Avoid.
A – v – o – i- d.
Warfare with between nuclear powers.
If you make it UNCLEAR that you will defend Europe against Russian aggression, you INVITE Russia to FIND OUT whether you will defend against Russian aggression. Then, once they embark upon a military campaign to take European territory (thinking the U.S. won’t intervene), if you DO intervene, you risk warfare that could lead to nuclear escalation.
This is even more true now that Russia’s nonnuclear military capabilities have weakened. As those capabilities weaken, their willingness to use nuclear means will go up (according to what I have read of military thought).
So you see, they thought of this when they formed NATO. And they decided that your proposed idea was insane. That’s why they didn’t do it.
Ukraine is not in NATO, by the way, if you’d like an example of what happens to Russia’s neighbors when they don’t have our protection.
focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating
I tend to cut her slack on this because of the way I/P relations have played out (the Oslo accords, which seemed to set things at least on the right track, but with Rabin’s assassination and the rise of Netanyahu, statements that might have been ways to try and paper over differences or appeal to domestic groups that have their own purity tests)
This necessarily comes with a lot of what-ifs, (imagine if gay marriage had instead moved in the opposite direction, how would we view all of the trangulated statements?) I think it is very easy to find yourself in a place you don’t want to be because of half steps and finessed statements that blow up in your face when someone like Netanyahu is able to get the ear of the public. I imagine that this is how a lot of people on the Republican side (perhaps hanging on by their fingernails now) ended up where they are now. And one way to deal with it (as we see from Marty) is to pile up more and more dirt on the other side while acknowledging the problematic nature of the other side.
This isn’t to draw you (Donald) out on talking about I/P issues, NV’s ‘I don’t want to fight about it’ being my main feeling, but I wanted to try and explain why it bother me as much as someone might suggest it should.
focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating
I tend to cut her slack on this because of the way I/P relations have played out (the Oslo accords, which seemed to set things at least on the right track, but with Rabin’s assassination and the rise of Netanyahu, statements that might have been ways to try and paper over differences or appeal to domestic groups that have their own purity tests)
This necessarily comes with a lot of what-ifs, (imagine if gay marriage had instead moved in the opposite direction, how would we view all of the trangulated statements?) I think it is very easy to find yourself in a place you don’t want to be because of half steps and finessed statements that blow up in your face when someone like Netanyahu is able to get the ear of the public. I imagine that this is how a lot of people on the Republican side (perhaps hanging on by their fingernails now) ended up where they are now. And one way to deal with it (as we see from Marty) is to pile up more and more dirt on the other side while acknowledging the problematic nature of the other side.
This isn’t to draw you (Donald) out on talking about I/P issues, NV’s ‘I don’t want to fight about it’ being my main feeling, but I wanted to try and explain why it bother me as much as someone might suggest it should.
focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating
I tend to cut her slack on this because of the way I/P relations have played out (the Oslo accords, which seemed to set things at least on the right track, but with Rabin’s assassination and the rise of Netanyahu, statements that might have been ways to try and paper over differences or appeal to domestic groups that have their own purity tests)
This necessarily comes with a lot of what-ifs, (imagine if gay marriage had instead moved in the opposite direction, how would we view all of the trangulated statements?) I think it is very easy to find yourself in a place you don’t want to be because of half steps and finessed statements that blow up in your face when someone like Netanyahu is able to get the ear of the public. I imagine that this is how a lot of people on the Republican side (perhaps hanging on by their fingernails now) ended up where they are now. And one way to deal with it (as we see from Marty) is to pile up more and more dirt on the other side while acknowledging the problematic nature of the other side.
This isn’t to draw you (Donald) out on talking about I/P issues, NV’s ‘I don’t want to fight about it’ being my main feeling, but I wanted to try and explain why it bother me as much as someone might suggest it should.
Stole this from Balloon Juice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZaQKskP-A
That was 15 years ago.
Stole this from Balloon Juice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZaQKskP-A
That was 15 years ago.
Stole this from Balloon Juice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZaQKskP-A
That was 15 years ago.
I guess I’m puzzled about how the Clinton Foundation and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs amounts to corruption. At least of any unusual kind.
How high is the bar? Who does it get applied to, and who not?
I’m not a particular fan of Hilary Clinton, nor am I a particular foe. But I am baffled by the claims that she is “corrupt” in any way other than engaging in normal transactional politics.
Which is to say, politics.
It’s her day job. She is, apparently, good at it. That’s not a bad thing.
When I think of all the bullshit we’ve all lived through, I just can’t get all that worked up about Hilary’s “corruption”.
I also find discussions of “who will cause the biggest clusterf**k” to be, frankly, laughable.
Trump talks as if being POTUS is going to be like being the star of The Apprentice.
NATO, you’re fired!
The president is not CEO of American Enterprises. Even in these days of fairly expansive executive authority, what the president can and can’t do is limited by law and by the Constitution. All the crap he talks about doing “immediately” when he takes office is not all within the scope of the office he is running for.
He demonstrates no understanding of that. Clinton knows it, intimately, from direct personal experience as first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.
There is no comparison to be made between the two regarding anything that is relevant to the office of POTUS. None.
If you don’t like Clinton, no worries. Don’t vote for her. I’ll thank you not to vote for Trump, but that’s your business. Your vote, your choice.
But talking about the two as if there was some comparison to be made between them as regards their qualifications for the office is just beyond the freaking pale.
She’s a really good transactional politician and a person with decades of experience in government at both the domestic and international levels.
He’s a carnival barker.
It sucks that a carnival barker has managed to secure the nomination for POTUS from a major political party, but so be it.
Not my party, not my monkey.
Just don’t try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.
“I’m going to fuck things up” is what Trump is selling. That’s his platform. It’s what his people love him for. Or, to be more specific, “I’m going to fuck things up, and it’s going to be terrific!”.
Unfortunately that’s just not a promise that is in his power to make.
I guess I’m puzzled about how the Clinton Foundation and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs amounts to corruption. At least of any unusual kind.
How high is the bar? Who does it get applied to, and who not?
I’m not a particular fan of Hilary Clinton, nor am I a particular foe. But I am baffled by the claims that she is “corrupt” in any way other than engaging in normal transactional politics.
Which is to say, politics.
It’s her day job. She is, apparently, good at it. That’s not a bad thing.
When I think of all the bullshit we’ve all lived through, I just can’t get all that worked up about Hilary’s “corruption”.
I also find discussions of “who will cause the biggest clusterf**k” to be, frankly, laughable.
Trump talks as if being POTUS is going to be like being the star of The Apprentice.
NATO, you’re fired!
The president is not CEO of American Enterprises. Even in these days of fairly expansive executive authority, what the president can and can’t do is limited by law and by the Constitution. All the crap he talks about doing “immediately” when he takes office is not all within the scope of the office he is running for.
He demonstrates no understanding of that. Clinton knows it, intimately, from direct personal experience as first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.
There is no comparison to be made between the two regarding anything that is relevant to the office of POTUS. None.
If you don’t like Clinton, no worries. Don’t vote for her. I’ll thank you not to vote for Trump, but that’s your business. Your vote, your choice.
But talking about the two as if there was some comparison to be made between them as regards their qualifications for the office is just beyond the freaking pale.
She’s a really good transactional politician and a person with decades of experience in government at both the domestic and international levels.
He’s a carnival barker.
It sucks that a carnival barker has managed to secure the nomination for POTUS from a major political party, but so be it.
Not my party, not my monkey.
Just don’t try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.
“I’m going to fuck things up” is what Trump is selling. That’s his platform. It’s what his people love him for. Or, to be more specific, “I’m going to fuck things up, and it’s going to be terrific!”.
Unfortunately that’s just not a promise that is in his power to make.
I guess I’m puzzled about how the Clinton Foundation and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs amounts to corruption. At least of any unusual kind.
How high is the bar? Who does it get applied to, and who not?
I’m not a particular fan of Hilary Clinton, nor am I a particular foe. But I am baffled by the claims that she is “corrupt” in any way other than engaging in normal transactional politics.
Which is to say, politics.
It’s her day job. She is, apparently, good at it. That’s not a bad thing.
When I think of all the bullshit we’ve all lived through, I just can’t get all that worked up about Hilary’s “corruption”.
I also find discussions of “who will cause the biggest clusterf**k” to be, frankly, laughable.
Trump talks as if being POTUS is going to be like being the star of The Apprentice.
NATO, you’re fired!
The president is not CEO of American Enterprises. Even in these days of fairly expansive executive authority, what the president can and can’t do is limited by law and by the Constitution. All the crap he talks about doing “immediately” when he takes office is not all within the scope of the office he is running for.
He demonstrates no understanding of that. Clinton knows it, intimately, from direct personal experience as first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.
There is no comparison to be made between the two regarding anything that is relevant to the office of POTUS. None.
If you don’t like Clinton, no worries. Don’t vote for her. I’ll thank you not to vote for Trump, but that’s your business. Your vote, your choice.
But talking about the two as if there was some comparison to be made between them as regards their qualifications for the office is just beyond the freaking pale.
She’s a really good transactional politician and a person with decades of experience in government at both the domestic and international levels.
He’s a carnival barker.
It sucks that a carnival barker has managed to secure the nomination for POTUS from a major political party, but so be it.
Not my party, not my monkey.
Just don’t try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.
“I’m going to fuck things up” is what Trump is selling. That’s his platform. It’s what his people love him for. Or, to be more specific, “I’m going to fuck things up, and it’s going to be terrific!”.
Unfortunately that’s just not a promise that is in his power to make.
Just don’t try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.
Oh yeah, oh yeah….well how about an unimaginable planet? But I am confused as to your point here, Russell.
Just don’t try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.
Oh yeah, oh yeah….well how about an unimaginable planet? But I am confused as to your point here, Russell.
Just don’t try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.
Oh yeah, oh yeah….well how about an unimaginable planet? But I am confused as to your point here, Russell.
For “Clinton” read “Trump.” The second time only. Or the first, if you’re reading backward.
For “Clinton” read “Trump.” The second time only. Or the first, if you’re reading backward.
For “Clinton” read “Trump.” The second time only. Or the first, if you’re reading backward.
Russell, all your indignation aside, being first lady is not a qualifications for being POTTS, nor is being a crappie Secretary of State. The most remarkable thing she did as a Senator was get elected in NY. Her corruption is without question, or bounds. It socks that a major party can nominate a criminal and sociopath as their candidate for President. It is my party and I will point out the problems with all the monkeys.
My candidates flaws are the ones that don’t matter is not a new concept.
Russell, all your indignation aside, being first lady is not a qualifications for being POTTS, nor is being a crappie Secretary of State. The most remarkable thing she did as a Senator was get elected in NY. Her corruption is without question, or bounds. It socks that a major party can nominate a criminal and sociopath as their candidate for President. It is my party and I will point out the problems with all the monkeys.
My candidates flaws are the ones that don’t matter is not a new concept.
Russell, all your indignation aside, being first lady is not a qualifications for being POTTS, nor is being a crappie Secretary of State. The most remarkable thing she did as a Senator was get elected in NY. Her corruption is without question, or bounds. It socks that a major party can nominate a criminal and sociopath as their candidate for President. It is my party and I will point out the problems with all the monkeys.
My candidates flaws are the ones that don’t matter is not a new concept.
OK, Marty. Clinton’s resume, as regards accomplishing stuff in office, can be characterized as thin. But Trump’s is non-existent. Furthermore, judging from his statements, Trump has no clue how the business of government works. (Whether he understands how an ethical private business works either is uncertain. Maybe if we saw his tax returns….)
Maybe we get a miracle in the next few months, and a third party candidate surges to the point of becoming a viable option. But realistically we get to elect someone we find unappetizing — since the alternative is overwhelmingly worse.
I must agree with you though, it definitely sucks that a major party can nominate a sociopath for President. But we did, and we’re stuck with him for this time around.
OK, Marty. Clinton’s resume, as regards accomplishing stuff in office, can be characterized as thin. But Trump’s is non-existent. Furthermore, judging from his statements, Trump has no clue how the business of government works. (Whether he understands how an ethical private business works either is uncertain. Maybe if we saw his tax returns….)
Maybe we get a miracle in the next few months, and a third party candidate surges to the point of becoming a viable option. But realistically we get to elect someone we find unappetizing — since the alternative is overwhelmingly worse.
I must agree with you though, it definitely sucks that a major party can nominate a sociopath for President. But we did, and we’re stuck with him for this time around.
OK, Marty. Clinton’s resume, as regards accomplishing stuff in office, can be characterized as thin. But Trump’s is non-existent. Furthermore, judging from his statements, Trump has no clue how the business of government works. (Whether he understands how an ethical private business works either is uncertain. Maybe if we saw his tax returns….)
Maybe we get a miracle in the next few months, and a third party candidate surges to the point of becoming a viable option. But realistically we get to elect someone we find unappetizing — since the alternative is overwhelmingly worse.
I must agree with you though, it definitely sucks that a major party can nominate a sociopath for President. But we did, and we’re stuck with him for this time around.
russell, consider the following example in re: corruption:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Not the only example, either, but the one that got the most press to my eye. Note that there’s no evidence of explicit wrongdoing. There is a fairly clear conflict of interest, however, and frankly also a rather unambiguous appearance of wrongdoing.
russell, consider the following example in re: corruption:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Not the only example, either, but the one that got the most press to my eye. Note that there’s no evidence of explicit wrongdoing. There is a fairly clear conflict of interest, however, and frankly also a rather unambiguous appearance of wrongdoing.
russell, consider the following example in re: corruption:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Not the only example, either, but the one that got the most press to my eye. Note that there’s no evidence of explicit wrongdoing. There is a fairly clear conflict of interest, however, and frankly also a rather unambiguous appearance of wrongdoing.
Trivial point, perhaps, but the article itself – as opposed to the link – specifies $1.5 million, not $15 million in speaking fees.
Trivial point, perhaps, but the article itself – as opposed to the link – specifies $1.5 million, not $15 million in speaking fees.
Trivial point, perhaps, but the article itself – as opposed to the link – specifies $1.5 million, not $15 million in speaking fees.
This link from the linked article has a bit more detail:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24785188.html
This isn’t corruption.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. The implication that influence is being purchased indirectly is difficult to dismiss.
This link from the linked article has a bit more detail:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24785188.html
This isn’t corruption.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. The implication that influence is being purchased indirectly is difficult to dismiss.
This link from the linked article has a bit more detail:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24785188.html
This isn’t corruption.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. The implication that influence is being purchased indirectly is difficult to dismiss.
I really don’t think Clinton is corrupt. But she is sufficiently financially beholden to financial institutions (in a way that, say Elizabeth Warren isn’t) for one to suspect that it might colour her future policy making. It’s interesting that Blair is similarly reviled in the UK for parlaying international influence into lucrative gigs.
And pace Doc Science’s 1:04, I still think she’s a terrible candidate (while I believe she’ll make a far from terrible president), in ways which have little to do with her gender. I’m not arguing the sexism isn’t there – of course it is – but she appears devoid of the kind of talent at connecting with a mass of people that Michelle Obama displayed last night. And, as an example of her ‘tin ear’, while I regarded the email kerfuffle as ridiculous, the way she handled it seemed almost deliberately designed to show herself in the worst possible light.
It’s not even as though one has to be an extrovert to gain public approval. The UK’s Theresa May (a rather more contemporary comparison than Thatcher or Ghandi) is currently showing strikingly positive ratings, with Conservative (+40%), Lab (+20%) and Lib Dem (+29%) voters all thinking she’ll be a better prime minister than Cameron…
I really don’t think Clinton is corrupt. But she is sufficiently financially beholden to financial institutions (in a way that, say Elizabeth Warren isn’t) for one to suspect that it might colour her future policy making. It’s interesting that Blair is similarly reviled in the UK for parlaying international influence into lucrative gigs.
And pace Doc Science’s 1:04, I still think she’s a terrible candidate (while I believe she’ll make a far from terrible president), in ways which have little to do with her gender. I’m not arguing the sexism isn’t there – of course it is – but she appears devoid of the kind of talent at connecting with a mass of people that Michelle Obama displayed last night. And, as an example of her ‘tin ear’, while I regarded the email kerfuffle as ridiculous, the way she handled it seemed almost deliberately designed to show herself in the worst possible light.
It’s not even as though one has to be an extrovert to gain public approval. The UK’s Theresa May (a rather more contemporary comparison than Thatcher or Ghandi) is currently showing strikingly positive ratings, with Conservative (+40%), Lab (+20%) and Lib Dem (+29%) voters all thinking she’ll be a better prime minister than Cameron…
I really don’t think Clinton is corrupt. But she is sufficiently financially beholden to financial institutions (in a way that, say Elizabeth Warren isn’t) for one to suspect that it might colour her future policy making. It’s interesting that Blair is similarly reviled in the UK for parlaying international influence into lucrative gigs.
And pace Doc Science’s 1:04, I still think she’s a terrible candidate (while I believe she’ll make a far from terrible president), in ways which have little to do with her gender. I’m not arguing the sexism isn’t there – of course it is – but she appears devoid of the kind of talent at connecting with a mass of people that Michelle Obama displayed last night. And, as an example of her ‘tin ear’, while I regarded the email kerfuffle as ridiculous, the way she handled it seemed almost deliberately designed to show herself in the worst possible light.
It’s not even as though one has to be an extrovert to gain public approval. The UK’s Theresa May (a rather more contemporary comparison than Thatcher or Ghandi) is currently showing strikingly positive ratings, with Conservative (+40%), Lab (+20%) and Lib Dem (+29%) voters all thinking she’ll be a better prime minister than Cameron…
This is quite interesting:
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/clinton-got-2-million-people-troll-trump-one-day/
This is quite interesting:
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/clinton-got-2-million-people-troll-trump-one-day/
This is quite interesting:
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/clinton-got-2-million-people-troll-trump-one-day/
I am confused as to your point here, Russell.
I’m responding to this, specifically, from Marty:
OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.
“These things” being impose martial law and start a nuclear war.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech.
Yeah, me too. It troubles me when politicians get what amounts to an exemption on rules against insider trading. It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.
It troubles me when private actors literally buy the votes of Congresspeople, and pay their way into being able to literally write legislation that furthers the private actors narrow interests.
Citizen’s United troubles me. Mccutcheon troubles me. We have now defined public corruption so narrowly that members of Congress would literally have to write receipts, itemizing each piece of legislation bought and paid for, before they could be accused of corruption.
You have no freaking idea how profoundly I am troubled by the endemic, systematic, ubiquitous corruption that characterizes modern American national governance.
What I find bizarre is the idea that the kinds of workaday, quid-pro-quo, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours transactional “corruption” that Clinton can legitimately be accused of is in any way remarkable.
The former Speaker of the House literally handed out checks, on the floor of the House, prior to a vote. He was rewarded with a slap on the wrist, and the speakership. That’s just the most plainly obvious example I can think of.
Clinton got paid to talk to bankers. She used a private email server for public business, potentially compromising classified material. She has no doubt traded political favors for other political favors and funding.
She is not only not alone in any of this, she’s bog standard normal.
What country do you think you’re living in?
If you’re going to call out Clinton for stuff like this, you need to tell me how high the bar is, and who it is and isn’t going to apply to.
I am confused as to your point here, Russell.
I’m responding to this, specifically, from Marty:
OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.
“These things” being impose martial law and start a nuclear war.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech.
Yeah, me too. It troubles me when politicians get what amounts to an exemption on rules against insider trading. It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.
It troubles me when private actors literally buy the votes of Congresspeople, and pay their way into being able to literally write legislation that furthers the private actors narrow interests.
Citizen’s United troubles me. Mccutcheon troubles me. We have now defined public corruption so narrowly that members of Congress would literally have to write receipts, itemizing each piece of legislation bought and paid for, before they could be accused of corruption.
You have no freaking idea how profoundly I am troubled by the endemic, systematic, ubiquitous corruption that characterizes modern American national governance.
What I find bizarre is the idea that the kinds of workaday, quid-pro-quo, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours transactional “corruption” that Clinton can legitimately be accused of is in any way remarkable.
The former Speaker of the House literally handed out checks, on the floor of the House, prior to a vote. He was rewarded with a slap on the wrist, and the speakership. That’s just the most plainly obvious example I can think of.
Clinton got paid to talk to bankers. She used a private email server for public business, potentially compromising classified material. She has no doubt traded political favors for other political favors and funding.
She is not only not alone in any of this, she’s bog standard normal.
What country do you think you’re living in?
If you’re going to call out Clinton for stuff like this, you need to tell me how high the bar is, and who it is and isn’t going to apply to.
I am confused as to your point here, Russell.
I’m responding to this, specifically, from Marty:
OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.
“These things” being impose martial law and start a nuclear war.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech.
Yeah, me too. It troubles me when politicians get what amounts to an exemption on rules against insider trading. It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.
It troubles me when private actors literally buy the votes of Congresspeople, and pay their way into being able to literally write legislation that furthers the private actors narrow interests.
Citizen’s United troubles me. Mccutcheon troubles me. We have now defined public corruption so narrowly that members of Congress would literally have to write receipts, itemizing each piece of legislation bought and paid for, before they could be accused of corruption.
You have no freaking idea how profoundly I am troubled by the endemic, systematic, ubiquitous corruption that characterizes modern American national governance.
What I find bizarre is the idea that the kinds of workaday, quid-pro-quo, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours transactional “corruption” that Clinton can legitimately be accused of is in any way remarkable.
The former Speaker of the House literally handed out checks, on the floor of the House, prior to a vote. He was rewarded with a slap on the wrist, and the speakership. That’s just the most plainly obvious example I can think of.
Clinton got paid to talk to bankers. She used a private email server for public business, potentially compromising classified material. She has no doubt traded political favors for other political favors and funding.
She is not only not alone in any of this, she’s bog standard normal.
What country do you think you’re living in?
If you’re going to call out Clinton for stuff like this, you need to tell me how high the bar is, and who it is and isn’t going to apply to.
“What country do you think you’re living in?”
The UK.
My own bar would be, for example, Jimmy Carter or Elizabeth Warren.
As I’ve made pretty clear, if I were in the US, I’d be voting for Clinton without any hesitation. But I take exception to the idea that criticisms I might express are motivated by her gender.
“What country do you think you’re living in?”
The UK.
My own bar would be, for example, Jimmy Carter or Elizabeth Warren.
As I’ve made pretty clear, if I were in the US, I’d be voting for Clinton without any hesitation. But I take exception to the idea that criticisms I might express are motivated by her gender.
“What country do you think you’re living in?”
The UK.
My own bar would be, for example, Jimmy Carter or Elizabeth Warren.
As I’ve made pretty clear, if I were in the US, I’d be voting for Clinton without any hesitation. But I take exception to the idea that criticisms I might express are motivated by her gender.
I owe Russell two or three “what Russell said”s on guns and their use, so let this one count for those and his 6:43 AM.
What Russell said.
Nigel was pretty good too.
If Clinton is so tight with Goldman Sachs, why is Trump’s chief campaign financial advisor from Goldman Sachs?
The “so endearing” thing about America is that in most other countries gargantuan influence peddling/corruption has names like “baksheesh”, “buckshee” and plain old “bribery”, but in exceptional, preening America we call it “freedom”, “decided law”, speech”, and “the way business is done”.
Corporations are voters now. And all of them have the proper identification, no questions asked, apparently even Russian ones. Have you noticed there are no elderly, swarthy corporations turned away when they turn in their ballots written on $100 bills, while everyone else has to now take two buses and a skateboard to the DMV two counties over merely to see if we’re allowed to engage the franchise.
And some of “us” on the right wing throw in a stick to go with the carrot against our government employees and threaten to shoot them in they do or don’t do whatever it is assholes want them to do, and we call THAT the Constitution.
The only wrinkle I would throw in would be here:
“It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.”
Yes, troubling. On the other hand greased palm, however, when the public employee in particular decides to stay with it and make it an honorable career like any other, forgoing the enticements of those actors who wish to “capture” the f*cking public trust, he and she are subjected to steaming, threatening heaps of abuse and insult, so why not jump ship into the vast ocean of private American sugar.
We’re so special.
I owe Russell two or three “what Russell said”s on guns and their use, so let this one count for those and his 6:43 AM.
What Russell said.
Nigel was pretty good too.
If Clinton is so tight with Goldman Sachs, why is Trump’s chief campaign financial advisor from Goldman Sachs?
The “so endearing” thing about America is that in most other countries gargantuan influence peddling/corruption has names like “baksheesh”, “buckshee” and plain old “bribery”, but in exceptional, preening America we call it “freedom”, “decided law”, speech”, and “the way business is done”.
Corporations are voters now. And all of them have the proper identification, no questions asked, apparently even Russian ones. Have you noticed there are no elderly, swarthy corporations turned away when they turn in their ballots written on $100 bills, while everyone else has to now take two buses and a skateboard to the DMV two counties over merely to see if we’re allowed to engage the franchise.
And some of “us” on the right wing throw in a stick to go with the carrot against our government employees and threaten to shoot them in they do or don’t do whatever it is assholes want them to do, and we call THAT the Constitution.
The only wrinkle I would throw in would be here:
“It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.”
Yes, troubling. On the other hand greased palm, however, when the public employee in particular decides to stay with it and make it an honorable career like any other, forgoing the enticements of those actors who wish to “capture” the f*cking public trust, he and she are subjected to steaming, threatening heaps of abuse and insult, so why not jump ship into the vast ocean of private American sugar.
We’re so special.
I owe Russell two or three “what Russell said”s on guns and their use, so let this one count for those and his 6:43 AM.
What Russell said.
Nigel was pretty good too.
If Clinton is so tight with Goldman Sachs, why is Trump’s chief campaign financial advisor from Goldman Sachs?
The “so endearing” thing about America is that in most other countries gargantuan influence peddling/corruption has names like “baksheesh”, “buckshee” and plain old “bribery”, but in exceptional, preening America we call it “freedom”, “decided law”, speech”, and “the way business is done”.
Corporations are voters now. And all of them have the proper identification, no questions asked, apparently even Russian ones. Have you noticed there are no elderly, swarthy corporations turned away when they turn in their ballots written on $100 bills, while everyone else has to now take two buses and a skateboard to the DMV two counties over merely to see if we’re allowed to engage the franchise.
And some of “us” on the right wing throw in a stick to go with the carrot against our government employees and threaten to shoot them in they do or don’t do whatever it is assholes want them to do, and we call THAT the Constitution.
The only wrinkle I would throw in would be here:
“It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.”
Yes, troubling. On the other hand greased palm, however, when the public employee in particular decides to stay with it and make it an honorable career like any other, forgoing the enticements of those actors who wish to “capture” the f*cking public trust, he and she are subjected to steaming, threatening heaps of abuse and insult, so why not jump ship into the vast ocean of private American sugar.
We’re so special.
My own bar would be, for example, Jimmy Carter or Elizabeth Warren.
I admire both of those people, but I thought President Bill Clinton’s speech last night made quite a good case for Hillary having worked her @ss off all of her life to make people’s lives better, and in many cases has succeeded. Jimmy Carter is a saint, but most of his most noteworthy accomplishments came about after his presidency. Elizabeth Warren is a crackerjack, but her accomplishments are fairly recent.
Hillary Clinton, despite being hounded and maligned unfairly for decades, has had her nose to the ground working for people. Her running mate, Tim Kaine (along with his wife), has also been doing so.
If you want to make it illegal to be paid for giving speeches as a private citizen after having worked in public office, let’s pass some laws against it. We know about Hillary Clinton’s income, because she’s disclosed everything. That’s what doesn’t seem to be the norm in this election – disclosure.
My own bar would be, for example, Jimmy Carter or Elizabeth Warren.
I admire both of those people, but I thought President Bill Clinton’s speech last night made quite a good case for Hillary having worked her @ss off all of her life to make people’s lives better, and in many cases has succeeded. Jimmy Carter is a saint, but most of his most noteworthy accomplishments came about after his presidency. Elizabeth Warren is a crackerjack, but her accomplishments are fairly recent.
Hillary Clinton, despite being hounded and maligned unfairly for decades, has had her nose to the ground working for people. Her running mate, Tim Kaine (along with his wife), has also been doing so.
If you want to make it illegal to be paid for giving speeches as a private citizen after having worked in public office, let’s pass some laws against it. We know about Hillary Clinton’s income, because she’s disclosed everything. That’s what doesn’t seem to be the norm in this election – disclosure.
My own bar would be, for example, Jimmy Carter or Elizabeth Warren.
I admire both of those people, but I thought President Bill Clinton’s speech last night made quite a good case for Hillary having worked her @ss off all of her life to make people’s lives better, and in many cases has succeeded. Jimmy Carter is a saint, but most of his most noteworthy accomplishments came about after his presidency. Elizabeth Warren is a crackerjack, but her accomplishments are fairly recent.
Hillary Clinton, despite being hounded and maligned unfairly for decades, has had her nose to the ground working for people. Her running mate, Tim Kaine (along with his wife), has also been doing so.
If you want to make it illegal to be paid for giving speeches as a private citizen after having worked in public office, let’s pass some laws against it. We know about Hillary Clinton’s income, because she’s disclosed everything. That’s what doesn’t seem to be the norm in this election – disclosure.
Henry Frick (a Koch brother of his day) famously complained about Teddy Roosevelt that “We bought the sonofabitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.” Both halves of that statement help explain why TR’s face is on Mt. Rushmore.
Different people have different definitions of “corrupt”.
–TP
Henry Frick (a Koch brother of his day) famously complained about Teddy Roosevelt that “We bought the sonofabitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.” Both halves of that statement help explain why TR’s face is on Mt. Rushmore.
Different people have different definitions of “corrupt”.
–TP
Henry Frick (a Koch brother of his day) famously complained about Teddy Roosevelt that “We bought the sonofabitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.” Both halves of that statement help explain why TR’s face is on Mt. Rushmore.
Different people have different definitions of “corrupt”.
–TP
Dahlia Lithwick, as usual, says it best.
Dahlia Lithwick, as usual, says it best.
Dahlia Lithwick, as usual, says it best.
“If you want to make it illegal to be paid for giving speeches as a private citizen after having worked in public office…”
I’m sorry, but that’s a straw man argument.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
“If you want to make it illegal to be paid for giving speeches as a private citizen after having worked in public office…”
I’m sorry, but that’s a straw man argument.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
“If you want to make it illegal to be paid for giving speeches as a private citizen after having worked in public office…”
I’m sorry, but that’s a straw man argument.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech.
That is absolutely false. And, no, it’s not because the speech is “worth it”. Many, many people get paid more than their services are worth. If you’d ever booked speakers for conferences, as I have, you would know that.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech.
That is absolutely false. And, no, it’s not because the speech is “worth it”. Many, many people get paid more than their services are worth. If you’d ever booked speakers for conferences, as I have, you would know that.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech.
That is absolutely false. And, no, it’s not because the speech is “worth it”. Many, many people get paid more than their services are worth. If you’d ever booked speakers for conferences, as I have, you would know that.
Example.
Example.
Example.
Yes, but in America, you see, we can call exorbitant amounts for giving a speech the “market”, while also calling it corruption.
Yes, but in America, you see, we can call exorbitant amounts for giving a speech the “market”, while also calling it corruption.
Yes, but in America, you see, we can call exorbitant amounts for giving a speech the “market”, while also calling it corruption.
Yes, but in America, you see, we can call exorbitant amounts for giving a speech the “market”, while also calling it corruption.
I’m glad we’re talking about it. We should definitely compare and contrast the Clintons’ “corruption” with other people whose entire lives have been disclosed, and then investigated by their adversaries (spending ungodly amounts of money using official law enforcement mechanisms at tax payer expense).
Yes, but in America, you see, we can call exorbitant amounts for giving a speech the “market”, while also calling it corruption.
I’m glad we’re talking about it. We should definitely compare and contrast the Clintons’ “corruption” with other people whose entire lives have been disclosed, and then investigated by their adversaries (spending ungodly amounts of money using official law enforcement mechanisms at tax payer expense).
Yes, but in America, you see, we can call exorbitant amounts for giving a speech the “market”, while also calling it corruption.
I’m glad we’re talking about it. We should definitely compare and contrast the Clintons’ “corruption” with other people whose entire lives have been disclosed, and then investigated by their adversaries (spending ungodly amounts of money using official law enforcement mechanisms at tax payer expense).
Good point.
Where are Trump’s tax returns? In the same drawer as Tom Delay’s.
Good point.
Where are Trump’s tax returns? In the same drawer as Tom Delay’s.
Good point.
Where are Trump’s tax returns? In the same drawer as Tom Delay’s.
I wonder if Trump’s tax returns show he made charitable donations to, e.g., Planned Parenthood and/or similar charities that would be beyond the pale for the current GOP base.
I wonder if Trump’s tax returns show he made charitable donations to, e.g., Planned Parenthood and/or similar charities that would be beyond the pale for the current GOP base.
I wonder if Trump’s tax returns show he made charitable donations to, e.g., Planned Parenthood and/or similar charities that would be beyond the pale for the current GOP base.
Trump … charitable donations
Ha ha. Good one.
Trump … charitable donations
Ha ha. Good one.
Trump … charitable donations
Ha ha. Good one.
Sapient, the ‘example’ you quote seemingly gives politicians as the ones paid the highest amounts, which kind of proves my point ?
Sapient, the ‘example’ you quote seemingly gives politicians as the ones paid the highest amounts, which kind of proves my point ?
Sapient, the ‘example’ you quote seemingly gives politicians as the ones paid the highest amounts, which kind of proves my point ?
The issue with money in politics today in the US is, ISTM, more about access than outright quid pro quo corruption (although there is some of that too).
Thus, Goldman Sachs (or whatever corp or industry group) is paying Clinton (or whoever) to come speak and/or making donations to their campaign, a PAC, or charity so that when they call Clinton (or someone suitably close to her) will pick up the phone and listen.
Now, ISTM this wouldn’t be much of a problem if people on the other side of the issue could do the same, but often they cannot because they do not have the funds or they end up speaking with an overworked underpaid staffer who also has no access to the relevant decision makers. Thus, politicians (and their staff) are often left with only one side of the story when making policy calls.
Does that mean they will always pick the side they heard from? No, but it likely happens often enough that it’s worth the $$ to move the needle in that way. And if the corp/interest group has dropped off their suggestions for statutory/regulatory language, why it’s much easier to pick that up and run with it once you’ve made your decision than to draft language on your own.
Hence why the justice system has adversarial proceedings (not that they’re perfect either) and general requirements like notice and an opportunity to be heard (in most cases) before a ruling is issued (this why things like the FISA court are horribly problematic).
Not sure how we solve this in the current legal climate.
The issue with money in politics today in the US is, ISTM, more about access than outright quid pro quo corruption (although there is some of that too).
Thus, Goldman Sachs (or whatever corp or industry group) is paying Clinton (or whoever) to come speak and/or making donations to their campaign, a PAC, or charity so that when they call Clinton (or someone suitably close to her) will pick up the phone and listen.
Now, ISTM this wouldn’t be much of a problem if people on the other side of the issue could do the same, but often they cannot because they do not have the funds or they end up speaking with an overworked underpaid staffer who also has no access to the relevant decision makers. Thus, politicians (and their staff) are often left with only one side of the story when making policy calls.
Does that mean they will always pick the side they heard from? No, but it likely happens often enough that it’s worth the $$ to move the needle in that way. And if the corp/interest group has dropped off their suggestions for statutory/regulatory language, why it’s much easier to pick that up and run with it once you’ve made your decision than to draft language on your own.
Hence why the justice system has adversarial proceedings (not that they’re perfect either) and general requirements like notice and an opportunity to be heard (in most cases) before a ruling is issued (this why things like the FISA court are horribly problematic).
Not sure how we solve this in the current legal climate.
The issue with money in politics today in the US is, ISTM, more about access than outright quid pro quo corruption (although there is some of that too).
Thus, Goldman Sachs (or whatever corp or industry group) is paying Clinton (or whoever) to come speak and/or making donations to their campaign, a PAC, or charity so that when they call Clinton (or someone suitably close to her) will pick up the phone and listen.
Now, ISTM this wouldn’t be much of a problem if people on the other side of the issue could do the same, but often they cannot because they do not have the funds or they end up speaking with an overworked underpaid staffer who also has no access to the relevant decision makers. Thus, politicians (and their staff) are often left with only one side of the story when making policy calls.
Does that mean they will always pick the side they heard from? No, but it likely happens often enough that it’s worth the $$ to move the needle in that way. And if the corp/interest group has dropped off their suggestions for statutory/regulatory language, why it’s much easier to pick that up and run with it once you’ve made your decision than to draft language on your own.
Hence why the justice system has adversarial proceedings (not that they’re perfect either) and general requirements like notice and an opportunity to be heard (in most cases) before a ruling is issued (this why things like the FISA court are horribly problematic).
Not sure how we solve this in the current legal climate.
Sapient, the ‘example’ you quote seemingly gives politicians as the ones paid the highest amounts, which kind of proves my point ?
That was from Forbes.
Alicia Keyes
Meryl Streep
As to others, how would we know?
Sapient, the ‘example’ you quote seemingly gives politicians as the ones paid the highest amounts, which kind of proves my point ?
That was from Forbes.
Alicia Keyes
Meryl Streep
As to others, how would we know?
Sapient, the ‘example’ you quote seemingly gives politicians as the ones paid the highest amounts, which kind of proves my point ?
That was from Forbes.
Alicia Keyes
Meryl Streep
As to others, how would we know?
Trivial point, perhaps, but the article itself – as opposed to the link – specifies $1.5 million, not $15 million in speaking fees.
I would assume the link is avoiding using a “.” – it’s a URL, not a title.
Trivial point, perhaps, but the article itself – as opposed to the link – specifies $1.5 million, not $15 million in speaking fees.
I would assume the link is avoiding using a “.” – it’s a URL, not a title.
Trivial point, perhaps, but the article itself – as opposed to the link – specifies $1.5 million, not $15 million in speaking fees.
I would assume the link is avoiding using a “.” – it’s a URL, not a title.
I guess if we were arguing about whether or not Clinton was an ideal candidate (in the “will make a good president” sense), rather than way better than Trump, a lot of this discussion would be more relevant.
Aside from Marty’s assertions that her corruption is indisputable and boundless and that she’s a sociopath (assertions I don’t accept), none of her shortcomings come close to putting her on par with Trump’s awfulness.
I guess if we were arguing about whether or not Clinton was an ideal candidate (in the “will make a good president” sense), rather than way better than Trump, a lot of this discussion would be more relevant.
Aside from Marty’s assertions that her corruption is indisputable and boundless and that she’s a sociopath (assertions I don’t accept), none of her shortcomings come close to putting her on par with Trump’s awfulness.
I guess if we were arguing about whether or not Clinton was an ideal candidate (in the “will make a good president” sense), rather than way better than Trump, a lot of this discussion would be more relevant.
Aside from Marty’s assertions that her corruption is indisputable and boundless and that she’s a sociopath (assertions I don’t accept), none of her shortcomings come close to putting her on par with Trump’s awfulness.
This is true. However, there was a trend upthread to dismiss criticism of Clinton as illegitimate and/or made in bad faith. We have at least one party to the conversation who bristles at the notion of anything even vaguely critical being said about Clinton, and who responds with hyperbolic claims of faultlessness. It’s, ah, channeled the scope of the conversation more than a little.
This is true. However, there was a trend upthread to dismiss criticism of Clinton as illegitimate and/or made in bad faith. We have at least one party to the conversation who bristles at the notion of anything even vaguely critical being said about Clinton, and who responds with hyperbolic claims of faultlessness. It’s, ah, channeled the scope of the conversation more than a little.
This is true. However, there was a trend upthread to dismiss criticism of Clinton as illegitimate and/or made in bad faith. We have at least one party to the conversation who bristles at the notion of anything even vaguely critical being said about Clinton, and who responds with hyperbolic claims of faultlessness. It’s, ah, channeled the scope of the conversation more than a little.
On a rate of return basis, the money spent on lobbying by economic interests has, by far, the highest return. Money has always purchased political influence in this country.
This, as opposed to traditional means such as family (birth) or social status.
We are indeed exceptional.
But that is what you have to deal with when you revolutionize (there’s that word again) all relations into monetary ones!
Rather than trying to take the money out of politics, we should look at taking the politics out of money 🙂
On a rate of return basis, the money spent on lobbying by economic interests has, by far, the highest return. Money has always purchased political influence in this country.
This, as opposed to traditional means such as family (birth) or social status.
We are indeed exceptional.
But that is what you have to deal with when you revolutionize (there’s that word again) all relations into monetary ones!
Rather than trying to take the money out of politics, we should look at taking the politics out of money 🙂
On a rate of return basis, the money spent on lobbying by economic interests has, by far, the highest return. Money has always purchased political influence in this country.
This, as opposed to traditional means such as family (birth) or social status.
We are indeed exceptional.
But that is what you have to deal with when you revolutionize (there’s that word again) all relations into monetary ones!
Rather than trying to take the money out of politics, we should look at taking the politics out of money 🙂
Count: On the other hand greased palm, however, when the public employee in particular decides to stay with it and make it an honorable career like any other, forgoing the enticements of those actors who wish to “capture” the f*cking public trust, he and she are subjected to steaming, threatening heaps of abuse and insult, so why not jump ship into the vast ocean of private American sugar.
This point can’t be made often enough. The casual denigration of all civil servants by The Right™ and the GOP is horrid and has the added bonus (for them) of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why go work for, e.g., the IRS for less money and subject yourself to that kind of abuse?
Count: On the other hand greased palm, however, when the public employee in particular decides to stay with it and make it an honorable career like any other, forgoing the enticements of those actors who wish to “capture” the f*cking public trust, he and she are subjected to steaming, threatening heaps of abuse and insult, so why not jump ship into the vast ocean of private American sugar.
This point can’t be made often enough. The casual denigration of all civil servants by The Right™ and the GOP is horrid and has the added bonus (for them) of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why go work for, e.g., the IRS for less money and subject yourself to that kind of abuse?
Count: On the other hand greased palm, however, when the public employee in particular decides to stay with it and make it an honorable career like any other, forgoing the enticements of those actors who wish to “capture” the f*cking public trust, he and she are subjected to steaming, threatening heaps of abuse and insult, so why not jump ship into the vast ocean of private American sugar.
This point can’t be made often enough. The casual denigration of all civil servants by The Right™ and the GOP is horrid and has the added bonus (for them) of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why go work for, e.g., the IRS for less money and subject yourself to that kind of abuse?
Russell: It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.
I agree that there are issues here. On the other hand, do we really want to make it impossible for people to change employers (at least if one of those employers is the government)? Because that is what we are talking about here.
In the private sector, it is entirely normal for people to work for one company, learn a lot about how it works, and then later go to work for a competitor. There are occasionally jobs with a “non-compete” clause in their contract. But they are very rare. Mostly, people just move — including getting big raises precisely because of their experience working for a competitor.
So suppose people cannot move from government to business and back. Does that mean we can only have Cabinet Secretaries who worked their way up through the Civil Service ranks? (Or, I suppose, were members of the legislature.) Does it mean that, if you ever worked in government, you cannot work in the private sector, at least in a job that is in any way related to the government job you had? (Well, the up side of that would be that all of the tax law firms would be out of business. Since previous work for the IRS is pretty much a requirement for their staff.)
We may want to draw a line to deal with the extreme/abusive cases. But it will have to be a whole lot narrower than you seem to be suggesting.
Russell: It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.
I agree that there are issues here. On the other hand, do we really want to make it impossible for people to change employers (at least if one of those employers is the government)? Because that is what we are talking about here.
In the private sector, it is entirely normal for people to work for one company, learn a lot about how it works, and then later go to work for a competitor. There are occasionally jobs with a “non-compete” clause in their contract. But they are very rare. Mostly, people just move — including getting big raises precisely because of their experience working for a competitor.
So suppose people cannot move from government to business and back. Does that mean we can only have Cabinet Secretaries who worked their way up through the Civil Service ranks? (Or, I suppose, were members of the legislature.) Does it mean that, if you ever worked in government, you cannot work in the private sector, at least in a job that is in any way related to the government job you had? (Well, the up side of that would be that all of the tax law firms would be out of business. Since previous work for the IRS is pretty much a requirement for their staff.)
We may want to draw a line to deal with the extreme/abusive cases. But it will have to be a whole lot narrower than you seem to be suggesting.
Russell: It troubles me when politicians and other public employees trade their public experience in for private sector jobs, advocating for the interests of actors they used to be responsible for regulating.
I agree that there are issues here. On the other hand, do we really want to make it impossible for people to change employers (at least if one of those employers is the government)? Because that is what we are talking about here.
In the private sector, it is entirely normal for people to work for one company, learn a lot about how it works, and then later go to work for a competitor. There are occasionally jobs with a “non-compete” clause in their contract. But they are very rare. Mostly, people just move — including getting big raises precisely because of their experience working for a competitor.
So suppose people cannot move from government to business and back. Does that mean we can only have Cabinet Secretaries who worked their way up through the Civil Service ranks? (Or, I suppose, were members of the legislature.) Does it mean that, if you ever worked in government, you cannot work in the private sector, at least in a job that is in any way related to the government job you had? (Well, the up side of that would be that all of the tax law firms would be out of business. Since previous work for the IRS is pretty much a requirement for their staff.)
We may want to draw a line to deal with the extreme/abusive cases. But it will have to be a whole lot narrower than you seem to be suggesting.
responds with hyperbolic claims of faultlessness
Name names, and cite examples.
responds with hyperbolic claims of faultlessness
Name names, and cite examples.
responds with hyperbolic claims of faultlessness
Name names, and cite examples.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech.
What sapient said at 8:38. Lots of speakers get ridiculous amounts for speaking. And not just ex-politicians either.
Consider ex-Presidents. None of them are expect to be in a position, in the future, to make government policy.** But they get paid huge amounts to speak anyway. So perhaps the reality is that people who book speakers have no sense. That or the demand for speakers is so high that supply and demand is in play beyond what those outside the speaker world imagine.
** Granted, the Clintons make a special case, since after leaving the White House Mrs Clinton did move into positions where she influenced government policy. and I don’t recall that happening before. (There was Taft, but I’m not sure that is a relevant example, considering his follow-on position.)
But it seems to me that the appropriate metric regarding her speaking fees would be “how much do other ex-First Ladys, or other sitting Senators, get paid for speaking”? If she’s in the same ballpark, accusations of corruption are simply over the top.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech.
What sapient said at 8:38. Lots of speakers get ridiculous amounts for speaking. And not just ex-politicians either.
Consider ex-Presidents. None of them are expect to be in a position, in the future, to make government policy.** But they get paid huge amounts to speak anyway. So perhaps the reality is that people who book speakers have no sense. That or the demand for speakers is so high that supply and demand is in play beyond what those outside the speaker world imagine.
** Granted, the Clintons make a special case, since after leaving the White House Mrs Clinton did move into positions where she influenced government policy. and I don’t recall that happening before. (There was Taft, but I’m not sure that is a relevant example, considering his follow-on position.)
But it seems to me that the appropriate metric regarding her speaking fees would be “how much do other ex-First Ladys, or other sitting Senators, get paid for speaking”? If she’s in the same ballpark, accusations of corruption are simply over the top.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech.
What sapient said at 8:38. Lots of speakers get ridiculous amounts for speaking. And not just ex-politicians either.
Consider ex-Presidents. None of them are expect to be in a position, in the future, to make government policy.** But they get paid huge amounts to speak anyway. So perhaps the reality is that people who book speakers have no sense. That or the demand for speakers is so high that supply and demand is in play beyond what those outside the speaker world imagine.
** Granted, the Clintons make a special case, since after leaving the White House Mrs Clinton did move into positions where she influenced government policy. and I don’t recall that happening before. (There was Taft, but I’m not sure that is a relevant example, considering his follow-on position.)
But it seems to me that the appropriate metric regarding her speaking fees would be “how much do other ex-First Ladys, or other sitting Senators, get paid for speaking”? If she’s in the same ballpark, accusations of corruption are simply over the top.
If nothing else, Clinton (well, either Clinton, really) does things that it should be obvious will look bad, even if there’s no actual malfeasance involved.
Do I think Bill said anything to the AG that could have made any difference in the outcome of the email-server investigation? Absolutely not. I don’t even know what sort of magic spell would have been required. But “Hey, dumbass, that’s not going to look good” would have been my counsel had I been asked. Same thing with DWS being hired almost immediately after the DNC email leak.
The thing I really don’t get, though, about people who see all manner of nefarious plots in the Clintons’ dealings is the “above the law” notion they have about the Clintons that somehow lets them get away with all this horrible stuff over the course of decades, despite powerful people trying catch them at every turn. It’s like they have their own Illuminati secretly pulling the strings of various powerful institutions, no matter who we might think is in charge at any point in time.
It’s really goofy.
If nothing else, Clinton (well, either Clinton, really) does things that it should be obvious will look bad, even if there’s no actual malfeasance involved.
Do I think Bill said anything to the AG that could have made any difference in the outcome of the email-server investigation? Absolutely not. I don’t even know what sort of magic spell would have been required. But “Hey, dumbass, that’s not going to look good” would have been my counsel had I been asked. Same thing with DWS being hired almost immediately after the DNC email leak.
The thing I really don’t get, though, about people who see all manner of nefarious plots in the Clintons’ dealings is the “above the law” notion they have about the Clintons that somehow lets them get away with all this horrible stuff over the course of decades, despite powerful people trying catch them at every turn. It’s like they have their own Illuminati secretly pulling the strings of various powerful institutions, no matter who we might think is in charge at any point in time.
It’s really goofy.
If nothing else, Clinton (well, either Clinton, really) does things that it should be obvious will look bad, even if there’s no actual malfeasance involved.
Do I think Bill said anything to the AG that could have made any difference in the outcome of the email-server investigation? Absolutely not. I don’t even know what sort of magic spell would have been required. But “Hey, dumbass, that’s not going to look good” would have been my counsel had I been asked. Same thing with DWS being hired almost immediately after the DNC email leak.
The thing I really don’t get, though, about people who see all manner of nefarious plots in the Clintons’ dealings is the “above the law” notion they have about the Clintons that somehow lets them get away with all this horrible stuff over the course of decades, despite powerful people trying catch them at every turn. It’s like they have their own Illuminati secretly pulling the strings of various powerful institutions, no matter who we might think is in charge at any point in time.
It’s really goofy.
or other sitting Senators
She was an ex-Senator (a private citizen) when she spoke to a variety of groups, including bankers.
As to whether it should be allowed, I think we should pass a law against it if we don’t like it. That’s what we do when we want to apply the same standard to everyone.
or other sitting Senators
She was an ex-Senator (a private citizen) when she spoke to a variety of groups, including bankers.
As to whether it should be allowed, I think we should pass a law against it if we don’t like it. That’s what we do when we want to apply the same standard to everyone.
or other sitting Senators
She was an ex-Senator (a private citizen) when she spoke to a variety of groups, including bankers.
As to whether it should be allowed, I think we should pass a law against it if we don’t like it. That’s what we do when we want to apply the same standard to everyone.
Henry Frick (a Koch brother of his day) famously complained about Teddy Roosevelt that “We bought the sonofabitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.”
I have occasionally daydreamed of becoming a politician (a position I know I would be totally unsuited for otherwise), Just so I could put up a sign in my office:
Transparency at its best. 😉
Henry Frick (a Koch brother of his day) famously complained about Teddy Roosevelt that “We bought the sonofabitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.”
I have occasionally daydreamed of becoming a politician (a position I know I would be totally unsuited for otherwise), Just so I could put up a sign in my office:
Transparency at its best. 😉
Henry Frick (a Koch brother of his day) famously complained about Teddy Roosevelt that “We bought the sonofabitch, but he wouldn’t stay bought.”
I have occasionally daydreamed of becoming a politician (a position I know I would be totally unsuited for otherwise), Just so I could put up a sign in my office:
Transparency at its best. 😉
If she’s in the same ballpark, accusations of corruption are simply over the top.
of course they’re over the top. when people hate a Clinton, the really hate a Clinton.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t just a Senator and First Lady. she was also a former Sec of State. there’s literally nobody else with that resume, so it’s impossible to come up with a real comparison.
but, we can look at what former Sec Of States get. Rice, Powell and Albright are all in the $100K-$150K range. but again, none were First Lady or Senator and none have been as popular and well-liked as Clinton has (or, was until she dared run for President again).
W gets $100K-$150K.
Ben Bernanke reportedly gets $400k+.
Trump did a series of speeches for which he was paid $1.5M per speech.
Clinton rules apply, as usual.
If she’s in the same ballpark, accusations of corruption are simply over the top.
of course they’re over the top. when people hate a Clinton, the really hate a Clinton.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t just a Senator and First Lady. she was also a former Sec of State. there’s literally nobody else with that resume, so it’s impossible to come up with a real comparison.
but, we can look at what former Sec Of States get. Rice, Powell and Albright are all in the $100K-$150K range. but again, none were First Lady or Senator and none have been as popular and well-liked as Clinton has (or, was until she dared run for President again).
W gets $100K-$150K.
Ben Bernanke reportedly gets $400k+.
Trump did a series of speeches for which he was paid $1.5M per speech.
Clinton rules apply, as usual.
If she’s in the same ballpark, accusations of corruption are simply over the top.
of course they’re over the top. when people hate a Clinton, the really hate a Clinton.
Hillary Clinton wasn’t just a Senator and First Lady. she was also a former Sec of State. there’s literally nobody else with that resume, so it’s impossible to come up with a real comparison.
but, we can look at what former Sec Of States get. Rice, Powell and Albright are all in the $100K-$150K range. but again, none were First Lady or Senator and none have been as popular and well-liked as Clinton has (or, was until she dared run for President again).
W gets $100K-$150K.
Ben Bernanke reportedly gets $400k+.
Trump did a series of speeches for which he was paid $1.5M per speech.
Clinton rules apply, as usual.
Points to the first person who finds a RWinger claiming the Clintons freed John Hinckley Jr.
Points to the first person who finds a RWinger claiming the Clintons freed John Hinckley Jr.
Points to the first person who finds a RWinger claiming the Clintons freed John Hinckley Jr.
Thank you, cleek, for finding the numbers.
Thank you, cleek, for finding the numbers.
Thank you, cleek, for finding the numbers.
Points to the first person who finds a RWinger claiming the Clintons freed John Hinckley Jr.
Put it on their to-do list for to-morrow. Currently they are proabably busy making hay with the mass murder by knife that just happened in Japan. A wet dream come true for the NRA.
Points to the first person who finds a RWinger claiming the Clintons freed John Hinckley Jr.
Put it on their to-do list for to-morrow. Currently they are proabably busy making hay with the mass murder by knife that just happened in Japan. A wet dream come true for the NRA.
Points to the first person who finds a RWinger claiming the Clintons freed John Hinckley Jr.
Put it on their to-do list for to-morrow. Currently they are proabably busy making hay with the mass murder by knife that just happened in Japan. A wet dream come true for the NRA.
Clinton rules apply, as usual.
Alas, true. The Clintons have been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification that’s been going on for decades. The standard that they have to meet are, by some great coincidence, somehow always just beyond their reach. She could join a nunnery, and the wingnuts would still say she did it to “hide something.”
Despite my policy differences with Ms Clinton, sometimes I feel we should elect her just to rub it in….because those assholes spreading lies about her deserve the comeuppance…and well, they are assholes.
As to the speaking fees, it should be noted that none of the other celebs or ex-government officials were (at the time) widely seen as positioning themselves for a forthcoming run at the presidency. So it one thing to get oodles of money from the Society of Left Handed Veterinarians and another to get a bag of dough from Goldman Sacks(sic).
That she somehow didn’t care or didn’t think it would be brought up is, well, a minor point of unease. Surely she would be aware of the bad optics. That she refuses to make the speeches available is also a bit puzzling.
But I am pleased she has moved left on some issues….best we commies can do for now, I guess.
Clinton rules apply, as usual.
Alas, true. The Clintons have been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification that’s been going on for decades. The standard that they have to meet are, by some great coincidence, somehow always just beyond their reach. She could join a nunnery, and the wingnuts would still say she did it to “hide something.”
Despite my policy differences with Ms Clinton, sometimes I feel we should elect her just to rub it in….because those assholes spreading lies about her deserve the comeuppance…and well, they are assholes.
As to the speaking fees, it should be noted that none of the other celebs or ex-government officials were (at the time) widely seen as positioning themselves for a forthcoming run at the presidency. So it one thing to get oodles of money from the Society of Left Handed Veterinarians and another to get a bag of dough from Goldman Sacks(sic).
That she somehow didn’t care or didn’t think it would be brought up is, well, a minor point of unease. Surely she would be aware of the bad optics. That she refuses to make the speeches available is also a bit puzzling.
But I am pleased she has moved left on some issues….best we commies can do for now, I guess.
Clinton rules apply, as usual.
Alas, true. The Clintons have been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification that’s been going on for decades. The standard that they have to meet are, by some great coincidence, somehow always just beyond their reach. She could join a nunnery, and the wingnuts would still say she did it to “hide something.”
Despite my policy differences with Ms Clinton, sometimes I feel we should elect her just to rub it in….because those assholes spreading lies about her deserve the comeuppance…and well, they are assholes.
As to the speaking fees, it should be noted that none of the other celebs or ex-government officials were (at the time) widely seen as positioning themselves for a forthcoming run at the presidency. So it one thing to get oodles of money from the Society of Left Handed Veterinarians and another to get a bag of dough from Goldman Sacks(sic).
That she somehow didn’t care or didn’t think it would be brought up is, well, a minor point of unease. Surely she would be aware of the bad optics. That she refuses to make the speeches available is also a bit puzzling.
But I am pleased she has moved left on some issues….best we commies can do for now, I guess.
a minor point of unease
Well, please make yourself more comfortable. Watch Donald Trump’s latest press conference.
a minor point of unease
Well, please make yourself more comfortable. Watch Donald Trump’s latest press conference.
a minor point of unease
Well, please make yourself more comfortable. Watch Donald Trump’s latest press conference.
For what it’s worth. Shows the proximities of a lot of dots, if not connections.
Clinton Cash: Documentary Movie (YouTube)
For what it’s worth. Shows the proximities of a lot of dots, if not connections.
Clinton Cash: Documentary Movie (YouTube)
For what it’s worth. Shows the proximities of a lot of dots, if not connections.
Clinton Cash: Documentary Movie (YouTube)
“Trump did a series of speeches for which he was paid $1.5M per speech.”
Insanity. Did he hire himself ?
Incidentally, I see Trump is not going to release his tax returns. What is he hiding ?
That he’s not a billionaire ?
Corrupt practices ?
The tax write-offs for his toupees/hair treatment/therapy for small-handedness ?
“Trump did a series of speeches for which he was paid $1.5M per speech.”
Insanity. Did he hire himself ?
Incidentally, I see Trump is not going to release his tax returns. What is he hiding ?
That he’s not a billionaire ?
Corrupt practices ?
The tax write-offs for his toupees/hair treatment/therapy for small-handedness ?
“Trump did a series of speeches for which he was paid $1.5M per speech.”
Insanity. Did he hire himself ?
Incidentally, I see Trump is not going to release his tax returns. What is he hiding ?
That he’s not a billionaire ?
Corrupt practices ?
The tax write-offs for his toupees/hair treatment/therapy for small-handedness ?
Charles,
Why in god’s name would I watch a ‘documentary’ based on a widely discredited and sloppy hack job book?
You can’t be serious.
Charles,
Why in god’s name would I watch a ‘documentary’ based on a widely discredited and sloppy hack job book?
You can’t be serious.
Charles,
Why in god’s name would I watch a ‘documentary’ based on a widely discredited and sloppy hack job book?
You can’t be serious.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
I think this completely misses the point that frequently people (and sometimes they are CEOs of large companies) stroke their own egos by trying to mix with important or glamorous celebrities. They then also get boasting rights about who they “know”. The kind of expense associated with satisfying this desire is immaterial, since they don’t personally have to pay it (although some of them would probably do so if they had to), and in any case seems a completely accepted part of doing business in big compamies. You might not like it or think they get anything worthwhile for their money, but there is more than one kind of quid pro quo.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
I think this completely misses the point that frequently people (and sometimes they are CEOs of large companies) stroke their own egos by trying to mix with important or glamorous celebrities. They then also get boasting rights about who they “know”. The kind of expense associated with satisfying this desire is immaterial, since they don’t personally have to pay it (although some of them would probably do so if they had to), and in any case seems a completely accepted part of doing business in big compamies. You might not like it or think they get anything worthwhile for their money, but there is more than one kind of quid pro quo.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
I think this completely misses the point that frequently people (and sometimes they are CEOs of large companies) stroke their own egos by trying to mix with important or glamorous celebrities. They then also get boasting rights about who they “know”. The kind of expense associated with satisfying this desire is immaterial, since they don’t personally have to pay it (although some of them would probably do so if they had to), and in any case seems a completely accepted part of doing business in big compamies. You might not like it or think they get anything worthwhile for their money, but there is more than one kind of quid pro quo.
I guess that his current main reason is to make people angry about it. “They want it? That’s why I won’t give it!”.
All that independent of him having a whole cemetery’s worth of skeletons in there probably.
I guess that his current main reason is to make people angry about it. “They want it? That’s why I won’t give it!”.
All that independent of him having a whole cemetery’s worth of skeletons in there probably.
I guess that his current main reason is to make people angry about it. “They want it? That’s why I won’t give it!”.
All that independent of him having a whole cemetery’s worth of skeletons in there probably.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
celebrity counts for a lot.
people pay $200/seat to go see The Stones play 45 year old songs that they could hear for free on the radio, after all.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
celebrity counts for a lot.
people pay $200/seat to go see The Stones play 45 year old songs that they could hear for free on the radio, after all.
My point is that by no conceivable metric is it plausible that someone be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars >merely< for making a speech. There is clearly an expectation of some benefit other than 30 minutes of condensed wisdom, much of which will have been heard before.
celebrity counts for a lot.
people pay $200/seat to go see The Stones play 45 year old songs that they could hear for free on the radio, after all.
I think this completely misses the point that frequently people (and sometimes they are CEOs of large companies) stroke their own egos by trying to mix with important or glamorous celebrities.
Indeed. Middle-class people will fork up hundreds of dollars for VIP tickets to concerts so they can go in early and enter an exclusive space where they might get a glimpse of the performers, maybe even interact briefly with them.
Once the concert starts, they listen to the same songs as everyone else.
I don’t get it, myself, but that’s how some people like to spend what is, to them, a significant amount of money. It’s nothing more than star-power.
I think this completely misses the point that frequently people (and sometimes they are CEOs of large companies) stroke their own egos by trying to mix with important or glamorous celebrities.
Indeed. Middle-class people will fork up hundreds of dollars for VIP tickets to concerts so they can go in early and enter an exclusive space where they might get a glimpse of the performers, maybe even interact briefly with them.
Once the concert starts, they listen to the same songs as everyone else.
I don’t get it, myself, but that’s how some people like to spend what is, to them, a significant amount of money. It’s nothing more than star-power.
I think this completely misses the point that frequently people (and sometimes they are CEOs of large companies) stroke their own egos by trying to mix with important or glamorous celebrities.
Indeed. Middle-class people will fork up hundreds of dollars for VIP tickets to concerts so they can go in early and enter an exclusive space where they might get a glimpse of the performers, maybe even interact briefly with them.
Once the concert starts, they listen to the same songs as everyone else.
I don’t get it, myself, but that’s how some people like to spend what is, to them, a significant amount of money. It’s nothing more than star-power.
cleek!
cleek!
cleek!
yessss!
yessss!
yessss!
Read Vol.1 of Twain’s autobiography, and it seemed like he made most of his money on “the lecture circuit”: giving speeches to various business groups.
And those groups would get a hour or so of good entertainment, and get to rub elbows with a famous person.
The comparison with VIP tickets to concerts is apt, and I, for one, think that “live entertainment” is a good thing to have continue, even if I’m not going to fork out the $$$ for The Stones, or Zombie Twain.
Read Vol.1 of Twain’s autobiography, and it seemed like he made most of his money on “the lecture circuit”: giving speeches to various business groups.
And those groups would get a hour or so of good entertainment, and get to rub elbows with a famous person.
The comparison with VIP tickets to concerts is apt, and I, for one, think that “live entertainment” is a good thing to have continue, even if I’m not going to fork out the $$$ for The Stones, or Zombie Twain.
Read Vol.1 of Twain’s autobiography, and it seemed like he made most of his money on “the lecture circuit”: giving speeches to various business groups.
And those groups would get a hour or so of good entertainment, and get to rub elbows with a famous person.
The comparison with VIP tickets to concerts is apt, and I, for one, think that “live entertainment” is a good thing to have continue, even if I’m not going to fork out the $$$ for The Stones, or Zombie Twain.
Well, please make yourself more comfortable.
One can only wonder how churlish you would be if Sanders had won the nomination.
Best Regards,
Well, please make yourself more comfortable.
One can only wonder how churlish you would be if Sanders had won the nomination.
Best Regards,
Well, please make yourself more comfortable.
One can only wonder how churlish you would be if Sanders had won the nomination.
Best Regards,
One can only wonder how churlish you would be if Sanders had won the nomination.
I prefer Clinton and am glad she won, but if Sanders had won the nomination, I’d be zealously supporting him. I notice that his supporters weren’t insisting on much disclosure from him. It’s quite a bit easier to scrutinize people who put their records out there than those who don’t get around to it.
That said, there are bigger fish to fry now that we’re at this point.
One can only wonder how churlish you would be if Sanders had won the nomination.
I prefer Clinton and am glad she won, but if Sanders had won the nomination, I’d be zealously supporting him. I notice that his supporters weren’t insisting on much disclosure from him. It’s quite a bit easier to scrutinize people who put their records out there than those who don’t get around to it.
That said, there are bigger fish to fry now that we’re at this point.
One can only wonder how churlish you would be if Sanders had won the nomination.
I prefer Clinton and am glad she won, but if Sanders had won the nomination, I’d be zealously supporting him. I notice that his supporters weren’t insisting on much disclosure from him. It’s quite a bit easier to scrutinize people who put their records out there than those who don’t get around to it.
That said, there are bigger fish to fry now that we’re at this point.
On the last point, yes, agree.
On the last point, yes, agree.
On the last point, yes, agree.
It’s quite a bit easier to scrutinize people who put their records out there than those who don’t get around to it.
Putting yourself on public display doesn’t mean you can’t be questioned on what it reveals. Indeed, if you make a habit of putting yourself on display (or knowing that others are going to closely scrutinize you) it reflects fairly poor judgement to consistently and openly behave in a manner that appears untoward. Ofc, Clinton is not someone I’ve ever been inclined to attribute good judgement to, so that sadly is not unexpected.
It’s quite a bit easier to scrutinize people who put their records out there than those who don’t get around to it.
Putting yourself on public display doesn’t mean you can’t be questioned on what it reveals. Indeed, if you make a habit of putting yourself on display (or knowing that others are going to closely scrutinize you) it reflects fairly poor judgement to consistently and openly behave in a manner that appears untoward. Ofc, Clinton is not someone I’ve ever been inclined to attribute good judgement to, so that sadly is not unexpected.
It’s quite a bit easier to scrutinize people who put their records out there than those who don’t get around to it.
Putting yourself on public display doesn’t mean you can’t be questioned on what it reveals. Indeed, if you make a habit of putting yourself on display (or knowing that others are going to closely scrutinize you) it reflects fairly poor judgement to consistently and openly behave in a manner that appears untoward. Ofc, Clinton is not someone I’ve ever been inclined to attribute good judgement to, so that sadly is not unexpected.
Hillary’s a crook because her husband started a foundation. A FOUNDATION!!!
(That’s not in response to or directed at anyone or any particular comment. I just think it’s funny.)
Hillary’s a crook because her husband started a foundation. A FOUNDATION!!!
(That’s not in response to or directed at anyone or any particular comment. I just think it’s funny.)
Hillary’s a crook because her husband started a foundation. A FOUNDATION!!!
(That’s not in response to or directed at anyone or any particular comment. I just think it’s funny.)
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
If Clinton can get 2-3 more Sotomayor-esque (but preferably Marshall-esque) justices on the Supreme Court and manage not to start any further conflagrations in the Middle East, I think I can live whatever else comes along.
If Clinton can get 2-3 more Sotomayor-esque (but preferably Marshall-esque) justices on the Supreme Court and manage not to start any further conflagrations in the Middle East, I think I can live whatever else comes along.
If Clinton can get 2-3 more Sotomayor-esque (but preferably Marshall-esque) justices on the Supreme Court and manage not to start any further conflagrations in the Middle East, I think I can live whatever else comes along.
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
What about “thoroughly”? Does that work (with “discredited” meaning not that it was proven wrong, but that it was shown not to prove anything)?
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
What about “thoroughly”? Does that work (with “discredited” meaning not that it was proven wrong, but that it was shown not to prove anything)?
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
What about “thoroughly”? Does that work (with “discredited” meaning not that it was proven wrong, but that it was shown not to prove anything)?
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
Not so.
http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/even-fox-news-calls-out-clinton-cash-author-for-his-lies-and-lack-of-evidence/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/peter-schweizer-clinton-cash-5-points
Schweizer is a partisan hack, and a liar.
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
Not so.
http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/even-fox-news-calls-out-clinton-cash-author-for-his-lies-and-lack-of-evidence/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/peter-schweizer-clinton-cash-5-points
Schweizer is a partisan hack, and a liar.
Widely discredited is a wild exaggeration
Not so.
http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/28/even-fox-news-calls-out-clinton-cash-author-for-his-lies-and-lack-of-evidence/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/peter-schweizer-clinton-cash-5-points
Schweizer is a partisan hack, and a liar.
tiz the season for bullshit Clinton movies.
D’Souza’s latest effort got a solid F from the A/V Club.
http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791
the “conservative” base sure loves to be scammed.
tiz the season for bullshit Clinton movies.
D’Souza’s latest effort got a solid F from the A/V Club.
http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791
the “conservative” base sure loves to be scammed.
tiz the season for bullshit Clinton movies.
D’Souza’s latest effort got a solid F from the A/V Club.
http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791
the “conservative” base sure loves to be scammed.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-asks-russia-help-beating-hillary-clinton
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-asks-russia-help-beating-hillary-clinton
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-asks-russia-help-beating-hillary-clinton
Interesting* diagnosis of the Trump personality disorder over at Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/26/donald-trump-moosbrugger-for-president/
*Or entertaining from a ‘librul’ standpoint. The essay seems a bit speculative.
Interesting* diagnosis of the Trump personality disorder over at Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/26/donald-trump-moosbrugger-for-president/
*Or entertaining from a ‘librul’ standpoint. The essay seems a bit speculative.
Interesting* diagnosis of the Trump personality disorder over at Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/26/donald-trump-moosbrugger-for-president/
*Or entertaining from a ‘librul’ standpoint. The essay seems a bit speculative.
Discredited by TPM and Politico and addicting info. Really?
Discredited by TPM and Politico and addicting info. Really?
Discredited by TPM and Politico and addicting info. Really?
“Discredited by TPM and Politico and addicting info. Really?”
If you bothered to read the addicting info link, you would see that it refers to Chris Wallace, a well-known Fox News anchor and no one’s idea of a simpering liberal, deriding Schweizer’s claims as fact free.
I have gone to the trouble to provide you a link to the YouTube video of the exchange in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl-D1916cY0#action=share
Hope we can count on you to bother reading things in the future.
“Discredited by TPM and Politico and addicting info. Really?”
If you bothered to read the addicting info link, you would see that it refers to Chris Wallace, a well-known Fox News anchor and no one’s idea of a simpering liberal, deriding Schweizer’s claims as fact free.
I have gone to the trouble to provide you a link to the YouTube video of the exchange in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl-D1916cY0#action=share
Hope we can count on you to bother reading things in the future.
“Discredited by TPM and Politico and addicting info. Really?”
If you bothered to read the addicting info link, you would see that it refers to Chris Wallace, a well-known Fox News anchor and no one’s idea of a simpering liberal, deriding Schweizer’s claims as fact free.
I have gone to the trouble to provide you a link to the YouTube video of the exchange in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl-D1916cY0#action=share
Hope we can count on you to bother reading things in the future.
Not from addicting info
Not from addicting info
Not from addicting info
I keep being reminded that Trump is beyond parody. To actually get up and say (approximately):
What serious candidate does something like that?
And one can only imagine the reaction if Clinton said anything remotely similar.
I keep being reminded that Trump is beyond parody. To actually get up and say (approximately):
What serious candidate does something like that?
And one can only imagine the reaction if Clinton said anything remotely similar.
I keep being reminded that Trump is beyond parody. To actually get up and say (approximately):
What serious candidate does something like that?
And one can only imagine the reaction if Clinton said anything remotely similar.
I think part of our dislike of speaker fees stems from that puritanical American streak. God forbid the newest young pop-star has sex or suggests that sex is a good thing. Famous swimmer taking a bong hit! Baseball slugger on Wheaties box took PEDs!
The other trait it runs into is our distaste of flithy lucre. Imagine how quickly someone’s rep would plummet if you run into that person on the street, you say ‘can I take a selfie with you?’, the person says yes and the shutter clicks and then the person is holding out their palm. You look at them quizzically, and they say ‘it’s usually a $20’.
While we don’t follow that British insult of ‘his family had to buy its silver’, (wanting to get rich is at the core of the American experience), we generally recoil from seeing how it gets done.
This is not to say that I don’t think it is problematic and stupid, but to ignore the role that hypocrisy plays in all this would be a mistake and the fact that the fever swamp goes into conniptions over speechs, but nominates someone like Trump only underlines that.
I think part of our dislike of speaker fees stems from that puritanical American streak. God forbid the newest young pop-star has sex or suggests that sex is a good thing. Famous swimmer taking a bong hit! Baseball slugger on Wheaties box took PEDs!
The other trait it runs into is our distaste of flithy lucre. Imagine how quickly someone’s rep would plummet if you run into that person on the street, you say ‘can I take a selfie with you?’, the person says yes and the shutter clicks and then the person is holding out their palm. You look at them quizzically, and they say ‘it’s usually a $20’.
While we don’t follow that British insult of ‘his family had to buy its silver’, (wanting to get rich is at the core of the American experience), we generally recoil from seeing how it gets done.
This is not to say that I don’t think it is problematic and stupid, but to ignore the role that hypocrisy plays in all this would be a mistake and the fact that the fever swamp goes into conniptions over speechs, but nominates someone like Trump only underlines that.
I think part of our dislike of speaker fees stems from that puritanical American streak. God forbid the newest young pop-star has sex or suggests that sex is a good thing. Famous swimmer taking a bong hit! Baseball slugger on Wheaties box took PEDs!
The other trait it runs into is our distaste of flithy lucre. Imagine how quickly someone’s rep would plummet if you run into that person on the street, you say ‘can I take a selfie with you?’, the person says yes and the shutter clicks and then the person is holding out their palm. You look at them quizzically, and they say ‘it’s usually a $20’.
While we don’t follow that British insult of ‘his family had to buy its silver’, (wanting to get rich is at the core of the American experience), we generally recoil from seeing how it gets done.
This is not to say that I don’t think it is problematic and stupid, but to ignore the role that hypocrisy plays in all this would be a mistake and the fact that the fever swamp goes into conniptions over speechs, but nominates someone like Trump only underlines that.
“Not from addicting info”
Funny, I got there by clicking on the link to “addicting info” and then clicking the hyperlinked words “Wallace contended” on that page. Even if you couldn’t find the link to Wallace’s video, the very page purports to describe what Chris Wallace said to this con artist–as you would know if you’d bothered reading the link to addicting info.
It’s funny, I figured your feelings would get hurt by all this hand-holding, but instead your complaint is that there’s not enough handholding. Am I supposed to come over and navigate this for you myself?
“Not from addicting info”
Funny, I got there by clicking on the link to “addicting info” and then clicking the hyperlinked words “Wallace contended” on that page. Even if you couldn’t find the link to Wallace’s video, the very page purports to describe what Chris Wallace said to this con artist–as you would know if you’d bothered reading the link to addicting info.
It’s funny, I figured your feelings would get hurt by all this hand-holding, but instead your complaint is that there’s not enough handholding. Am I supposed to come over and navigate this for you myself?
“Not from addicting info”
Funny, I got there by clicking on the link to “addicting info” and then clicking the hyperlinked words “Wallace contended” on that page. Even if you couldn’t find the link to Wallace’s video, the very page purports to describe what Chris Wallace said to this con artist–as you would know if you’d bothered reading the link to addicting info.
It’s funny, I figured your feelings would get hurt by all this hand-holding, but instead your complaint is that there’s not enough handholding. Am I supposed to come over and navigate this for you myself?
Since money is now free speech, then no one has been paid to talk. It’s speech exchanged for A speech.
In fact, johns now exchange free speech for sex with prostitutes, so what’s the rub, according to the Supreme Court.
Since money is now free speech, then no one has been paid to talk. It’s speech exchanged for A speech.
In fact, johns now exchange free speech for sex with prostitutes, so what’s the rub, according to the Supreme Court.
Since money is now free speech, then no one has been paid to talk. It’s speech exchanged for A speech.
In fact, johns now exchange free speech for sex with prostitutes, so what’s the rub, according to the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, do we really want to make it impossible for people to change employers (at least if one of those employers is the government)? Because that is what we are talking about here.
Basically, I want people who work in the public sector and who are responsible for making laws or enforcing regulations about an industry to not be allowed to quit their public sector job and immediately go to work in that industry.
Five years hiatus would make me happy.
So no, we aren’t preventing people from changing employers. We are preventing people from changing from one specific employer, to a set of other specific employers.
And the private sector does this all day, every day. It’s called a non-compete in that context. Different motivation, but the same general result.
I’d extend it to immediate family for the duration of folks’ public sector tenure, not for employment but for lobbying. If you share a household with a public sector employee, you can’t engage in lobbying for industries or interests for which that person is engaged in making or enforcing laws.
What a freaking hard-ass I am!
If that prevents some folks from working in the public sector, I’m fine with it.
On the other hand, do we really want to make it impossible for people to change employers (at least if one of those employers is the government)? Because that is what we are talking about here.
Basically, I want people who work in the public sector and who are responsible for making laws or enforcing regulations about an industry to not be allowed to quit their public sector job and immediately go to work in that industry.
Five years hiatus would make me happy.
So no, we aren’t preventing people from changing employers. We are preventing people from changing from one specific employer, to a set of other specific employers.
And the private sector does this all day, every day. It’s called a non-compete in that context. Different motivation, but the same general result.
I’d extend it to immediate family for the duration of folks’ public sector tenure, not for employment but for lobbying. If you share a household with a public sector employee, you can’t engage in lobbying for industries or interests for which that person is engaged in making or enforcing laws.
What a freaking hard-ass I am!
If that prevents some folks from working in the public sector, I’m fine with it.
On the other hand, do we really want to make it impossible for people to change employers (at least if one of those employers is the government)? Because that is what we are talking about here.
Basically, I want people who work in the public sector and who are responsible for making laws or enforcing regulations about an industry to not be allowed to quit their public sector job and immediately go to work in that industry.
Five years hiatus would make me happy.
So no, we aren’t preventing people from changing employers. We are preventing people from changing from one specific employer, to a set of other specific employers.
And the private sector does this all day, every day. It’s called a non-compete in that context. Different motivation, but the same general result.
I’d extend it to immediate family for the duration of folks’ public sector tenure, not for employment but for lobbying. If you share a household with a public sector employee, you can’t engage in lobbying for industries or interests for which that person is engaged in making or enforcing laws.
What a freaking hard-ass I am!
If that prevents some folks from working in the public sector, I’m fine with it.
I’d agree wholeheartedly with that basic idea but it would not get past SCOTUS.
Simply put it would violate someone’s rights, if the employment situation of a relative would limit his or her own employment choices.
A “if you work for A, you can never work for B afterwards” on the other hand could be constitutional provided it applies only to future contracts (or the renewal of current ones) not to those who at the moment already work for A.
I’d agree wholeheartedly with that basic idea but it would not get past SCOTUS.
Simply put it would violate someone’s rights, if the employment situation of a relative would limit his or her own employment choices.
A “if you work for A, you can never work for B afterwards” on the other hand could be constitutional provided it applies only to future contracts (or the renewal of current ones) not to those who at the moment already work for A.
I’d agree wholeheartedly with that basic idea but it would not get past SCOTUS.
Simply put it would violate someone’s rights, if the employment situation of a relative would limit his or her own employment choices.
A “if you work for A, you can never work for B afterwards” on the other hand could be constitutional provided it applies only to future contracts (or the renewal of current ones) not to those who at the moment already work for A.
The UK does have some rules in this area:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments
But they tend to be more honoured in the breach than the observance…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3570254/Nice-work-Exposed-Ex-ministers-civil-servants-work-public-sector-opens-doors-lucrative-private-jobs.html
(Apologies for the Mail link, but is does actually produce journalism of a sort, once in a while.)
Clearly it is not undesirable that people should be able to move between the public and private sector – without recruiting from the private sector, the UK would for instance have very few people to negotiate the trade deals that Brexit will require – but equally there should be some sort of policing to prevent relationships being too cosy.
The UK does have some rules in this area:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments
But they tend to be more honoured in the breach than the observance…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3570254/Nice-work-Exposed-Ex-ministers-civil-servants-work-public-sector-opens-doors-lucrative-private-jobs.html
(Apologies for the Mail link, but is does actually produce journalism of a sort, once in a while.)
Clearly it is not undesirable that people should be able to move between the public and private sector – without recruiting from the private sector, the UK would for instance have very few people to negotiate the trade deals that Brexit will require – but equally there should be some sort of policing to prevent relationships being too cosy.
The UK does have some rules in this area:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advisory-committee-on-business-appointments
But they tend to be more honoured in the breach than the observance…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3570254/Nice-work-Exposed-Ex-ministers-civil-servants-work-public-sector-opens-doors-lucrative-private-jobs.html
(Apologies for the Mail link, but is does actually produce journalism of a sort, once in a while.)
Clearly it is not undesirable that people should be able to move between the public and private sector – without recruiting from the private sector, the UK would for instance have very few people to negotiate the trade deals that Brexit will require – but equally there should be some sort of policing to prevent relationships being too cosy.
“Simply put it would violate someone’s rights, if the employment situation of a relative would limit his or her own employment choices.”
workplace rules preventing or limiting the employment of family members, directly or as vendors, are actually fairly common.
so it seems, to me, that rules limiting the employment options based on who a family member works for are not considered a violation of rights.
conditions can be, and commonly are, placed on a person’s employment that constrain that of family members.
if your spouse is in congress, you can’t lobby congress for a living. lather rinse and repeat for public positions, elected or not, with similar degrees and scope of public resposibility.
really, that’s a bridge too far?
“Simply put it would violate someone’s rights, if the employment situation of a relative would limit his or her own employment choices.”
workplace rules preventing or limiting the employment of family members, directly or as vendors, are actually fairly common.
so it seems, to me, that rules limiting the employment options based on who a family member works for are not considered a violation of rights.
conditions can be, and commonly are, placed on a person’s employment that constrain that of family members.
if your spouse is in congress, you can’t lobby congress for a living. lather rinse and repeat for public positions, elected or not, with similar degrees and scope of public resposibility.
really, that’s a bridge too far?
“Simply put it would violate someone’s rights, if the employment situation of a relative would limit his or her own employment choices.”
workplace rules preventing or limiting the employment of family members, directly or as vendors, are actually fairly common.
so it seems, to me, that rules limiting the employment options based on who a family member works for are not considered a violation of rights.
conditions can be, and commonly are, placed on a person’s employment that constrain that of family members.
if your spouse is in congress, you can’t lobby congress for a living. lather rinse and repeat for public positions, elected or not, with similar degrees and scope of public resposibility.
really, that’s a bridge too far?
russell: where’s the constituency that would get such restrictions through Congress? Because I’m sure that those who would be adversely affected will make their opinion known. Loudly.
Now, IIRC, there are already restrictions on elected officials (and high-level appointees?) registering as lobbyists. But those restrictions are often evaded, since those who are suitably ‘connected’ would have zero problem getting someone powerful to sign a waiver.
russell: where’s the constituency that would get such restrictions through Congress? Because I’m sure that those who would be adversely affected will make their opinion known. Loudly.
Now, IIRC, there are already restrictions on elected officials (and high-level appointees?) registering as lobbyists. But those restrictions are often evaded, since those who are suitably ‘connected’ would have zero problem getting someone powerful to sign a waiver.
russell: where’s the constituency that would get such restrictions through Congress? Because I’m sure that those who would be adversely affected will make their opinion known. Loudly.
Now, IIRC, there are already restrictions on elected officials (and high-level appointees?) registering as lobbyists. But those restrictions are often evaded, since those who are suitably ‘connected’ would have zero problem getting someone powerful to sign a waiver.
speaking of public servants and private employment…
has Trump ever been asked if he’ll step away from his business dealings should he become President?
speaking of public servants and private employment…
has Trump ever been asked if he’ll step away from his business dealings should he become President?
speaking of public servants and private employment…
has Trump ever been asked if he’ll step away from his business dealings should he become President?
No, but Trump plans on placing the American people into a blind, deaf, and dumb Trust, while his Vice President handles all government business (the parts that are left … bombing, transit/concentration camps, collection rackets, handing out bullet proof vests to Republicans when 20 million armed Americans and their children with pre-existing medical conditions start shooting (to kill) at them .. more bombing).
He and Putin will lunch at the Russian Tea Room and figure out a way to scrape the gold leaf off the White House art work while Marco Rubio blows the two of them as Roger Ailes waits his turn, Sean Hannity already having his mouth full from the previous day’s session.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
No, but Trump plans on placing the American people into a blind, deaf, and dumb Trust, while his Vice President handles all government business (the parts that are left … bombing, transit/concentration camps, collection rackets, handing out bullet proof vests to Republicans when 20 million armed Americans and their children with pre-existing medical conditions start shooting (to kill) at them .. more bombing).
He and Putin will lunch at the Russian Tea Room and figure out a way to scrape the gold leaf off the White House art work while Marco Rubio blows the two of them as Roger Ailes waits his turn, Sean Hannity already having his mouth full from the previous day’s session.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
No, but Trump plans on placing the American people into a blind, deaf, and dumb Trust, while his Vice President handles all government business (the parts that are left … bombing, transit/concentration camps, collection rackets, handing out bullet proof vests to Republicans when 20 million armed Americans and their children with pre-existing medical conditions start shooting (to kill) at them .. more bombing).
He and Putin will lunch at the Russian Tea Room and figure out a way to scrape the gold leaf off the White House art work while Marco Rubio blows the two of them as Roger Ailes waits his turn, Sean Hannity already having his mouth full from the previous day’s session.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
I’m sure Marty will evolve, and in 2 years, he’ll be telling us that if the Dems had just not put up HRC (Hillary Ra’s al Ghul Clinton), none of this would have happened, so he has no choice but to blame us.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
I’m sure Marty will evolve, and in 2 years, he’ll be telling us that if the Dems had just not put up HRC (Hillary Ra’s al Ghul Clinton), none of this would have happened, so he has no choice but to blame us.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
I’m sure Marty will evolve, and in 2 years, he’ll be telling us that if the Dems had just not put up HRC (Hillary Ra’s al Ghul Clinton), none of this would have happened, so he has no choice but to blame us.
if your spouse is in congress, you can’t lobby congress for a living.
But if your spouse is in Congress, can you be a senior executive in a company? Even if you aren’t the one doing the lobbying for it? And at what level of management does that become a problem?
If you can, does that mean that your spouse cannot serve on any committee which might have something to do with your company? Would that include anything to do with labor laws, since your company doubtless has employees.
There are a whole lot of gray areas here, between things which are blatantly obviously conflicts and those which are totally innocuous. And lots room for good-faith disagreements on where the line ought to reasonably be drawn.
We could spend an entire thread on this, especially if we bring state legislatures into it. And that doesn’t even start on the executive branch.
if your spouse is in congress, you can’t lobby congress for a living.
But if your spouse is in Congress, can you be a senior executive in a company? Even if you aren’t the one doing the lobbying for it? And at what level of management does that become a problem?
If you can, does that mean that your spouse cannot serve on any committee which might have something to do with your company? Would that include anything to do with labor laws, since your company doubtless has employees.
There are a whole lot of gray areas here, between things which are blatantly obviously conflicts and those which are totally innocuous. And lots room for good-faith disagreements on where the line ought to reasonably be drawn.
We could spend an entire thread on this, especially if we bring state legislatures into it. And that doesn’t even start on the executive branch.
if your spouse is in congress, you can’t lobby congress for a living.
But if your spouse is in Congress, can you be a senior executive in a company? Even if you aren’t the one doing the lobbying for it? And at what level of management does that become a problem?
If you can, does that mean that your spouse cannot serve on any committee which might have something to do with your company? Would that include anything to do with labor laws, since your company doubtless has employees.
There are a whole lot of gray areas here, between things which are blatantly obviously conflicts and those which are totally innocuous. And lots room for good-faith disagreements on where the line ought to reasonably be drawn.
We could spend an entire thread on this, especially if we bring state legislatures into it. And that doesn’t even start on the executive branch.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
Duh. See, it practically goes without saying, it is so obvious.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
Duh. See, it practically goes without saying, it is so obvious.
Then Marty will point out that this train of events is all Barack Obama’s doing.
Duh. See, it practically goes without saying, it is so obvious.
I’d love to hear a chain of reasoning that would make Trump as the Republican nominee all Obama’s doing.
No, Marty, I don’t think you (or anyone else here) believe that. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea is out there somewhere.
I’d love to hear a chain of reasoning that would make Trump as the Republican nominee all Obama’s doing.
No, Marty, I don’t think you (or anyone else here) believe that. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea is out there somewhere.
I’d love to hear a chain of reasoning that would make Trump as the Republican nominee all Obama’s doing.
No, Marty, I don’t think you (or anyone else here) believe that. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea is out there somewhere.
I’d love to hear a chain of reasoning that would make Trump as the Republican nominee all Obama’s doing.
conservatives have been pushing that idea since Trump first started doing well in polls.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=23767
I’d love to hear a chain of reasoning that would make Trump as the Republican nominee all Obama’s doing.
conservatives have been pushing that idea since Trump first started doing well in polls.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=23767
I’d love to hear a chain of reasoning that would make Trump as the Republican nominee all Obama’s doing.
conservatives have been pushing that idea since Trump first started doing well in polls.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=23767
We could spend an entire thread on this, especially if we bring state legislatures into it.
I think the challenge comes when you do things in secret. And that doesn’t even mean cutting deals in smoke filled rooms, as long as the female Senators get a cigar too, which I am a great fan of. I mean disclosure of conflicts. Everyone in government is related to someone who isn’t in government. They get together, talk about the grandkids, hang out and, where it makes sense, they help each other out. It’s a stretch for me to get upset about that unless 1) they could also be talking about a criminal investigation 2)they try to hide their interest 3) they have singular responsibility for interpretation or enforcement of a interpreted rule.
Committees on the hill are made up of several members, laws are passed by 200+ votes, implementation is usually done with open hearings or Q&A periods. It is hard to do something grotesquely or blatantly in conflict with the good of the people without some check or balance. If you know my brother-in-law owns a horse ranch and that likely affects my view on low cost manure cleanup, you will take my questions and impassioned exhortations in the committee hearing with a grain of salt. If you don’t, then my passion is more likely to sway your opinion.
There just isn’t too much disclosure.
We could spend an entire thread on this, especially if we bring state legislatures into it.
I think the challenge comes when you do things in secret. And that doesn’t even mean cutting deals in smoke filled rooms, as long as the female Senators get a cigar too, which I am a great fan of. I mean disclosure of conflicts. Everyone in government is related to someone who isn’t in government. They get together, talk about the grandkids, hang out and, where it makes sense, they help each other out. It’s a stretch for me to get upset about that unless 1) they could also be talking about a criminal investigation 2)they try to hide their interest 3) they have singular responsibility for interpretation or enforcement of a interpreted rule.
Committees on the hill are made up of several members, laws are passed by 200+ votes, implementation is usually done with open hearings or Q&A periods. It is hard to do something grotesquely or blatantly in conflict with the good of the people without some check or balance. If you know my brother-in-law owns a horse ranch and that likely affects my view on low cost manure cleanup, you will take my questions and impassioned exhortations in the committee hearing with a grain of salt. If you don’t, then my passion is more likely to sway your opinion.
There just isn’t too much disclosure.
We could spend an entire thread on this, especially if we bring state legislatures into it.
I think the challenge comes when you do things in secret. And that doesn’t even mean cutting deals in smoke filled rooms, as long as the female Senators get a cigar too, which I am a great fan of. I mean disclosure of conflicts. Everyone in government is related to someone who isn’t in government. They get together, talk about the grandkids, hang out and, where it makes sense, they help each other out. It’s a stretch for me to get upset about that unless 1) they could also be talking about a criminal investigation 2)they try to hide their interest 3) they have singular responsibility for interpretation or enforcement of a interpreted rule.
Committees on the hill are made up of several members, laws are passed by 200+ votes, implementation is usually done with open hearings or Q&A periods. It is hard to do something grotesquely or blatantly in conflict with the good of the people without some check or balance. If you know my brother-in-law owns a horse ranch and that likely affects my view on low cost manure cleanup, you will take my questions and impassioned exhortations in the committee hearing with a grain of salt. If you don’t, then my passion is more likely to sway your opinion.
There just isn’t too much disclosure.
but this one is my favorite:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=23436
but this one is my favorite:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=23436
but this one is my favorite:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=23436
No, Marty, I don’t think you (or anyone else here) believe that.
I absolutely believe it, I have said so before here and wish I could find it to link to it. The complete dismissal of everyone outside his tribe as unworthy of consideration in anyway, his lack of empathy for anyone outside his realm of experience and just being an arrogant snot created a prism to focus the backlash that led to the Tea Party and ultimately Trump.
No, Marty, I don’t think you (or anyone else here) believe that.
I absolutely believe it, I have said so before here and wish I could find it to link to it. The complete dismissal of everyone outside his tribe as unworthy of consideration in anyway, his lack of empathy for anyone outside his realm of experience and just being an arrogant snot created a prism to focus the backlash that led to the Tea Party and ultimately Trump.
No, Marty, I don’t think you (or anyone else here) believe that.
I absolutely believe it, I have said so before here and wish I could find it to link to it. The complete dismissal of everyone outside his tribe as unworthy of consideration in anyway, his lack of empathy for anyone outside his realm of experience and just being an arrogant snot created a prism to focus the backlash that led to the Tea Party and ultimately Trump.
lolwut
lolwut
lolwut
I agree with you, Marty, that the disclosure issue is paramount.
Oftentimes, people in government who know what the issues in a particular case are have a professional interest in that field.
Disclosure is the most important aspect of all of this.
Case in point, people claim to just hate the TPP. I would suggest that an extremely small percentage of people know anything about it whatsoever. They’ve heard that it helps large corporations. Full stop. That’s enough. It’s bad.
I agree with you, Marty, that the disclosure issue is paramount.
Oftentimes, people in government who know what the issues in a particular case are have a professional interest in that field.
Disclosure is the most important aspect of all of this.
Case in point, people claim to just hate the TPP. I would suggest that an extremely small percentage of people know anything about it whatsoever. They’ve heard that it helps large corporations. Full stop. That’s enough. It’s bad.
I agree with you, Marty, that the disclosure issue is paramount.
Oftentimes, people in government who know what the issues in a particular case are have a professional interest in that field.
Disclosure is the most important aspect of all of this.
Case in point, people claim to just hate the TPP. I would suggest that an extremely small percentage of people know anything about it whatsoever. They’ve heard that it helps large corporations. Full stop. That’s enough. It’s bad.
The complete dismissal of everyone outside his tribe as unworthy of consideration in anyway, his lack of empathy for anyone outside his realm of experience and just being an arrogant snot
A nice description of Trump, of course. Although perhaps a bit generous in some regards — for instance, I’m not sure there is anyone but himself in his tribe.
But I’m missing how it is Obama’s fault…. 😉
The complete dismissal of everyone outside his tribe as unworthy of consideration in anyway, his lack of empathy for anyone outside his realm of experience and just being an arrogant snot
A nice description of Trump, of course. Although perhaps a bit generous in some regards — for instance, I’m not sure there is anyone but himself in his tribe.
But I’m missing how it is Obama’s fault…. 😉
The complete dismissal of everyone outside his tribe as unworthy of consideration in anyway, his lack of empathy for anyone outside his realm of experience and just being an arrogant snot
A nice description of Trump, of course. Although perhaps a bit generous in some regards — for instance, I’m not sure there is anyone but himself in his tribe.
But I’m missing how it is Obama’s fault…. 😉
wj, I couldn’t agree more, they are identical reflections. Obama crystallizing the thoughts on the left as to why everyone should hate those others and Trump reflecting that hatred back, and I used the prism because I believe that Trump separates and intensifies that reflection.
wj, I couldn’t agree more, they are identical reflections. Obama crystallizing the thoughts on the left as to why everyone should hate those others and Trump reflecting that hatred back, and I used the prism because I believe that Trump separates and intensifies that reflection.
wj, I couldn’t agree more, they are identical reflections. Obama crystallizing the thoughts on the left as to why everyone should hate those others and Trump reflecting that hatred back, and I used the prism because I believe that Trump separates and intensifies that reflection.
I would suggest that an extremely small percentage of people know anything about it whatsoever.
Indeed. And that holds for the supporters of TPP as well. They haven’t read it either, but appear to be hypnotized by any shiny object dangled in front of them that Tom Friedman, et. al, label with the misnomer “free trade”.
If anybody cares to, the text is here.
I would suggest that an extremely small percentage of people know anything about it whatsoever.
Indeed. And that holds for the supporters of TPP as well. They haven’t read it either, but appear to be hypnotized by any shiny object dangled in front of them that Tom Friedman, et. al, label with the misnomer “free trade”.
If anybody cares to, the text is here.
I would suggest that an extremely small percentage of people know anything about it whatsoever.
Indeed. And that holds for the supporters of TPP as well. They haven’t read it either, but appear to be hypnotized by any shiny object dangled in front of them that Tom Friedman, et. al, label with the misnomer “free trade”.
If anybody cares to, the text is here.
Marty, I don’t really know that I’d attribute those attributes to Obama in particular. Are they common in the liberal tribe? Depressingly yes, ofc. I’ve known far too many on this side of the aisle whose political beliefs revolve around being smarter and more rational than all of the self-righteous racist rubes. In fairness, though, I’ve also known all too many who mirror them almost perfectly on the other side of the aisle. There’s far too much irrational contempt for people wearing the wrong hat to view “they were arrogant and condescending, and dismissed my PoV” as a causative narrative. It’s pretty much SOP for miserably large chunks of the body politic.
Marty, I don’t really know that I’d attribute those attributes to Obama in particular. Are they common in the liberal tribe? Depressingly yes, ofc. I’ve known far too many on this side of the aisle whose political beliefs revolve around being smarter and more rational than all of the self-righteous racist rubes. In fairness, though, I’ve also known all too many who mirror them almost perfectly on the other side of the aisle. There’s far too much irrational contempt for people wearing the wrong hat to view “they were arrogant and condescending, and dismissed my PoV” as a causative narrative. It’s pretty much SOP for miserably large chunks of the body politic.
Marty, I don’t really know that I’d attribute those attributes to Obama in particular. Are they common in the liberal tribe? Depressingly yes, ofc. I’ve known far too many on this side of the aisle whose political beliefs revolve around being smarter and more rational than all of the self-righteous racist rubes. In fairness, though, I’ve also known all too many who mirror them almost perfectly on the other side of the aisle. There’s far too much irrational contempt for people wearing the wrong hat to view “they were arrogant and condescending, and dismissed my PoV” as a causative narrative. It’s pretty much SOP for miserably large chunks of the body politic.
Funny, I must have missed that speech where Obama ordered “the Left” to hate those GOPer/Rightwingers.
Was it on the Whitey Tape?
I’m not sure that it worked, anyway; “the Left” isn’t very skilled at marching in lockstep, unlike some people.
Funny, I must have missed that speech where Obama ordered “the Left” to hate those GOPer/Rightwingers.
Was it on the Whitey Tape?
I’m not sure that it worked, anyway; “the Left” isn’t very skilled at marching in lockstep, unlike some people.
Funny, I must have missed that speech where Obama ordered “the Left” to hate those GOPer/Rightwingers.
Was it on the Whitey Tape?
I’m not sure that it worked, anyway; “the Left” isn’t very skilled at marching in lockstep, unlike some people.
Hobson’s choice: Being subjected to snot nosed condescension or the ritual one minute of hate extended to 24/7.
You reap what you sow, conservatives.
Hobson’s choice: Being subjected to snot nosed condescension or the ritual one minute of hate extended to 24/7.
You reap what you sow, conservatives.
Hobson’s choice: Being subjected to snot nosed condescension or the ritual one minute of hate extended to 24/7.
You reap what you sow, conservatives.
NV,
The creation of Trump is, to some extent, due to the reality that no one from the left has held the bully pulpit since Carter. Even, Bill Clinton didn’t constantly remind people that they were inferior and unimportant through every deed. It is an interesting phenomenon that I believe the primary reason that so many people dislike him has more to do with his condescension than his color. Then, of course, for the racists the combination is unbearable.
NV,
The creation of Trump is, to some extent, due to the reality that no one from the left has held the bully pulpit since Carter. Even, Bill Clinton didn’t constantly remind people that they were inferior and unimportant through every deed. It is an interesting phenomenon that I believe the primary reason that so many people dislike him has more to do with his condescension than his color. Then, of course, for the racists the combination is unbearable.
NV,
The creation of Trump is, to some extent, due to the reality that no one from the left has held the bully pulpit since Carter. Even, Bill Clinton didn’t constantly remind people that they were inferior and unimportant through every deed. It is an interesting phenomenon that I believe the primary reason that so many people dislike him has more to do with his condescension than his color. Then, of course, for the racists the combination is unbearable.
the creation of Trump is solely due to the fact that the GOP base voted for him, overwhelmingly.
his policies come from the same catalog of ‘conservative’ positions that has been on offer at least as long as i’ve been alive. maybe he didn’t pick all the same ones that have been popular with recent GOP candidates, but they’ve been popular with the actual right basically forever.
nobody on the left forced him to win the GOP primaries. you did that all by yourselves.
the creation of Trump is solely due to the fact that the GOP base voted for him, overwhelmingly.
his policies come from the same catalog of ‘conservative’ positions that has been on offer at least as long as i’ve been alive. maybe he didn’t pick all the same ones that have been popular with recent GOP candidates, but they’ve been popular with the actual right basically forever.
nobody on the left forced him to win the GOP primaries. you did that all by yourselves.
the creation of Trump is solely due to the fact that the GOP base voted for him, overwhelmingly.
his policies come from the same catalog of ‘conservative’ positions that has been on offer at least as long as i’ve been alive. maybe he didn’t pick all the same ones that have been popular with recent GOP candidates, but they’ve been popular with the actual right basically forever.
nobody on the left forced him to win the GOP primaries. you did that all by yourselves.
I just learned that Hindu nationalist supremacists who ethnic cleanse Muslims and anyone else in India they and Republicans hate have adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite epithet “libtard” to channel righteous fury, hatred and violence against liberal and secular elites in their version of conservative media.
No need to link, Marty, I’ll confirm that you have made that point before in these pages about Obama’s reflective, prismatic properties.
He’s a magic, uppity, shiny homey.
I just learned that Hindu nationalist supremacists who ethnic cleanse Muslims and anyone else in India they and Republicans hate have adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite epithet “libtard” to channel righteous fury, hatred and violence against liberal and secular elites in their version of conservative media.
No need to link, Marty, I’ll confirm that you have made that point before in these pages about Obama’s reflective, prismatic properties.
He’s a magic, uppity, shiny homey.
I just learned that Hindu nationalist supremacists who ethnic cleanse Muslims and anyone else in India they and Republicans hate have adopted Rush Limbaugh’s favorite epithet “libtard” to channel righteous fury, hatred and violence against liberal and secular elites in their version of conservative media.
No need to link, Marty, I’ll confirm that you have made that point before in these pages about Obama’s reflective, prismatic properties.
He’s a magic, uppity, shiny homey.
Black men and women always seem taller and condescending when they speak to their equals as equals, their equals having now to look up a little bit to spot where the truth in coming from.
Black men and women always seem taller and condescending when they speak to their equals as equals, their equals having now to look up a little bit to spot where the truth in coming from.
Black men and women always seem taller and condescending when they speak to their equals as equals, their equals having now to look up a little bit to spot where the truth in coming from.
Yes, the absolutely reflexive defense of any Obama criticism. You must be racist. Twice in two comments, back to back. Can’t imagine why people who disagree with him might be put off.
Yes, the absolutely reflexive defense of any Obama criticism. You must be racist. Twice in two comments, back to back. Can’t imagine why people who disagree with him might be put off.
Yes, the absolutely reflexive defense of any Obama criticism. You must be racist. Twice in two comments, back to back. Can’t imagine why people who disagree with him might be put off.
And now we’ve reached the stage where Bill Clinton is raised up as better than Barack Obama, when in reality Republicans HATED Bill Clinton with a passion. When he was President. Now that he’s out of office, it’s all “oh, if only Obama were more like Bill Clinton.” BS. Years from now Conservatives will discover the real Barack Obama who will be better than the fantasy evil Democrat in power, and wax poetic about him (dishonestly failing to note that when Obama was in power they hated him passionately).
This is total projection. As usual.
And now we’ve reached the stage where Bill Clinton is raised up as better than Barack Obama, when in reality Republicans HATED Bill Clinton with a passion. When he was President. Now that he’s out of office, it’s all “oh, if only Obama were more like Bill Clinton.” BS. Years from now Conservatives will discover the real Barack Obama who will be better than the fantasy evil Democrat in power, and wax poetic about him (dishonestly failing to note that when Obama was in power they hated him passionately).
This is total projection. As usual.
And now we’ve reached the stage where Bill Clinton is raised up as better than Barack Obama, when in reality Republicans HATED Bill Clinton with a passion. When he was President. Now that he’s out of office, it’s all “oh, if only Obama were more like Bill Clinton.” BS. Years from now Conservatives will discover the real Barack Obama who will be better than the fantasy evil Democrat in power, and wax poetic about him (dishonestly failing to note that when Obama was in power they hated him passionately).
This is total projection. As usual.
“I believe the primary reason that so many people dislike him has more to do with his condescension than his color. ”
Obama is at best an amateur at snotty condescension. For a true professional, I refer you to the late William F. Buckley.
But really, Marty, can you cite/link ONE blatant example of Obama being condescending? Blatant enough that someone without a raging inferiority complex can see it, I mean.
“I believe the primary reason that so many people dislike him has more to do with his condescension than his color. ”
Obama is at best an amateur at snotty condescension. For a true professional, I refer you to the late William F. Buckley.
But really, Marty, can you cite/link ONE blatant example of Obama being condescending? Blatant enough that someone without a raging inferiority complex can see it, I mean.
“I believe the primary reason that so many people dislike him has more to do with his condescension than his color. ”
Obama is at best an amateur at snotty condescension. For a true professional, I refer you to the late William F. Buckley.
But really, Marty, can you cite/link ONE blatant example of Obama being condescending? Blatant enough that someone without a raging inferiority complex can see it, I mean.
i can cite one: his “clinging to their guns” remark.
that’s all i got, though.
i can cite one: his “clinging to their guns” remark.
that’s all i got, though.
i can cite one: his “clinging to their guns” remark.
that’s all i got, though.
Rob in CT,
Just so you don’t have to link back in THIS thread, my overall feelings about Bill Clinton here, he was different than Obama, I didn’t say better.
Rob in CT,
Just so you don’t have to link back in THIS thread, my overall feelings about Bill Clinton here, he was different than Obama, I didn’t say better.
Rob in CT,
Just so you don’t have to link back in THIS thread, my overall feelings about Bill Clinton here, he was different than Obama, I didn’t say better.
Snarki, The text of every SOTU contains plenty to work with. In fact, the last speech he gave that doesn’t qualify may be his inaugural address and I would have to reread that. I used to document the failure in his speeches to build any sort of bridges until I just quit hoping the next one might be better.
Snarki, The text of every SOTU contains plenty to work with. In fact, the last speech he gave that doesn’t qualify may be his inaugural address and I would have to reread that. I used to document the failure in his speeches to build any sort of bridges until I just quit hoping the next one might be better.
Snarki, The text of every SOTU contains plenty to work with. In fact, the last speech he gave that doesn’t qualify may be his inaugural address and I would have to reread that. I used to document the failure in his speeches to build any sort of bridges until I just quit hoping the next one might be better.
the failure in his speeches to build any sort of bridges
this is mind-boggling. all of his SOTUs contain sections about working together, uniting, etc..
is there a SOTU from a Republican that you would hold up as the standard for building bridges?
the failure in his speeches to build any sort of bridges
this is mind-boggling. all of his SOTUs contain sections about working together, uniting, etc..
is there a SOTU from a Republican that you would hold up as the standard for building bridges?
the failure in his speeches to build any sort of bridges
this is mind-boggling. all of his SOTUs contain sections about working together, uniting, etc..
is there a SOTU from a Republican that you would hold up as the standard for building bridges?
Marty, you’re good to go. You’ve stated Trump is a racist and you won’t be voting for him.
I just want to make sure if Trump stops by here and reads (I guess there is little chance of that, huh?) you on Obama, he doesn’t appoint you to lead up a death panel.
Marty, you’re good to go. You’ve stated Trump is a racist and you won’t be voting for him.
I just want to make sure if Trump stops by here and reads (I guess there is little chance of that, huh?) you on Obama, he doesn’t appoint you to lead up a death panel.
Marty, you’re good to go. You’ve stated Trump is a racist and you won’t be voting for him.
I just want to make sure if Trump stops by here and reads (I guess there is little chance of that, huh?) you on Obama, he doesn’t appoint you to lead up a death panel.
I couldn’t agree more, they are identical reflections. Obama crystallizing the thoughts on the left as to why everyone should hate those others and Trump reflecting that hatred back
Gosh, I must have slept thru the past 8 years. Because I missed the part where Obama, personally, did anything to suggest hating those others. The man has bent over backwards to avoid doing anything that would encourage division — not that it mattered to those intent on division.
Or are you saying that his mere existance crystalized the thoughts on the left? I can see where that might be true (although I doubt it happened — too much experience with those on the far left, who don’t seem to need a catalyst any more than those on the far right). But not how that would be his fault.
I couldn’t agree more, they are identical reflections. Obama crystallizing the thoughts on the left as to why everyone should hate those others and Trump reflecting that hatred back
Gosh, I must have slept thru the past 8 years. Because I missed the part where Obama, personally, did anything to suggest hating those others. The man has bent over backwards to avoid doing anything that would encourage division — not that it mattered to those intent on division.
Or are you saying that his mere existance crystalized the thoughts on the left? I can see where that might be true (although I doubt it happened — too much experience with those on the far left, who don’t seem to need a catalyst any more than those on the far right). But not how that would be his fault.
I couldn’t agree more, they are identical reflections. Obama crystallizing the thoughts on the left as to why everyone should hate those others and Trump reflecting that hatred back
Gosh, I must have slept thru the past 8 years. Because I missed the part where Obama, personally, did anything to suggest hating those others. The man has bent over backwards to avoid doing anything that would encourage division — not that it mattered to those intent on division.
Or are you saying that his mere existance crystalized the thoughts on the left? I can see where that might be true (although I doubt it happened — too much experience with those on the far left, who don’t seem to need a catalyst any more than those on the far right). But not how that would be his fault.
cleek, I don’t have to go far. However, you may feel about the speaker, this was a great speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
cleek, I don’t have to go far. However, you may feel about the speaker, this was a great speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
cleek, I don’t have to go far. However, you may feel about the speaker, this was a great speech.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. The implication that influence is being purchased indirectly is difficult to dismiss.
It troubles me, too. But face it, US politics is awash in oceans of cash. Singling out the Clintons is absurd.
It is Republicans, after all, who most heartily oppose any restrictions on money flowing into politics, and who get plenty of it from all sorts of places. Why, they compete o kiss the ring, or something, of Adelman and the Koch brothers, so I think the shock is more than a little overdone.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. The implication that influence is being purchased indirectly is difficult to dismiss.
It troubles me, too. But face it, US politics is awash in oceans of cash. Singling out the Clintons is absurd.
It is Republicans, after all, who most heartily oppose any restrictions on money flowing into politics, and who get plenty of it from all sorts of places. Why, they compete o kiss the ring, or something, of Adelman and the Koch brothers, so I think the shock is more than a little overdone.
It troubles me, nonetheless, that politicians should get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech. The implication that influence is being purchased indirectly is difficult to dismiss.
It troubles me, too. But face it, US politics is awash in oceans of cash. Singling out the Clintons is absurd.
It is Republicans, after all, who most heartily oppose any restrictions on money flowing into politics, and who get plenty of it from all sorts of places. Why, they compete o kiss the ring, or something, of Adelman and the Koch brothers, so I think the shock is more than a little overdone.
Here’s the deal. When a group of people express their hatred and contempt for me and mine, especially over long periods of time in many Luntzian iterations, I experience the direct crystallization of my hatred right back at them and I want to beat the shit out of them.
I don’t need any reflections, emanations, and prismatic sunspots bouncing off the black guy over here to get it on.
It wasn’t me who gathered the republican elected intelligensia together the moment Obama came down the chute and decided to stymie, halt, sabotage, and fucking lie, cheat, and steal every fucking thing until Sammy Davis Jr. left the building.
Here’s the deal. When a group of people express their hatred and contempt for me and mine, especially over long periods of time in many Luntzian iterations, I experience the direct crystallization of my hatred right back at them and I want to beat the shit out of them.
I don’t need any reflections, emanations, and prismatic sunspots bouncing off the black guy over here to get it on.
It wasn’t me who gathered the republican elected intelligensia together the moment Obama came down the chute and decided to stymie, halt, sabotage, and fucking lie, cheat, and steal every fucking thing until Sammy Davis Jr. left the building.
Here’s the deal. When a group of people express their hatred and contempt for me and mine, especially over long periods of time in many Luntzian iterations, I experience the direct crystallization of my hatred right back at them and I want to beat the shit out of them.
I don’t need any reflections, emanations, and prismatic sunspots bouncing off the black guy over here to get it on.
It wasn’t me who gathered the republican elected intelligensia together the moment Obama came down the chute and decided to stymie, halt, sabotage, and fucking lie, cheat, and steal every fucking thing until Sammy Davis Jr. left the building.
When a POTUS extols the value of education (while black), he is obviously dissing the poorly educated.
When a FLOTUS extols the value of physical fitness (while black), she is obviously dissing the flabby and the lazy.
Put’em together and any orange grifter who comes along can exploit those resentments to capture the vote of the ignorant, flabby and lazy demographic (which never resented the exact same condescension from previous presidents and their wives) and have an excellent start on winning a majority of the electorate.
–TP
When a POTUS extols the value of education (while black), he is obviously dissing the poorly educated.
When a FLOTUS extols the value of physical fitness (while black), she is obviously dissing the flabby and the lazy.
Put’em together and any orange grifter who comes along can exploit those resentments to capture the vote of the ignorant, flabby and lazy demographic (which never resented the exact same condescension from previous presidents and their wives) and have an excellent start on winning a majority of the electorate.
–TP
When a POTUS extols the value of education (while black), he is obviously dissing the poorly educated.
When a FLOTUS extols the value of physical fitness (while black), she is obviously dissing the flabby and the lazy.
Put’em together and any orange grifter who comes along can exploit those resentments to capture the vote of the ignorant, flabby and lazy demographic (which never resented the exact same condescension from previous presidents and their wives) and have an excellent start on winning a majority of the electorate.
–TP
And that holds for the supporters of TPP as well.
I have read a lot about the TPP, and am neither a supporter or a detractor. I tend more toward support because I feel that there’s an isolationism that’s similar to anti-immigration going on, romanticizing factory jobs and coal, when those jobs are going to be more and more obsolete for a number of reasons.
However, I would never claim to know enough about the TPP to make it a central issue in my decision to vote for a candidate. I find it hard to believe that the many people walking around the convention floor, carrying around signs or shouting, have much knowledge either. Maybe i’m wrong.
We elect people whose policies we generally agree with to appoint and hire knowledgeable people (experts) to work on extremely complex and time consuming projects such as the TPP, which aren’t necessarily things that internet warriors can comprehend by a quick look-see, or a summary found on Wikipedia. Economists of every stripe argue about the benefits and detriments of trade agreements that have already been passed, not to mention a different kind of trade agreement with very unique sorts of provisions. Who wins, who loses, and why is often a matter of policies that are completely extraneous, and our reluctance to share the wealth that comes from these agreements. The attitude is Trump-like, similar to hating immigration because immigration “takes jobs away.” Of course, immigrants do “take jobs”. But we, on the left, aren’t buying into anti-immigration rhetoric, because we know there are other benefits to our country, and for immigrants themselves.
That’s why I try to lobby for policies I actually understand, like taxing wealth, infrastructure spending, medicaid expansion, etc. Walking around with a pro- or anti- TPP sign is a red flag to me that people are basing their opinions on tribalism. Obviously, some people know a lot about it, but mostly people who have spent many years of their careers working on it.
And that holds for the supporters of TPP as well.
I have read a lot about the TPP, and am neither a supporter or a detractor. I tend more toward support because I feel that there’s an isolationism that’s similar to anti-immigration going on, romanticizing factory jobs and coal, when those jobs are going to be more and more obsolete for a number of reasons.
However, I would never claim to know enough about the TPP to make it a central issue in my decision to vote for a candidate. I find it hard to believe that the many people walking around the convention floor, carrying around signs or shouting, have much knowledge either. Maybe i’m wrong.
We elect people whose policies we generally agree with to appoint and hire knowledgeable people (experts) to work on extremely complex and time consuming projects such as the TPP, which aren’t necessarily things that internet warriors can comprehend by a quick look-see, or a summary found on Wikipedia. Economists of every stripe argue about the benefits and detriments of trade agreements that have already been passed, not to mention a different kind of trade agreement with very unique sorts of provisions. Who wins, who loses, and why is often a matter of policies that are completely extraneous, and our reluctance to share the wealth that comes from these agreements. The attitude is Trump-like, similar to hating immigration because immigration “takes jobs away.” Of course, immigrants do “take jobs”. But we, on the left, aren’t buying into anti-immigration rhetoric, because we know there are other benefits to our country, and for immigrants themselves.
That’s why I try to lobby for policies I actually understand, like taxing wealth, infrastructure spending, medicaid expansion, etc. Walking around with a pro- or anti- TPP sign is a red flag to me that people are basing their opinions on tribalism. Obviously, some people know a lot about it, but mostly people who have spent many years of their careers working on it.
And that holds for the supporters of TPP as well.
I have read a lot about the TPP, and am neither a supporter or a detractor. I tend more toward support because I feel that there’s an isolationism that’s similar to anti-immigration going on, romanticizing factory jobs and coal, when those jobs are going to be more and more obsolete for a number of reasons.
However, I would never claim to know enough about the TPP to make it a central issue in my decision to vote for a candidate. I find it hard to believe that the many people walking around the convention floor, carrying around signs or shouting, have much knowledge either. Maybe i’m wrong.
We elect people whose policies we generally agree with to appoint and hire knowledgeable people (experts) to work on extremely complex and time consuming projects such as the TPP, which aren’t necessarily things that internet warriors can comprehend by a quick look-see, or a summary found on Wikipedia. Economists of every stripe argue about the benefits and detriments of trade agreements that have already been passed, not to mention a different kind of trade agreement with very unique sorts of provisions. Who wins, who loses, and why is often a matter of policies that are completely extraneous, and our reluctance to share the wealth that comes from these agreements. The attitude is Trump-like, similar to hating immigration because immigration “takes jobs away.” Of course, immigrants do “take jobs”. But we, on the left, aren’t buying into anti-immigration rhetoric, because we know there are other benefits to our country, and for immigrants themselves.
That’s why I try to lobby for policies I actually understand, like taxing wealth, infrastructure spending, medicaid expansion, etc. Walking around with a pro- or anti- TPP sign is a red flag to me that people are basing their opinions on tribalism. Obviously, some people know a lot about it, but mostly people who have spent many years of their careers working on it.
Folks who objecct to TPP (and other free trade agreements), generally aren’t so much opposed to free trade. What they are opposed to are what they see as the impacts of free trade on particular segments of the population.
Given that free trade is pretty clearly an economic benefit overall, their opposition to it seems . . . mis-directed. It would make far more sense to focus on the people who are hurt economically, and try to do something for them. Rather than just stand in front of the freight train yelling “Stop!”
Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives. But the world, and the economy, is changing regardless. The only real question is whether we want to try to make those changes work for everybody. Or just get run over.
Folks who objecct to TPP (and other free trade agreements), generally aren’t so much opposed to free trade. What they are opposed to are what they see as the impacts of free trade on particular segments of the population.
Given that free trade is pretty clearly an economic benefit overall, their opposition to it seems . . . mis-directed. It would make far more sense to focus on the people who are hurt economically, and try to do something for them. Rather than just stand in front of the freight train yelling “Stop!”
Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives. But the world, and the economy, is changing regardless. The only real question is whether we want to try to make those changes work for everybody. Or just get run over.
Folks who objecct to TPP (and other free trade agreements), generally aren’t so much opposed to free trade. What they are opposed to are what they see as the impacts of free trade on particular segments of the population.
Given that free trade is pretty clearly an economic benefit overall, their opposition to it seems . . . mis-directed. It would make far more sense to focus on the people who are hurt economically, and try to do something for them. Rather than just stand in front of the freight train yelling “Stop!”
Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives. But the world, and the economy, is changing regardless. The only real question is whether we want to try to make those changes work for everybody. Or just get run over.
Every time I start to feel sorry for ignorant conservative racist white trash, here they come begging for even more condescension:
http://juanitajean.com/you-go-north-carolina/
Every time I start to feel sorry for ignorant conservative racist white trash, here they come begging for even more condescension:
http://juanitajean.com/you-go-north-carolina/
Every time I start to feel sorry for ignorant conservative racist white trash, here they come begging for even more condescension:
http://juanitajean.com/you-go-north-carolina/
However, you may feel about the speaker, this was a great speech.
is there any part in particular that stands out as ‘bridge-building’?
because here’s a bit from the start of the 2011 SOTU that sounds pretty bridgey to me:
and do note that Obama was gently smiling when he said that first sentence.
However, you may feel about the speaker, this was a great speech.
is there any part in particular that stands out as ‘bridge-building’?
because here’s a bit from the start of the 2011 SOTU that sounds pretty bridgey to me:
and do note that Obama was gently smiling when he said that first sentence.
However, you may feel about the speaker, this was a great speech.
is there any part in particular that stands out as ‘bridge-building’?
because here’s a bit from the start of the 2011 SOTU that sounds pretty bridgey to me:
and do note that Obama was gently smiling when he said that first sentence.
i’ll second what sapient said about TPP.
i know very little about it (most of what i know is that it’s very big and complex – but i have almost no interest in the subject). but many of the complaints i hear, made by people who i know are not students of international trade, sound pretty silly.
i’ll second what sapient said about TPP.
i know very little about it (most of what i know is that it’s very big and complex – but i have almost no interest in the subject). but many of the complaints i hear, made by people who i know are not students of international trade, sound pretty silly.
i’ll second what sapient said about TPP.
i know very little about it (most of what i know is that it’s very big and complex – but i have almost no interest in the subject). but many of the complaints i hear, made by people who i know are not students of international trade, sound pretty silly.
I think we have reached the point on free trade (as on a number of other topics) where people see no need to be personally informed about the topic.
They know that their tribe (or sub-tribe) is for/against it. People that they trust (for better or worse) tell them which side to be on. Nothing further is required of them.
One has to wonder whether, if you simply relabeled “free trade” as “trash the elites trade” it would be suddenly OK. Not that the label has anything to do with what is going on. But just the time delay before everybody figures out what to think might give a window of opportunity to do something useful.
I think we have reached the point on free trade (as on a number of other topics) where people see no need to be personally informed about the topic.
They know that their tribe (or sub-tribe) is for/against it. People that they trust (for better or worse) tell them which side to be on. Nothing further is required of them.
One has to wonder whether, if you simply relabeled “free trade” as “trash the elites trade” it would be suddenly OK. Not that the label has anything to do with what is going on. But just the time delay before everybody figures out what to think might give a window of opportunity to do something useful.
I think we have reached the point on free trade (as on a number of other topics) where people see no need to be personally informed about the topic.
They know that their tribe (or sub-tribe) is for/against it. People that they trust (for better or worse) tell them which side to be on. Nothing further is required of them.
One has to wonder whether, if you simply relabeled “free trade” as “trash the elites trade” it would be suddenly OK. Not that the label has anything to do with what is going on. But just the time delay before everybody figures out what to think might give a window of opportunity to do something useful.
Apparently, Putin joins, what, 38% of the Republican electorate, in “feeling” Kenyan Obama condescended to him:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/what-in-world-was-he-talking-about.html
I have a “feeling” Netanyahu lights the same torch.
It’s a primal thing.
Apparently, Putin joins, what, 38% of the Republican electorate, in “feeling” Kenyan Obama condescended to him:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/what-in-world-was-he-talking-about.html
I have a “feeling” Netanyahu lights the same torch.
It’s a primal thing.
Apparently, Putin joins, what, 38% of the Republican electorate, in “feeling” Kenyan Obama condescended to him:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/what-in-world-was-he-talking-about.html
I have a “feeling” Netanyahu lights the same torch.
It’s a primal thing.
I am for a Trade Limitation Agreement TLA. Text optional.
I am for a Trade Limitation Agreement TLA. Text optional.
I am for a Trade Limitation Agreement TLA. Text optional.
I’m for importing Chinese baseball pregame shows and deporting American baseball mascots to North Korea and points west.
http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2016/07/28/192245506/video-cbpl-the-ring-vs-the-grudge-first-pitch
I’m for importing Chinese baseball pregame shows and deporting American baseball mascots to North Korea and points west.
http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2016/07/28/192245506/video-cbpl-the-ring-vs-the-grudge-first-pitch
I’m for importing Chinese baseball pregame shows and deporting American baseball mascots to North Korea and points west.
http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2016/07/28/192245506/video-cbpl-the-ring-vs-the-grudge-first-pitch
“Snarki, The text of every SOTU contains plenty to work with”
Then it should be very easy for you to give a very precise pointer to a bit of condescension so obvious that even the Libtards can see it. In the TEXT (as you say), so you can blockquote it.
Because it’s starting to sound like “oh, it’s out there..somewhere…I’m certainly not going to be arsed to find it for you. Near Tikrit, or somewhat north south or east of there”.
“Snarki, The text of every SOTU contains plenty to work with”
Then it should be very easy for you to give a very precise pointer to a bit of condescension so obvious that even the Libtards can see it. In the TEXT (as you say), so you can blockquote it.
Because it’s starting to sound like “oh, it’s out there..somewhere…I’m certainly not going to be arsed to find it for you. Near Tikrit, or somewhat north south or east of there”.
“Snarki, The text of every SOTU contains plenty to work with”
Then it should be very easy for you to give a very precise pointer to a bit of condescension so obvious that even the Libtards can see it. In the TEXT (as you say), so you can blockquote it.
Because it’s starting to sound like “oh, it’s out there..somewhere…I’m certainly not going to be arsed to find it for you. Near Tikrit, or somewhat north south or east of there”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffh09f4TdM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALE6ENavvJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfocap0Wyac
Now, watch the first flinch Basil Fawlty does when he meets the black doctor caring for Sybil. That’s exactly how too many Americans’ brain stems flinched when Obama was inaugurated, elected, and announced he wasn’t going to patronize those who thought he should be strangling chickens for the Colonel instead of leading the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rBZSRdVLG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffh09f4TdM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALE6ENavvJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfocap0Wyac
Now, watch the first flinch Basil Fawlty does when he meets the black doctor caring for Sybil. That’s exactly how too many Americans’ brain stems flinched when Obama was inaugurated, elected, and announced he wasn’t going to patronize those who thought he should be strangling chickens for the Colonel instead of leading the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rBZSRdVLG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffh09f4TdM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALE6ENavvJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfocap0Wyac
Now, watch the first flinch Basil Fawlty does when he meets the black doctor caring for Sybil. That’s exactly how too many Americans’ brain stems flinched when Obama was inaugurated, elected, and announced he wasn’t going to patronize those who thought he should be strangling chickens for the Colonel instead of leading the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rBZSRdVLG4
From Marty’s linked SOTU speech.
the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.
and
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas.
and
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
and of course
Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility.
And since Marty agrees with all that stuff, I might ask him to explain why he is infused with rage when Obama actually acts on those words, but I don’t really need to. I’m from Mississippi, and my facebook feed is full of folks who have the exact same point of view. Went to school, went to church with them and if I go back home, I’d see them, maybe hang out with them (though they have families and jobs and responsibilities so it would not be like the old days) But what I see in their facebook posts is straight up racist. Would I tell them if I met them? Probably not, but I’d probably make sure that the conversation never moved to the political.
I think that Marty assumes we are being condescending to him because we seek to avoid saying the word and just try to imply it, perhaps a bit too cleverly. (I’m probably doing that now by citing the speech that Marty linked to and pointing out that all those things that Bush promised, Obama actually did something and was castigated for doing it.) I don’t know, maybe we are, so rather than condescend, I thought I would state it baldly. Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist. You can try and claim that we are just being reflexive and you are bringing some home truths to us, but you aren’t. I say this now as a prelude to not responding to anything else you say, cause I don’t what you to take my silence as being condescending.
From Marty’s linked SOTU speech.
the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.
and
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas.
and
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
and of course
Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility.
And since Marty agrees with all that stuff, I might ask him to explain why he is infused with rage when Obama actually acts on those words, but I don’t really need to. I’m from Mississippi, and my facebook feed is full of folks who have the exact same point of view. Went to school, went to church with them and if I go back home, I’d see them, maybe hang out with them (though they have families and jobs and responsibilities so it would not be like the old days) But what I see in their facebook posts is straight up racist. Would I tell them if I met them? Probably not, but I’d probably make sure that the conversation never moved to the political.
I think that Marty assumes we are being condescending to him because we seek to avoid saying the word and just try to imply it, perhaps a bit too cleverly. (I’m probably doing that now by citing the speech that Marty linked to and pointing out that all those things that Bush promised, Obama actually did something and was castigated for doing it.) I don’t know, maybe we are, so rather than condescend, I thought I would state it baldly. Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist. You can try and claim that we are just being reflexive and you are bringing some home truths to us, but you aren’t. I say this now as a prelude to not responding to anything else you say, cause I don’t what you to take my silence as being condescending.
From Marty’s linked SOTU speech.
the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.
and
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas.
and
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.
and of course
Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility.
And since Marty agrees with all that stuff, I might ask him to explain why he is infused with rage when Obama actually acts on those words, but I don’t really need to. I’m from Mississippi, and my facebook feed is full of folks who have the exact same point of view. Went to school, went to church with them and if I go back home, I’d see them, maybe hang out with them (though they have families and jobs and responsibilities so it would not be like the old days) But what I see in their facebook posts is straight up racist. Would I tell them if I met them? Probably not, but I’d probably make sure that the conversation never moved to the political.
I think that Marty assumes we are being condescending to him because we seek to avoid saying the word and just try to imply it, perhaps a bit too cleverly. (I’m probably doing that now by citing the speech that Marty linked to and pointing out that all those things that Bush promised, Obama actually did something and was castigated for doing it.) I don’t know, maybe we are, so rather than condescend, I thought I would state it baldly. Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist. You can try and claim that we are just being reflexive and you are bringing some home truths to us, but you aren’t. I say this now as a prelude to not responding to anything else you say, cause I don’t what you to take my silence as being condescending.
wj: Given that free trade is pretty clearly an economic benefit overall, their opposition to it seems . . . mis-directed. It would make far more sense to focus on the people who are hurt economically, and try to do something for them. Rather than just stand in front of the freight train yelling “Stop!” Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives.
That bolded part is the rub, wj. Which people? What changes?
In particular, does “some people” include the people whose profits increase as well as those whose work is outsourced? Do “some changes” include higher taxes on the winners as well as more spending on the losers?
You have to admit that higher taxes and more spending — the main national mechanisms by which “the winners can compensate the losers” — have been … disfavored. Especially by a certain political party which also favors “free trade”.
You have to admit that a laid-off machinist who says “I may lose my income, but at least the Waltons will get another billion dollars richer, so I’m good with free trade” seems … misguided. Unless he has some sort of patriotic pride in billionaires, independent of his own circumstances.
I have to admit (actually, I freely admit) that when trade becomes more “free”, not all winners are at the top, nor all losers at the bottom, of the income scale. In principle exports go up as well as imports, so my imaginary machinist may foresee more income for himself as a result of his boss selling more widgets abroad. A wealthy sugar grower (who would gladly replace his American workers with cheaper immigrants) may foresee poverty for himself if “free trade” includes sugar. Having admitted this, I can still claim that it is possible for the losers to outnumber the winners — and be completely justifiably pissed off about it.
–TP
wj: Given that free trade is pretty clearly an economic benefit overall, their opposition to it seems . . . mis-directed. It would make far more sense to focus on the people who are hurt economically, and try to do something for them. Rather than just stand in front of the freight train yelling “Stop!” Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives.
That bolded part is the rub, wj. Which people? What changes?
In particular, does “some people” include the people whose profits increase as well as those whose work is outsourced? Do “some changes” include higher taxes on the winners as well as more spending on the losers?
You have to admit that higher taxes and more spending — the main national mechanisms by which “the winners can compensate the losers” — have been … disfavored. Especially by a certain political party which also favors “free trade”.
You have to admit that a laid-off machinist who says “I may lose my income, but at least the Waltons will get another billion dollars richer, so I’m good with free trade” seems … misguided. Unless he has some sort of patriotic pride in billionaires, independent of his own circumstances.
I have to admit (actually, I freely admit) that when trade becomes more “free”, not all winners are at the top, nor all losers at the bottom, of the income scale. In principle exports go up as well as imports, so my imaginary machinist may foresee more income for himself as a result of his boss selling more widgets abroad. A wealthy sugar grower (who would gladly replace his American workers with cheaper immigrants) may foresee poverty for himself if “free trade” includes sugar. Having admitted this, I can still claim that it is possible for the losers to outnumber the winners — and be completely justifiably pissed off about it.
–TP
wj: Given that free trade is pretty clearly an economic benefit overall, their opposition to it seems . . . mis-directed. It would make far more sense to focus on the people who are hurt economically, and try to do something for them. Rather than just stand in front of the freight train yelling “Stop!” Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives.
That bolded part is the rub, wj. Which people? What changes?
In particular, does “some people” include the people whose profits increase as well as those whose work is outsourced? Do “some changes” include higher taxes on the winners as well as more spending on the losers?
You have to admit that higher taxes and more spending — the main national mechanisms by which “the winners can compensate the losers” — have been … disfavored. Especially by a certain political party which also favors “free trade”.
You have to admit that a laid-off machinist who says “I may lose my income, but at least the Waltons will get another billion dollars richer, so I’m good with free trade” seems … misguided. Unless he has some sort of patriotic pride in billionaires, independent of his own circumstances.
I have to admit (actually, I freely admit) that when trade becomes more “free”, not all winners are at the top, nor all losers at the bottom, of the income scale. In principle exports go up as well as imports, so my imaginary machinist may foresee more income for himself as a result of his boss selling more widgets abroad. A wealthy sugar grower (who would gladly replace his American workers with cheaper immigrants) may foresee poverty for himself if “free trade” includes sugar. Having admitted this, I can still claim that it is possible for the losers to outnumber the winners — and be completely justifiably pissed off about it.
–TP
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/max-boot-anti-trump-foreign-policy
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/max-boot-anti-trump-foreign-policy
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/max-boot-anti-trump-foreign-policy
Leon Wolf, Redstate:
https://twitter.com/LeonHWolf/status/758126895653326848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Between Boot and Wolf, if this keeps up, I don’t know if I will be able to generalize from the particular forever.
Leon Wolf, Redstate:
https://twitter.com/LeonHWolf/status/758126895653326848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Between Boot and Wolf, if this keeps up, I don’t know if I will be able to generalize from the particular forever.
Leon Wolf, Redstate:
https://twitter.com/LeonHWolf/status/758126895653326848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Between Boot and Wolf, if this keeps up, I don’t know if I will be able to generalize from the particular forever.
LJ, Marty is racist and sexist how?
LJ, Marty is racist and sexist how?
LJ, Marty is racist and sexist how?
Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives.
That bolded part is the rub, wj. Which people? What changes?
In particular, does “some people” include the people whose profits increase as well as those whose work is outsourced? Do “some changes” include higher taxes on the winners as well as more spending on the losers?
Pretty clearly, the biggest (i.e. most wrenching) changes will be for those whose previous work is outsourced, or otherwise goes away. They will have to adapt to new ways of working, and not just new jobs but new kinds of jobs.
But those who saw direct benefits from globalization have to change as well. The changes are, objectively, less difficult; but, for some, traumatic philosophically. Because the changes will cost money, and that money is going to have to come from those who have made gains.
Of course, there is always the French Revolution alternative: if you won’t let the whole of society gain, you are just asking for your part of society to be excised. I’m not saying that would be a good thing; I think it would be very bad. But I also think that anybody who is currently rich is a damn fool if they discount the possibility.
Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives.
That bolded part is the rub, wj. Which people? What changes?
In particular, does “some people” include the people whose profits increase as well as those whose work is outsourced? Do “some changes” include higher taxes on the winners as well as more spending on the losers?
Pretty clearly, the biggest (i.e. most wrenching) changes will be for those whose previous work is outsourced, or otherwise goes away. They will have to adapt to new ways of working, and not just new jobs but new kinds of jobs.
But those who saw direct benefits from globalization have to change as well. The changes are, objectively, less difficult; but, for some, traumatic philosophically. Because the changes will cost money, and that money is going to have to come from those who have made gains.
Of course, there is always the French Revolution alternative: if you won’t let the whole of society gain, you are just asking for your part of society to be excised. I’m not saying that would be a good thing; I think it would be very bad. But I also think that anybody who is currently rich is a damn fool if they discount the possibility.
Of course, that will require some people to make some changes in their lives.
That bolded part is the rub, wj. Which people? What changes?
In particular, does “some people” include the people whose profits increase as well as those whose work is outsourced? Do “some changes” include higher taxes on the winners as well as more spending on the losers?
Pretty clearly, the biggest (i.e. most wrenching) changes will be for those whose previous work is outsourced, or otherwise goes away. They will have to adapt to new ways of working, and not just new jobs but new kinds of jobs.
But those who saw direct benefits from globalization have to change as well. The changes are, objectively, less difficult; but, for some, traumatic philosophically. Because the changes will cost money, and that money is going to have to come from those who have made gains.
Of course, there is always the French Revolution alternative: if you won’t let the whole of society gain, you are just asking for your part of society to be excised. I’m not saying that would be a good thing; I think it would be very bad. But I also think that anybody who is currently rich is a damn fool if they discount the possibility.
McT, I didn’t say that. I said
Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist.
You may claim that this is some slippery rhetoric to try and take a shot at Marty without owning up to my responsibility, but I have said (most recently here) that everyone is a little bit racist, so I’d appreciate if you would be more careful in re-stating what (you think) I said.
To take up what Marty said, making arguments against Obama that he would never if it were a white Republican named Bush (please see Marty’s citation of the SOTU address), it is racist. Claiming that Hillary is some sort of unique evil, above and beyond Donald Trump is racist. If Marty wants to walk it back, he is certainly welcome to. If you’d like to defend Marty’s statements, have at it. But beyond that, yeah, what he said was racist and sexist.
McT, I didn’t say that. I said
Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist.
You may claim that this is some slippery rhetoric to try and take a shot at Marty without owning up to my responsibility, but I have said (most recently here) that everyone is a little bit racist, so I’d appreciate if you would be more careful in re-stating what (you think) I said.
To take up what Marty said, making arguments against Obama that he would never if it were a white Republican named Bush (please see Marty’s citation of the SOTU address), it is racist. Claiming that Hillary is some sort of unique evil, above and beyond Donald Trump is racist. If Marty wants to walk it back, he is certainly welcome to. If you’d like to defend Marty’s statements, have at it. But beyond that, yeah, what he said was racist and sexist.
McT, I didn’t say that. I said
Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist.
You may claim that this is some slippery rhetoric to try and take a shot at Marty without owning up to my responsibility, but I have said (most recently here) that everyone is a little bit racist, so I’d appreciate if you would be more careful in re-stating what (you think) I said.
To take up what Marty said, making arguments against Obama that he would never if it were a white Republican named Bush (please see Marty’s citation of the SOTU address), it is racist. Claiming that Hillary is some sort of unique evil, above and beyond Donald Trump is racist. If Marty wants to walk it back, he is certainly welcome to. If you’d like to defend Marty’s statements, have at it. But beyond that, yeah, what he said was racist and sexist.
They will have to adapt to new ways of working, and not just new jobs but new kinds of jobs.
Sorry, this strikes me as just empty moralizing. Many factory workers may or may not have had good pay due to trade protection (some need to be reminded that the US grew to be an economic powerhouse protected by tariffs), but then we changed the public policy and let those bearing the brunt of the consequences to fend for themselves.
We essentially threw them to the wolves and called it “inevitable”.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
This has led to a good deal of political resentment.
This, too, is not a difficult concept to understand.
To make things worse, our trade policies continue to promote and protect those whose incomes continue to be protected by the terms of this so-called “free trade”. This would include (see Dean Baker) doctors, lawyers, dentists, many professionals, and folks such as the owners of Disney, Inc., and Microsoft.
OUR TRADE POLICIES, INCLUDING TPP, CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THESE PARTIES MAINTAIN THEIR PROTECTED STATUS.
Thus to lecture those who oppose “free trade” for their “isolationism” simply misses the point in two vital respects:
1. This is a political issue that is easily grasped by many, include the “ignorant masses” who just don’t get that “everybody benefits”. They are getting fucked. The know this. They feel this deeply. They are angry. What do YOU propose to do about it? Lecture them some more about their economic ignorance?
2. These trade deals act to protect the protected and enhance the wealth of the already wealthy. They contain “fair labor” standards, but no mechanism to enforce them. The policy, much like just about any public policy, picks winners and losers. That fact is what the issue is about.
They will have to adapt to new ways of working, and not just new jobs but new kinds of jobs.
Sorry, this strikes me as just empty moralizing. Many factory workers may or may not have had good pay due to trade protection (some need to be reminded that the US grew to be an economic powerhouse protected by tariffs), but then we changed the public policy and let those bearing the brunt of the consequences to fend for themselves.
We essentially threw them to the wolves and called it “inevitable”.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
This has led to a good deal of political resentment.
This, too, is not a difficult concept to understand.
To make things worse, our trade policies continue to promote and protect those whose incomes continue to be protected by the terms of this so-called “free trade”. This would include (see Dean Baker) doctors, lawyers, dentists, many professionals, and folks such as the owners of Disney, Inc., and Microsoft.
OUR TRADE POLICIES, INCLUDING TPP, CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THESE PARTIES MAINTAIN THEIR PROTECTED STATUS.
Thus to lecture those who oppose “free trade” for their “isolationism” simply misses the point in two vital respects:
1. This is a political issue that is easily grasped by many, include the “ignorant masses” who just don’t get that “everybody benefits”. They are getting fucked. The know this. They feel this deeply. They are angry. What do YOU propose to do about it? Lecture them some more about their economic ignorance?
2. These trade deals act to protect the protected and enhance the wealth of the already wealthy. They contain “fair labor” standards, but no mechanism to enforce them. The policy, much like just about any public policy, picks winners and losers. That fact is what the issue is about.
They will have to adapt to new ways of working, and not just new jobs but new kinds of jobs.
Sorry, this strikes me as just empty moralizing. Many factory workers may or may not have had good pay due to trade protection (some need to be reminded that the US grew to be an economic powerhouse protected by tariffs), but then we changed the public policy and let those bearing the brunt of the consequences to fend for themselves.
We essentially threw them to the wolves and called it “inevitable”.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
This has led to a good deal of political resentment.
This, too, is not a difficult concept to understand.
To make things worse, our trade policies continue to promote and protect those whose incomes continue to be protected by the terms of this so-called “free trade”. This would include (see Dean Baker) doctors, lawyers, dentists, many professionals, and folks such as the owners of Disney, Inc., and Microsoft.
OUR TRADE POLICIES, INCLUDING TPP, CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THESE PARTIES MAINTAIN THEIR PROTECTED STATUS.
Thus to lecture those who oppose “free trade” for their “isolationism” simply misses the point in two vital respects:
1. This is a political issue that is easily grasped by many, include the “ignorant masses” who just don’t get that “everybody benefits”. They are getting fucked. The know this. They feel this deeply. They are angry. What do YOU propose to do about it? Lecture them some more about their economic ignorance?
2. These trade deals act to protect the protected and enhance the wealth of the already wealthy. They contain “fair labor” standards, but no mechanism to enforce them. The policy, much like just about any public policy, picks winners and losers. That fact is what the issue is about.
But I also think that anybody who is currently rich is a damn fool if they discount the possibility.
Yup. Agree.
But I also think that anybody who is currently rich is a damn fool if they discount the possibility.
Yup. Agree.
But I also think that anybody who is currently rich is a damn fool if they discount the possibility.
Yup. Agree.
I am curious what ist I am based on my description of Bill Clinton and Trump?
I am curious what ist I am based on my description of Bill Clinton and Trump?
I am curious what ist I am based on my description of Bill Clinton and Trump?
They are getting fucked.
Why do we care whether some of our citizens are in economic distress because of trade or because of robots or otherwise? if one policy leads to hugely increased wealth, we need to tax that wealth and make it available to everyone. People who lose their jobs need to be compensated and trained for new things.
Why are we shutting down trade instead of addressing what needs to happen when industries evolve or become obsolete or move or whatever – we need to have a safety net for workers. I’m all for that.
They are getting fucked.
Why do we care whether some of our citizens are in economic distress because of trade or because of robots or otherwise? if one policy leads to hugely increased wealth, we need to tax that wealth and make it available to everyone. People who lose their jobs need to be compensated and trained for new things.
Why are we shutting down trade instead of addressing what needs to happen when industries evolve or become obsolete or move or whatever – we need to have a safety net for workers. I’m all for that.
They are getting fucked.
Why do we care whether some of our citizens are in economic distress because of trade or because of robots or otherwise? if one policy leads to hugely increased wealth, we need to tax that wealth and make it available to everyone. People who lose their jobs need to be compensated and trained for new things.
Why are we shutting down trade instead of addressing what needs to happen when industries evolve or become obsolete or move or whatever – we need to have a safety net for workers. I’m all for that.
Many factory workers may or may not have had good pay due to trade protection (some need to be reminded that the US grew to be an economic powerhouse protected by tariffs), but then we changed the public policy and let those bearing the brunt of the consequences to fend for themselves.
Actually, at least as I recall it, trade policy didn’t change all that much. Yes, you can argue that NAFTA was at least part of the reason some jobs went to Mexico. But those were a small fraction of manufacturing job losses. The jobs that went to India or the Philippines or China? Those were globalization unrelated to changes in protectionism.
This is not to say that the workers impacted were not left hung out to dry. Because they were. But if you want to blame government policy for that, you have to look at the right ones. Trade policy wasn’t the cause. Lack of programs to deal with the changes, that was the policy problem.
To (try to) be clear, I agree that something should have been done. Something should be (belatedly) done now. But tariffs and other forms of trade protection aren’t what’s needed. All those end up doing is enriching those, definitely NOT the workers, who can game the system the best. And make no mistake, any protection measures will be chalk full of opportunities to game the system.
You can fault a lot of things in the details of the free trade agreements. But failure to enforce “fair labor” standards isn’t one of them. Those standards arise from a combination of misunderstanding of how a trade economy works and massive ignorance about labor conditions elsewhere.
Not about the conditions found in sweat shop factories, but of the conditions of the alternate employment options available. I get really tired of liberals being outraged about conditions in factories, while obviously having not the least clue what subsistence agriculture means when it comes to working conditions – subsistence agriculture being where the workers there are coming from.
Face it, to achieve what we consider acceptable working conditions, other countries are going to have to go thru the same stages we did. They will likely get thru them faster than we did, just because the folks there can look at our example and see what is possible. (Arguments about whether particular changes were possible was a big deal all along the way for us.) But they aren’t going to be able to skip many steps. And the they also won’t be able to avoid the same complaints when lower level manufacturing jobs move on from them.
Many factory workers may or may not have had good pay due to trade protection (some need to be reminded that the US grew to be an economic powerhouse protected by tariffs), but then we changed the public policy and let those bearing the brunt of the consequences to fend for themselves.
Actually, at least as I recall it, trade policy didn’t change all that much. Yes, you can argue that NAFTA was at least part of the reason some jobs went to Mexico. But those were a small fraction of manufacturing job losses. The jobs that went to India or the Philippines or China? Those were globalization unrelated to changes in protectionism.
This is not to say that the workers impacted were not left hung out to dry. Because they were. But if you want to blame government policy for that, you have to look at the right ones. Trade policy wasn’t the cause. Lack of programs to deal with the changes, that was the policy problem.
To (try to) be clear, I agree that something should have been done. Something should be (belatedly) done now. But tariffs and other forms of trade protection aren’t what’s needed. All those end up doing is enriching those, definitely NOT the workers, who can game the system the best. And make no mistake, any protection measures will be chalk full of opportunities to game the system.
You can fault a lot of things in the details of the free trade agreements. But failure to enforce “fair labor” standards isn’t one of them. Those standards arise from a combination of misunderstanding of how a trade economy works and massive ignorance about labor conditions elsewhere.
Not about the conditions found in sweat shop factories, but of the conditions of the alternate employment options available. I get really tired of liberals being outraged about conditions in factories, while obviously having not the least clue what subsistence agriculture means when it comes to working conditions – subsistence agriculture being where the workers there are coming from.
Face it, to achieve what we consider acceptable working conditions, other countries are going to have to go thru the same stages we did. They will likely get thru them faster than we did, just because the folks there can look at our example and see what is possible. (Arguments about whether particular changes were possible was a big deal all along the way for us.) But they aren’t going to be able to skip many steps. And the they also won’t be able to avoid the same complaints when lower level manufacturing jobs move on from them.
Many factory workers may or may not have had good pay due to trade protection (some need to be reminded that the US grew to be an economic powerhouse protected by tariffs), but then we changed the public policy and let those bearing the brunt of the consequences to fend for themselves.
Actually, at least as I recall it, trade policy didn’t change all that much. Yes, you can argue that NAFTA was at least part of the reason some jobs went to Mexico. But those were a small fraction of manufacturing job losses. The jobs that went to India or the Philippines or China? Those were globalization unrelated to changes in protectionism.
This is not to say that the workers impacted were not left hung out to dry. Because they were. But if you want to blame government policy for that, you have to look at the right ones. Trade policy wasn’t the cause. Lack of programs to deal with the changes, that was the policy problem.
To (try to) be clear, I agree that something should have been done. Something should be (belatedly) done now. But tariffs and other forms of trade protection aren’t what’s needed. All those end up doing is enriching those, definitely NOT the workers, who can game the system the best. And make no mistake, any protection measures will be chalk full of opportunities to game the system.
You can fault a lot of things in the details of the free trade agreements. But failure to enforce “fair labor” standards isn’t one of them. Those standards arise from a combination of misunderstanding of how a trade economy works and massive ignorance about labor conditions elsewhere.
Not about the conditions found in sweat shop factories, but of the conditions of the alternate employment options available. I get really tired of liberals being outraged about conditions in factories, while obviously having not the least clue what subsistence agriculture means when it comes to working conditions – subsistence agriculture being where the workers there are coming from.
Face it, to achieve what we consider acceptable working conditions, other countries are going to have to go thru the same stages we did. They will likely get thru them faster than we did, just because the folks there can look at our example and see what is possible. (Arguments about whether particular changes were possible was a big deal all along the way for us.) But they aren’t going to be able to skip many steps. And the they also won’t be able to avoid the same complaints when lower level manufacturing jobs move on from them.
Thursday night catch-up time:
Re: limitations on lobbying:
FWIW, I’m fine with disclosures of conflict of interest. All good.
Yes, there are always grey areas. We figure out where we want to draw lines, and we draw them. And not drawing lines at all is drawing them, it’s just drawing them in extremely remote locations.
Does anyone think the situation as it stands isn’t pretty thoroughly FUBAR? Government has, for a lot of people, become a way to fatten their resume so they can make the really big bucks. I say no thanks.
The situation we have now undermines the distinction between the foxes and the hens. By “undermines” I mean quite often “erases”.
My plan is immediate family of people in a position of public responsibility can’t work as lobbyists. If that doesn’t suit, whatever will achieve the goal of preventing conflicts of interest is fine with me.
I’m attached to ends, not means.
That said, I have my doubts that mere sunshine will be a sufficient disinfectant. I’m totally open to seeing that happen, I’m just not inclined to believe it until I see it.
Such a cynic, I am.
Regarding Obama:
IMO Obama is probably the best President of my lifetime, and was sure as hell the best available athlete POTUS-wise circa 2008.
Maybe what people are seeing as “snotty” is just a matter of his being really fucking smart. Maybe if he seems impatient with the folks he has to deal with, it’s because they wear him the hell out with their stupid counterproductive antics.
My take on his dark side is that he’s really competitive, and doesn’t mind taking his adversaries down a peg or two, but he prefers to do it judo-style rather than via a direct punch up.
“Please proceed, Governor”.
In any case, none of us know the guy on anything like a sufficiently personal level to know if he’s arrogant, smarmy, or the world’s best boy scout.
Eye of the beholder, y’all.
I don’t really give a crap if he’s a total unreconstructed pr**k, after the adventures of the Bush years “no-drama Obama” is just what the doctor ordered.
My two cents. Since folks seem to want to weigh in.
As far as the TPP, I’m still waiting for the moment when “free trade” turns into anything like a broad distribution of wealth. Unlike sapient, I’m not really interested in having a small number of people get really rich, taxing the shit out of them, and then giving that money to everybody else.
People like to have constructive, purposeful employment. When I say they “like” it, I mean the lack of it deprives them of a fundamental and profound basis for achieving a sense of self-worth and achievement.
Among other things, it’s a profound waste of human capital and potential.
If coal and machine shops are on their way out, then we should invest in developing other industries that will provide useful, meaningful employment for a broad sector of the population.
But my real issue with the TPP is the degree to which it undermines small-d democratic governance. If a corporation which is not even based in your country, let alone in your community, can override the will of the polity you live in, you are no longer a self-governing people.
Thursday night catch-up time:
Re: limitations on lobbying:
FWIW, I’m fine with disclosures of conflict of interest. All good.
Yes, there are always grey areas. We figure out where we want to draw lines, and we draw them. And not drawing lines at all is drawing them, it’s just drawing them in extremely remote locations.
Does anyone think the situation as it stands isn’t pretty thoroughly FUBAR? Government has, for a lot of people, become a way to fatten their resume so they can make the really big bucks. I say no thanks.
The situation we have now undermines the distinction between the foxes and the hens. By “undermines” I mean quite often “erases”.
My plan is immediate family of people in a position of public responsibility can’t work as lobbyists. If that doesn’t suit, whatever will achieve the goal of preventing conflicts of interest is fine with me.
I’m attached to ends, not means.
That said, I have my doubts that mere sunshine will be a sufficient disinfectant. I’m totally open to seeing that happen, I’m just not inclined to believe it until I see it.
Such a cynic, I am.
Regarding Obama:
IMO Obama is probably the best President of my lifetime, and was sure as hell the best available athlete POTUS-wise circa 2008.
Maybe what people are seeing as “snotty” is just a matter of his being really fucking smart. Maybe if he seems impatient with the folks he has to deal with, it’s because they wear him the hell out with their stupid counterproductive antics.
My take on his dark side is that he’s really competitive, and doesn’t mind taking his adversaries down a peg or two, but he prefers to do it judo-style rather than via a direct punch up.
“Please proceed, Governor”.
In any case, none of us know the guy on anything like a sufficiently personal level to know if he’s arrogant, smarmy, or the world’s best boy scout.
Eye of the beholder, y’all.
I don’t really give a crap if he’s a total unreconstructed pr**k, after the adventures of the Bush years “no-drama Obama” is just what the doctor ordered.
My two cents. Since folks seem to want to weigh in.
As far as the TPP, I’m still waiting for the moment when “free trade” turns into anything like a broad distribution of wealth. Unlike sapient, I’m not really interested in having a small number of people get really rich, taxing the shit out of them, and then giving that money to everybody else.
People like to have constructive, purposeful employment. When I say they “like” it, I mean the lack of it deprives them of a fundamental and profound basis for achieving a sense of self-worth and achievement.
Among other things, it’s a profound waste of human capital and potential.
If coal and machine shops are on their way out, then we should invest in developing other industries that will provide useful, meaningful employment for a broad sector of the population.
But my real issue with the TPP is the degree to which it undermines small-d democratic governance. If a corporation which is not even based in your country, let alone in your community, can override the will of the polity you live in, you are no longer a self-governing people.
Thursday night catch-up time:
Re: limitations on lobbying:
FWIW, I’m fine with disclosures of conflict of interest. All good.
Yes, there are always grey areas. We figure out where we want to draw lines, and we draw them. And not drawing lines at all is drawing them, it’s just drawing them in extremely remote locations.
Does anyone think the situation as it stands isn’t pretty thoroughly FUBAR? Government has, for a lot of people, become a way to fatten their resume so they can make the really big bucks. I say no thanks.
The situation we have now undermines the distinction between the foxes and the hens. By “undermines” I mean quite often “erases”.
My plan is immediate family of people in a position of public responsibility can’t work as lobbyists. If that doesn’t suit, whatever will achieve the goal of preventing conflicts of interest is fine with me.
I’m attached to ends, not means.
That said, I have my doubts that mere sunshine will be a sufficient disinfectant. I’m totally open to seeing that happen, I’m just not inclined to believe it until I see it.
Such a cynic, I am.
Regarding Obama:
IMO Obama is probably the best President of my lifetime, and was sure as hell the best available athlete POTUS-wise circa 2008.
Maybe what people are seeing as “snotty” is just a matter of his being really fucking smart. Maybe if he seems impatient with the folks he has to deal with, it’s because they wear him the hell out with their stupid counterproductive antics.
My take on his dark side is that he’s really competitive, and doesn’t mind taking his adversaries down a peg or two, but he prefers to do it judo-style rather than via a direct punch up.
“Please proceed, Governor”.
In any case, none of us know the guy on anything like a sufficiently personal level to know if he’s arrogant, smarmy, or the world’s best boy scout.
Eye of the beholder, y’all.
I don’t really give a crap if he’s a total unreconstructed pr**k, after the adventures of the Bush years “no-drama Obama” is just what the doctor ordered.
My two cents. Since folks seem to want to weigh in.
As far as the TPP, I’m still waiting for the moment when “free trade” turns into anything like a broad distribution of wealth. Unlike sapient, I’m not really interested in having a small number of people get really rich, taxing the shit out of them, and then giving that money to everybody else.
People like to have constructive, purposeful employment. When I say they “like” it, I mean the lack of it deprives them of a fundamental and profound basis for achieving a sense of self-worth and achievement.
Among other things, it’s a profound waste of human capital and potential.
If coal and machine shops are on their way out, then we should invest in developing other industries that will provide useful, meaningful employment for a broad sector of the population.
But my real issue with the TPP is the degree to which it undermines small-d democratic governance. If a corporation which is not even based in your country, let alone in your community, can override the will of the polity you live in, you are no longer a self-governing people.
Sign, every SOTU has some obligatory we have to work together lines. In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches it is IMO clearly a difference between the speeches in tone. Who gets credit, who gets blame, who has to do stuff. In the 2006 speech Congress has done good things, as for what needs to be done it is we that needs to do it.
Sign, every SOTU has some obligatory we have to work together lines. In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches it is IMO clearly a difference between the speeches in tone. Who gets credit, who gets blame, who has to do stuff. In the 2006 speech Congress has done good things, as for what needs to be done it is we that needs to do it.
Sign, every SOTU has some obligatory we have to work together lines. In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches it is IMO clearly a difference between the speeches in tone. Who gets credit, who gets blame, who has to do stuff. In the 2006 speech Congress has done good things, as for what needs to be done it is we that needs to do it.
In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches it is IMO clearly a difference between the speeches in tone.
i don’t hear the tone.
any chance it’s in the ears of the behearer ?
In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches it is IMO clearly a difference between the speeches in tone.
i don’t hear the tone.
any chance it’s in the ears of the behearer ?
In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches it is IMO clearly a difference between the speeches in tone.
i don’t hear the tone.
any chance it’s in the ears of the behearer ?
Why are we shutting down trade instead of addressing what needs to happen when industries evolve or become obsolete or move or whatever – we need to have a safety net for workers. I’m all for that.
And why do you (and wj) jump to the conclusion that those (on the left) want to “shut down” trade? Where have I advocated this?
Like Dean Baker, I’d like to see more trade.
I’d like it to be easy for a well trained foreign doctor to come here and practice. This would provide more care at lower prices.
I’d like to be able to import drugs at Canadian prices. But we are not allowed to do so. Is that not a restraint on trade?
Why do those negotiating our trade deals insist that our copyright and patent system be applicable to all signatories. Just how much more money do you want to give Bill Gates for essentially holding a monopoly? How much?
In short, why don’t you try making a case about what I write here and stop shouting “isolationist”, “protectionist”, and “anti-free trader.”
When your done wiping the floor with those straw men, clean up you mess. OK?
As to public policies to create jobs, build infrastructure, etc. Yes. Those are all good policies that we should adopt.
We should adopt them irrespective of our trade balance.
We might also cease our “high dollar” monetary policy which cripples our exports.
There are a lot of things we can do. Empty repetition of the words “free trade” simply because that is what the Washington Post calls it does not cut it.
Thanks.
Why are we shutting down trade instead of addressing what needs to happen when industries evolve or become obsolete or move or whatever – we need to have a safety net for workers. I’m all for that.
And why do you (and wj) jump to the conclusion that those (on the left) want to “shut down” trade? Where have I advocated this?
Like Dean Baker, I’d like to see more trade.
I’d like it to be easy for a well trained foreign doctor to come here and practice. This would provide more care at lower prices.
I’d like to be able to import drugs at Canadian prices. But we are not allowed to do so. Is that not a restraint on trade?
Why do those negotiating our trade deals insist that our copyright and patent system be applicable to all signatories. Just how much more money do you want to give Bill Gates for essentially holding a monopoly? How much?
In short, why don’t you try making a case about what I write here and stop shouting “isolationist”, “protectionist”, and “anti-free trader.”
When your done wiping the floor with those straw men, clean up you mess. OK?
As to public policies to create jobs, build infrastructure, etc. Yes. Those are all good policies that we should adopt.
We should adopt them irrespective of our trade balance.
We might also cease our “high dollar” monetary policy which cripples our exports.
There are a lot of things we can do. Empty repetition of the words “free trade” simply because that is what the Washington Post calls it does not cut it.
Thanks.
Why are we shutting down trade instead of addressing what needs to happen when industries evolve or become obsolete or move or whatever – we need to have a safety net for workers. I’m all for that.
And why do you (and wj) jump to the conclusion that those (on the left) want to “shut down” trade? Where have I advocated this?
Like Dean Baker, I’d like to see more trade.
I’d like it to be easy for a well trained foreign doctor to come here and practice. This would provide more care at lower prices.
I’d like to be able to import drugs at Canadian prices. But we are not allowed to do so. Is that not a restraint on trade?
Why do those negotiating our trade deals insist that our copyright and patent system be applicable to all signatories. Just how much more money do you want to give Bill Gates for essentially holding a monopoly? How much?
In short, why don’t you try making a case about what I write here and stop shouting “isolationist”, “protectionist”, and “anti-free trader.”
When your done wiping the floor with those straw men, clean up you mess. OK?
As to public policies to create jobs, build infrastructure, etc. Yes. Those are all good policies that we should adopt.
We should adopt them irrespective of our trade balance.
We might also cease our “high dollar” monetary policy which cripples our exports.
There are a lot of things we can do. Empty repetition of the words “free trade” simply because that is what the Washington Post calls it does not cut it.
Thanks.
In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches…
You sat down recently and actually read them? I’m curious. What speech did he give in 2006? He was a newly elected Senator, not President. And 2010 was an off year election? Are you referring to his SOTU?
I think you need a new tuning fork.
In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches…
You sat down recently and actually read them? I’m curious. What speech did he give in 2006? He was a newly elected Senator, not President. And 2010 was an off year election? Are you referring to his SOTU?
I think you need a new tuning fork.
In reading the whole of the 2006 and 2010 speeches…
You sat down recently and actually read them? I’m curious. What speech did he give in 2006? He was a newly elected Senator, not President. And 2010 was an off year election? Are you referring to his SOTU?
I think you need a new tuning fork.
SOTU 2006 2010 bush/Obama I reread then both tonight. Catch up.
SOTU 2006 2010 bush/Obama I reread then both tonight. Catch up.
SOTU 2006 2010 bush/Obama I reread then both tonight. Catch up.
Well, wj…progress is in the eye of the beholder. The West essentially robbed and raped its way across the globe. It shackled human slavery and the power of steam to create vast wealth. It still finds ways to use a heavy hand to promote its economic interests in what is euphemistically called the Third World.
And now, sitting on our piles of wealth, we are content to let these folks “go through the steps” that we did, so they can have an immiserated working class just like we used to have.
Would such steps include them coming en mass to Europe and the US and steal everything that isn’t nailed down?
Didn’t think so.
I feel you have tended to not take everything into account when it comes to evaluating how we got to hold our immense wealth.
And I also feel we can be a bit more imaginative than to simply sit back and say, “Well, this will take time as they go through the same wrenching steps we did. And if some of our workers suffer, well we should do something, but alas, politics. On the whole, all is good.”
I respectfully disagree.
You might like this exchange.
Regards,
Well, wj…progress is in the eye of the beholder. The West essentially robbed and raped its way across the globe. It shackled human slavery and the power of steam to create vast wealth. It still finds ways to use a heavy hand to promote its economic interests in what is euphemistically called the Third World.
And now, sitting on our piles of wealth, we are content to let these folks “go through the steps” that we did, so they can have an immiserated working class just like we used to have.
Would such steps include them coming en mass to Europe and the US and steal everything that isn’t nailed down?
Didn’t think so.
I feel you have tended to not take everything into account when it comes to evaluating how we got to hold our immense wealth.
And I also feel we can be a bit more imaginative than to simply sit back and say, “Well, this will take time as they go through the same wrenching steps we did. And if some of our workers suffer, well we should do something, but alas, politics. On the whole, all is good.”
I respectfully disagree.
You might like this exchange.
Regards,
Well, wj…progress is in the eye of the beholder. The West essentially robbed and raped its way across the globe. It shackled human slavery and the power of steam to create vast wealth. It still finds ways to use a heavy hand to promote its economic interests in what is euphemistically called the Third World.
And now, sitting on our piles of wealth, we are content to let these folks “go through the steps” that we did, so they can have an immiserated working class just like we used to have.
Would such steps include them coming en mass to Europe and the US and steal everything that isn’t nailed down?
Didn’t think so.
I feel you have tended to not take everything into account when it comes to evaluating how we got to hold our immense wealth.
And I also feel we can be a bit more imaginative than to simply sit back and say, “Well, this will take time as they go through the same wrenching steps we did. And if some of our workers suffer, well we should do something, but alas, politics. On the whole, all is good.”
I respectfully disagree.
You might like this exchange.
Regards,
I’m drinking too much tonight, but I’d just add this. It would seem the more reasonable on all sides of the trade issue agree there are unbalanced distributional economic effects in the U.S. from the current structure of world trade.
I would only ask that those who know this, and so stoutly defend this regime agree to lower their standard of living to that of the worker who has lost their good paying job and is now condemned to crappy paying service sector work.
Then maybe, just maybe, we’d get serious about such ideas as guaranteed income or jobs guarantees.
Certainly, the incentives would, at last, align.
I’m drinking too much tonight, but I’d just add this. It would seem the more reasonable on all sides of the trade issue agree there are unbalanced distributional economic effects in the U.S. from the current structure of world trade.
I would only ask that those who know this, and so stoutly defend this regime agree to lower their standard of living to that of the worker who has lost their good paying job and is now condemned to crappy paying service sector work.
Then maybe, just maybe, we’d get serious about such ideas as guaranteed income or jobs guarantees.
Certainly, the incentives would, at last, align.
I’m drinking too much tonight, but I’d just add this. It would seem the more reasonable on all sides of the trade issue agree there are unbalanced distributional economic effects in the U.S. from the current structure of world trade.
I would only ask that those who know this, and so stoutly defend this regime agree to lower their standard of living to that of the worker who has lost their good paying job and is now condemned to crappy paying service sector work.
Then maybe, just maybe, we’d get serious about such ideas as guaranteed income or jobs guarantees.
Certainly, the incentives would, at last, align.
Catch up.
My apologies. But I’ll have to catch up some other time. Thanks.
Catch up.
My apologies. But I’ll have to catch up some other time. Thanks.
Catch up.
My apologies. But I’ll have to catch up some other time. Thanks.
I really have to work on my clarity.
I was speaking of the path that domestic industries took, that their workers took. If anything, the West’s exploitation of its colonies slowed the move towards a better deal for the workers in Western countries.
I admit to being mystified by the suggestion that I said anything but that we need to do better for those of our workers whose jobs have moved away. Perhaps you missed the fact that it is, I believe, impossible to help our workers by somehow magically and instantly moving workers on poor countries into first world working conditions. They have to go thru the same steps we did. But nothing requires us to have our workers suffer while that is playing itself out.
I agree with what I think is your point that just saying “politics” and doing nothing is wrong. Politics may make doing something harder. (Although this year’s politics suggests that it may no longer be true.) But it’s no excuse for doing nothing.
I really have to work on my clarity.
I was speaking of the path that domestic industries took, that their workers took. If anything, the West’s exploitation of its colonies slowed the move towards a better deal for the workers in Western countries.
I admit to being mystified by the suggestion that I said anything but that we need to do better for those of our workers whose jobs have moved away. Perhaps you missed the fact that it is, I believe, impossible to help our workers by somehow magically and instantly moving workers on poor countries into first world working conditions. They have to go thru the same steps we did. But nothing requires us to have our workers suffer while that is playing itself out.
I agree with what I think is your point that just saying “politics” and doing nothing is wrong. Politics may make doing something harder. (Although this year’s politics suggests that it may no longer be true.) But it’s no excuse for doing nothing.
I really have to work on my clarity.
I was speaking of the path that domestic industries took, that their workers took. If anything, the West’s exploitation of its colonies slowed the move towards a better deal for the workers in Western countries.
I admit to being mystified by the suggestion that I said anything but that we need to do better for those of our workers whose jobs have moved away. Perhaps you missed the fact that it is, I believe, impossible to help our workers by somehow magically and instantly moving workers on poor countries into first world working conditions. They have to go thru the same steps we did. But nothing requires us to have our workers suffer while that is playing itself out.
I agree with what I think is your point that just saying “politics” and doing nothing is wrong. Politics may make doing something harder. (Although this year’s politics suggests that it may no longer be true.) But it’s no excuse for doing nothing.
But my real issue with the TPP is the degree to which it undermines small-d democratic governance. If a corporation which is not even based in your country, let alone in your community, can override the will of the polity you live in, you are no longer a self-governing people.
The ISDS system, if that’s what you’re talking about, already exists, and is already frequently used. The TPP would reform that system. Again, understanding the reforms is a matter of very specialized knowledge. Not to say that it’s beyond anyone’s capacity here to understand it, but how much time have you really put into it?
Here’s an interesting article providing some critique of the ISDS.
I’m not an expert, but I do know someone who has worked on ISDS cases (arbitrated in Washington, DC), and doesn’t find the TPP particularly scary on that basis.
Our sovereignty is important, and that’s why we haven’t joined a lot of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. In some of the discussions we’ve had, I’ve had the impression that people here think we should have done that. I have mixed feelings, but believe that the horse is out of the barn regarding the ISDS.
But my real issue with the TPP is the degree to which it undermines small-d democratic governance. If a corporation which is not even based in your country, let alone in your community, can override the will of the polity you live in, you are no longer a self-governing people.
The ISDS system, if that’s what you’re talking about, already exists, and is already frequently used. The TPP would reform that system. Again, understanding the reforms is a matter of very specialized knowledge. Not to say that it’s beyond anyone’s capacity here to understand it, but how much time have you really put into it?
Here’s an interesting article providing some critique of the ISDS.
I’m not an expert, but I do know someone who has worked on ISDS cases (arbitrated in Washington, DC), and doesn’t find the TPP particularly scary on that basis.
Our sovereignty is important, and that’s why we haven’t joined a lot of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. In some of the discussions we’ve had, I’ve had the impression that people here think we should have done that. I have mixed feelings, but believe that the horse is out of the barn regarding the ISDS.
But my real issue with the TPP is the degree to which it undermines small-d democratic governance. If a corporation which is not even based in your country, let alone in your community, can override the will of the polity you live in, you are no longer a self-governing people.
The ISDS system, if that’s what you’re talking about, already exists, and is already frequently used. The TPP would reform that system. Again, understanding the reforms is a matter of very specialized knowledge. Not to say that it’s beyond anyone’s capacity here to understand it, but how much time have you really put into it?
Here’s an interesting article providing some critique of the ISDS.
I’m not an expert, but I do know someone who has worked on ISDS cases (arbitrated in Washington, DC), and doesn’t find the TPP particularly scary on that basis.
Our sovereignty is important, and that’s why we haven’t joined a lot of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. In some of the discussions we’ve had, I’ve had the impression that people here think we should have done that. I have mixed feelings, but believe that the horse is out of the barn regarding the ISDS.
sovereignty is important, and that’s why we haven’t joined a lot of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court…
And yet the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU.
(Disclaimer, I voted remain, but still…)
(& also on this score, I remain amazed that it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.)
sovereignty is important, and that’s why we haven’t joined a lot of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court…
And yet the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU.
(Disclaimer, I voted remain, but still…)
(& also on this score, I remain amazed that it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.)
sovereignty is important, and that’s why we haven’t joined a lot of international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court…
And yet the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU.
(Disclaimer, I voted remain, but still…)
(& also on this score, I remain amazed that it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.)
…it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.
Well, you have to keep all your cards on the table…
…it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.
Well, you have to keep all your cards on the table…
…it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.
Well, you have to keep all your cards on the table…
Not that being part of any conventions means actually obeying what’s in there…
In essence the Bush/Cheney gang argued the exact same way as did the Nazis*: our enemies don’t feel bound (or are not part of convention X), so we can do what we want. And if they happen to unconveniently do, we will claim that they don’t or have forfeited their rights for some other flimsy reason. In less blatant ways that is the SOP of most major powers but the US tend to do the most hypocritical moralizing about it.
And what the Cheneyites discussed then** Trump promises now: getting rid of all treaties that hamper US in any way or could do so in the future
*including at the Nuremberg trial
**I remember utterings about the need to e.g. scrap the Antarctic treaty and the Space treaty (correct name?) preemptively
Not that being part of any conventions means actually obeying what’s in there…
In essence the Bush/Cheney gang argued the exact same way as did the Nazis*: our enemies don’t feel bound (or are not part of convention X), so we can do what we want. And if they happen to unconveniently do, we will claim that they don’t or have forfeited their rights for some other flimsy reason. In less blatant ways that is the SOP of most major powers but the US tend to do the most hypocritical moralizing about it.
And what the Cheneyites discussed then** Trump promises now: getting rid of all treaties that hamper US in any way or could do so in the future
*including at the Nuremberg trial
**I remember utterings about the need to e.g. scrap the Antarctic treaty and the Space treaty (correct name?) preemptively
Not that being part of any conventions means actually obeying what’s in there…
In essence the Bush/Cheney gang argued the exact same way as did the Nazis*: our enemies don’t feel bound (or are not part of convention X), so we can do what we want. And if they happen to unconveniently do, we will claim that they don’t or have forfeited their rights for some other flimsy reason. In less blatant ways that is the SOP of most major powers but the US tend to do the most hypocritical moralizing about it.
And what the Cheneyites discussed then** Trump promises now: getting rid of all treaties that hamper US in any way or could do so in the future
*including at the Nuremberg trial
**I remember utterings about the need to e.g. scrap the Antarctic treaty and the Space treaty (correct name?) preemptively
the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU
I’m in Japan, so I the coverage here was not complete, but I only remember Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line. Are there any specific examples you are thinking of, Nigel?
(this is not to disagree, sovereignty is often one of those asymmetrical concepts in for US international relations)
the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU
I’m in Japan, so I the coverage here was not complete, but I only remember Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line. Are there any specific examples you are thinking of, Nigel?
(this is not to disagree, sovereignty is often one of those asymmetrical concepts in for US international relations)
the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU
I’m in Japan, so I the coverage here was not complete, but I only remember Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line. Are there any specific examples you are thinking of, Nigel?
(this is not to disagree, sovereignty is often one of those asymmetrical concepts in for US international relations)
I had a quick google, and the comments below are fairly typical. Apparently over half of the UK is peopled by fools and racists. The idea that there might have been a principled position on sovereignty for some of those who voted Brexit does not seem to have occurred to many.
(The Atlantic magazine, as often, is an honourable exception, and provides a rather more nuanced view.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/britain-to-leave-europe-for-a-lie.html
“…this imbecilic vote…”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-klaas-dirsus-leave-victory-in-britain-20160623-snap-story.html
“…The quintessential anti-EU voter, an aging unemployed white working-class citizen in northern England…”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2016/06/labour_and_conservative_turmoil_post_brexit_explained.html
“…So this was a victory for …
Marginalized and atavistic elements in both of the major parties along with a bunch of nativist outsiders…”
I had a quick google, and the comments below are fairly typical. Apparently over half of the UK is peopled by fools and racists. The idea that there might have been a principled position on sovereignty for some of those who voted Brexit does not seem to have occurred to many.
(The Atlantic magazine, as often, is an honourable exception, and provides a rather more nuanced view.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/britain-to-leave-europe-for-a-lie.html
“…this imbecilic vote…”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-klaas-dirsus-leave-victory-in-britain-20160623-snap-story.html
“…The quintessential anti-EU voter, an aging unemployed white working-class citizen in northern England…”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2016/06/labour_and_conservative_turmoil_post_brexit_explained.html
“…So this was a victory for …
Marginalized and atavistic elements in both of the major parties along with a bunch of nativist outsiders…”
I had a quick google, and the comments below are fairly typical. Apparently over half of the UK is peopled by fools and racists. The idea that there might have been a principled position on sovereignty for some of those who voted Brexit does not seem to have occurred to many.
(The Atlantic magazine, as often, is an honourable exception, and provides a rather more nuanced view.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/britain-to-leave-europe-for-a-lie.html
“…this imbecilic vote…”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-klaas-dirsus-leave-victory-in-britain-20160623-snap-story.html
“…The quintessential anti-EU voter, an aging unemployed white working-class citizen in northern England…”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2016/06/labour_and_conservative_turmoil_post_brexit_explained.html
“…So this was a victory for …
Marginalized and atavistic elements in both of the major parties along with a bunch of nativist outsiders…”
Thanks Nigel, I thought you were talking about stuff before the vote. I’ve got a bit of a different take on it, though I think that Winston Churchill’s observation that “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else” is a pretty apt description of US views.
All those op-eds were after the vote so a lot of that ‘lambasting’ is people trying to understand why we have the cheetoh Jesus representing one of our two political parties. This is not to say that they don’t think that the vote (and therefore the voters) was stupid, and has that image of the anti EU voter, but their complaints are driven by the fact that we’ve got no room to complain about demagogues hijacking processes. (I suppose you could argue that I’m doing the same thing, but given both the quality of the Exit campaign and the Gove-Johnson antics immediately after the vote, I hope you’d cut me some slack.) However, people often get the most angry at traits that they suspect they have, which is how I took a lot of the post Brexit US commentary.
Thanks Nigel, I thought you were talking about stuff before the vote. I’ve got a bit of a different take on it, though I think that Winston Churchill’s observation that “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else” is a pretty apt description of US views.
All those op-eds were after the vote so a lot of that ‘lambasting’ is people trying to understand why we have the cheetoh Jesus representing one of our two political parties. This is not to say that they don’t think that the vote (and therefore the voters) was stupid, and has that image of the anti EU voter, but their complaints are driven by the fact that we’ve got no room to complain about demagogues hijacking processes. (I suppose you could argue that I’m doing the same thing, but given both the quality of the Exit campaign and the Gove-Johnson antics immediately after the vote, I hope you’d cut me some slack.) However, people often get the most angry at traits that they suspect they have, which is how I took a lot of the post Brexit US commentary.
Thanks Nigel, I thought you were talking about stuff before the vote. I’ve got a bit of a different take on it, though I think that Winston Churchill’s observation that “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else” is a pretty apt description of US views.
All those op-eds were after the vote so a lot of that ‘lambasting’ is people trying to understand why we have the cheetoh Jesus representing one of our two political parties. This is not to say that they don’t think that the vote (and therefore the voters) was stupid, and has that image of the anti EU voter, but their complaints are driven by the fact that we’ve got no room to complain about demagogues hijacking processes. (I suppose you could argue that I’m doing the same thing, but given both the quality of the Exit campaign and the Gove-Johnson antics immediately after the vote, I hope you’d cut me some slack.) However, people often get the most angry at traits that they suspect they have, which is how I took a lot of the post Brexit US commentary.
I think it’s odd that the US having an opinion is a concern (?) Besides the fact that those publications feel free to generalize and insult the American public, everyone in the world feels free to have an opinion about pretty much everything the US does. AFAICT. Even here. So if the President comments on an event he believes has an impact on us economically and the media cover a UK election a lot like UK media covers US votes? *shrug*
I think it’s odd that the US having an opinion is a concern (?) Besides the fact that those publications feel free to generalize and insult the American public, everyone in the world feels free to have an opinion about pretty much everything the US does. AFAICT. Even here. So if the President comments on an event he believes has an impact on us economically and the media cover a UK election a lot like UK media covers US votes? *shrug*
I think it’s odd that the US having an opinion is a concern (?) Besides the fact that those publications feel free to generalize and insult the American public, everyone in the world feels free to have an opinion about pretty much everything the US does. AFAICT. Even here. So if the President comments on an event he believes has an impact on us economically and the media cover a UK election a lot like UK media covers US votes? *shrug*
(this is not to disagree, sovereignty is often one of those asymmetrical concepts in for US international relations)
True, and I may be wrong, but sovereignty hasn’t been a big concern as to other international law concepts by commenters here (I’m talking about the ICC). Again, I apologize if I’m mistaken about this.
(this is not to disagree, sovereignty is often one of those asymmetrical concepts in for US international relations)
True, and I may be wrong, but sovereignty hasn’t been a big concern as to other international law concepts by commenters here (I’m talking about the ICC). Again, I apologize if I’m mistaken about this.
(this is not to disagree, sovereignty is often one of those asymmetrical concepts in for US international relations)
True, and I may be wrong, but sovereignty hasn’t been a big concern as to other international law concepts by commenters here (I’m talking about the ICC). Again, I apologize if I’m mistaken about this.
Dhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html
Read to the end. Not that I am a huge fan of Obama either, but there is a clear difference between his reluctance to get involved militarily and Clinton’s. On war and peace issues, I am not comfortable with either of these two. Trump is a loose cannon, while Clinton is in the tradition of liberal technocrats who seem to have a fetish about being tough.
Going back to the Edelman link, what I think that shows is that the Clintons line up on issues according to where they think it will do them good, This might be grounds for optimism in a limited way, if you think they can be pressured to do the right thing. In the 90’s bashing the poor and uttering Tom Friedmanisms about the glories of the market was the mark of a sophisticated liberal–all the cool kids did it. Now, maybe not so much.
The irony is that because Trump just spouts things seemingly at random and ends up being an isolationist and a would be war criminal. we have a situation where the Democrat is lined up with the neocons on foreign policy issues, where she has had a habit of being.
Dhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html
Read to the end. Not that I am a huge fan of Obama either, but there is a clear difference between his reluctance to get involved militarily and Clinton’s. On war and peace issues, I am not comfortable with either of these two. Trump is a loose cannon, while Clinton is in the tradition of liberal technocrats who seem to have a fetish about being tough.
Going back to the Edelman link, what I think that shows is that the Clintons line up on issues according to where they think it will do them good, This might be grounds for optimism in a limited way, if you think they can be pressured to do the right thing. In the 90’s bashing the poor and uttering Tom Friedmanisms about the glories of the market was the mark of a sophisticated liberal–all the cool kids did it. Now, maybe not so much.
The irony is that because Trump just spouts things seemingly at random and ends up being an isolationist and a would be war criminal. we have a situation where the Democrat is lined up with the neocons on foreign policy issues, where she has had a habit of being.
Dhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html
Read to the end. Not that I am a huge fan of Obama either, but there is a clear difference between his reluctance to get involved militarily and Clinton’s. On war and peace issues, I am not comfortable with either of these two. Trump is a loose cannon, while Clinton is in the tradition of liberal technocrats who seem to have a fetish about being tough.
Going back to the Edelman link, what I think that shows is that the Clintons line up on issues according to where they think it will do them good, This might be grounds for optimism in a limited way, if you think they can be pressured to do the right thing. In the 90’s bashing the poor and uttering Tom Friedmanisms about the glories of the market was the mark of a sophisticated liberal–all the cool kids did it. Now, maybe not so much.
The irony is that because Trump just spouts things seemingly at random and ends up being an isolationist and a would be war criminal. we have a situation where the Democrat is lined up with the neocons on foreign policy issues, where she has had a habit of being.
That’s weird. My paragraphs are out of order. You can still see my intent, but the Edelman thing was supposed to be a separate subject at the end.
That’s weird. My paragraphs are out of order. You can still see my intent, but the Edelman thing was supposed to be a separate subject at the end.
That’s weird. My paragraphs are out of order. You can still see my intent, but the Edelman thing was supposed to be a separate subject at the end.
Hell, the first paragraph needs editing. By ” these two” I meant Clinton and Trump, not Clinton and Obama. Obama by saber rattling American standards is a dove, Clinton a hawk, and Trump a complete wildcard with a tendency to say he’d stay out of conflicts while vowing to commit massive war crimes.
Hell, the first paragraph needs editing. By ” these two” I meant Clinton and Trump, not Clinton and Obama. Obama by saber rattling American standards is a dove, Clinton a hawk, and Trump a complete wildcard with a tendency to say he’d stay out of conflicts while vowing to commit massive war crimes.
Hell, the first paragraph needs editing. By ” these two” I meant Clinton and Trump, not Clinton and Obama. Obama by saber rattling American standards is a dove, Clinton a hawk, and Trump a complete wildcard with a tendency to say he’d stay out of conflicts while vowing to commit massive war crimes.
I blame Obama for the lack of an “edit” button. Unforgivable, really. Never voting for him again.
I blame Obama for the lack of an “edit” button. Unforgivable, really. Never voting for him again.
I blame Obama for the lack of an “edit” button. Unforgivable, really. Never voting for him again.
Apparently over half of the UK is peopled by fools and racists.
Sounds about right, but then you could say that about most countries.
Apparently over half of the UK is peopled by fools and racists.
Sounds about right, but then you could say that about most countries.
Apparently over half of the UK is peopled by fools and racists.
Sounds about right, but then you could say that about most countries.
sovereignty hasn’t been a big concern as to other international law concepts by commenters here
I’m not speaking for others, and we’ve not had recent discussion on the topic, but it’s a big concern to me, heightened by my own background, my graduate studies in endangered languages, my current residence, and a host of other considerations. Figuring out how sovereignty works is where international law starts, cause you first have to figure out where to draw lines. And I think that dealing with questions that arise from it is the main problem we face. If you figure out the answer concerning sovereignty, the other problems generally are easily answered, but if you blow it off, or fob it off, you are in for a world of trouble. And if you have mistaken ideas about sovereignty, because someone tells lies like these
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b31460a-d96b-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz4Fo52f6Dc
You are asking for trouble. I can understand that some Brits had genuine reservations about sovereignty, but if they had those reservations because of lies told to them by Boris or Gove or Nigel Farage, I’m not sure why I should take those reservations seriously because they are founded on a tissue of lies.
sovereignty hasn’t been a big concern as to other international law concepts by commenters here
I’m not speaking for others, and we’ve not had recent discussion on the topic, but it’s a big concern to me, heightened by my own background, my graduate studies in endangered languages, my current residence, and a host of other considerations. Figuring out how sovereignty works is where international law starts, cause you first have to figure out where to draw lines. And I think that dealing with questions that arise from it is the main problem we face. If you figure out the answer concerning sovereignty, the other problems generally are easily answered, but if you blow it off, or fob it off, you are in for a world of trouble. And if you have mistaken ideas about sovereignty, because someone tells lies like these
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b31460a-d96b-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz4Fo52f6Dc
You are asking for trouble. I can understand that some Brits had genuine reservations about sovereignty, but if they had those reservations because of lies told to them by Boris or Gove or Nigel Farage, I’m not sure why I should take those reservations seriously because they are founded on a tissue of lies.
sovereignty hasn’t been a big concern as to other international law concepts by commenters here
I’m not speaking for others, and we’ve not had recent discussion on the topic, but it’s a big concern to me, heightened by my own background, my graduate studies in endangered languages, my current residence, and a host of other considerations. Figuring out how sovereignty works is where international law starts, cause you first have to figure out where to draw lines. And I think that dealing with questions that arise from it is the main problem we face. If you figure out the answer concerning sovereignty, the other problems generally are easily answered, but if you blow it off, or fob it off, you are in for a world of trouble. And if you have mistaken ideas about sovereignty, because someone tells lies like these
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b31460a-d96b-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html#axzz4Fo52f6Dc
You are asking for trouble. I can understand that some Brits had genuine reservations about sovereignty, but if they had those reservations because of lies told to them by Boris or Gove or Nigel Farage, I’m not sure why I should take those reservations seriously because they are founded on a tissue of lies.
Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist. You can try and claim that we are just being reflexive and you are bringing some home truths to us, but you aren’t.
I’ve been trying for some time to comprehend what is truly behind Marty’s (and in the past McKinney’s) descriptions of Obama and Hillary. To an interested outsider (and I think that is relevant, because outside the US we don’t necessarily focus on the small day-to-day details), a description of Obama as arrogant, condescending and power-mad is completely extraordinary and unbelievable: on the whole it’s my impression that the rest of the world (including myself) views him as a highly intelligent, gracious and well-intentioned moderate liberal, who has tried his best in difficult circumstances to effect benign domestic change. However, plenty of the world (not including myself) see him as too cautious and maybe even timid in foreign policy terms, and that this has led to disastrous results in e.g. the middle east. Although I am not a war-monger, I do not agree that American intervention would necessarily be wrong, but I see his caution as an understandable reaction to the disaster that was the second Iraq war.
Regarding Hillary, it seems to me to be mad to call her evil. (NB I am not calling Marty mad). When I was in Florence on a phone, McKinney replied to my queries about her so-called dishonesty (or criminality) and corruption with a list of past examples, and I have to admit that since I got back I have not followed them up. But what I do know is that during Bill’s presidency many millions of dollars and much effort were spent trying to pin something on the Clintons, with no success, and it’s my impression that although she has been found to be careless and to have behaved wrongly in the matter of the emails, that that is the extent of it, and nothing serious has been substantiated against her apart from this. Of course, and more than usual, YMMV.
But what I have not concluded is that either Marty or McKinney is proceeding from motives of racism or sexism (except perhaps what is common to us all?). I have wondered whether it is that they get their information and its reinforcement, as so many Republicans do, exclusively from the right-wing echo-chamber (while of course considering that for most of us it is the obverse), but this does not appear to be the case. How has this come about? What is causing this extreme divergence of views among rational, well-meaning people, if not racism and sexism? Why the need to demonise the opposition,instead of just opposing them? In a way I realise that this question is at the heart of so much we discuss, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer. Have any of you?
Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist. You can try and claim that we are just being reflexive and you are bringing some home truths to us, but you aren’t.
I’ve been trying for some time to comprehend what is truly behind Marty’s (and in the past McKinney’s) descriptions of Obama and Hillary. To an interested outsider (and I think that is relevant, because outside the US we don’t necessarily focus on the small day-to-day details), a description of Obama as arrogant, condescending and power-mad is completely extraordinary and unbelievable: on the whole it’s my impression that the rest of the world (including myself) views him as a highly intelligent, gracious and well-intentioned moderate liberal, who has tried his best in difficult circumstances to effect benign domestic change. However, plenty of the world (not including myself) see him as too cautious and maybe even timid in foreign policy terms, and that this has led to disastrous results in e.g. the middle east. Although I am not a war-monger, I do not agree that American intervention would necessarily be wrong, but I see his caution as an understandable reaction to the disaster that was the second Iraq war.
Regarding Hillary, it seems to me to be mad to call her evil. (NB I am not calling Marty mad). When I was in Florence on a phone, McKinney replied to my queries about her so-called dishonesty (or criminality) and corruption with a list of past examples, and I have to admit that since I got back I have not followed them up. But what I do know is that during Bill’s presidency many millions of dollars and much effort were spent trying to pin something on the Clintons, with no success, and it’s my impression that although she has been found to be careless and to have behaved wrongly in the matter of the emails, that that is the extent of it, and nothing serious has been substantiated against her apart from this. Of course, and more than usual, YMMV.
But what I have not concluded is that either Marty or McKinney is proceeding from motives of racism or sexism (except perhaps what is common to us all?). I have wondered whether it is that they get their information and its reinforcement, as so many Republicans do, exclusively from the right-wing echo-chamber (while of course considering that for most of us it is the obverse), but this does not appear to be the case. How has this come about? What is causing this extreme divergence of views among rational, well-meaning people, if not racism and sexism? Why the need to demonise the opposition,instead of just opposing them? In a way I realise that this question is at the heart of so much we discuss, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer. Have any of you?
Marty, what you are writing is racist and before that, your invocation of Hillary as evil is sexist. You can try and claim that we are just being reflexive and you are bringing some home truths to us, but you aren’t.
I’ve been trying for some time to comprehend what is truly behind Marty’s (and in the past McKinney’s) descriptions of Obama and Hillary. To an interested outsider (and I think that is relevant, because outside the US we don’t necessarily focus on the small day-to-day details), a description of Obama as arrogant, condescending and power-mad is completely extraordinary and unbelievable: on the whole it’s my impression that the rest of the world (including myself) views him as a highly intelligent, gracious and well-intentioned moderate liberal, who has tried his best in difficult circumstances to effect benign domestic change. However, plenty of the world (not including myself) see him as too cautious and maybe even timid in foreign policy terms, and that this has led to disastrous results in e.g. the middle east. Although I am not a war-monger, I do not agree that American intervention would necessarily be wrong, but I see his caution as an understandable reaction to the disaster that was the second Iraq war.
Regarding Hillary, it seems to me to be mad to call her evil. (NB I am not calling Marty mad). When I was in Florence on a phone, McKinney replied to my queries about her so-called dishonesty (or criminality) and corruption with a list of past examples, and I have to admit that since I got back I have not followed them up. But what I do know is that during Bill’s presidency many millions of dollars and much effort were spent trying to pin something on the Clintons, with no success, and it’s my impression that although she has been found to be careless and to have behaved wrongly in the matter of the emails, that that is the extent of it, and nothing serious has been substantiated against her apart from this. Of course, and more than usual, YMMV.
But what I have not concluded is that either Marty or McKinney is proceeding from motives of racism or sexism (except perhaps what is common to us all?). I have wondered whether it is that they get their information and its reinforcement, as so many Republicans do, exclusively from the right-wing echo-chamber (while of course considering that for most of us it is the obverse), but this does not appear to be the case. How has this come about? What is causing this extreme divergence of views among rational, well-meaning people, if not racism and sexism? Why the need to demonise the opposition,instead of just opposing them? In a way I realise that this question is at the heart of so much we discuss, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer. Have any of you?
Donald, I have a friend who is a lifelong military man, who I am reasonably sure served in some capacity under Breedlove until a year or two ago (unless there’s some other very high-up Breedlove out there). I’ll have to get his take on your link.
I’m also reasonably sure that he held Breedlove in high regard, so I’m curious to see if he’s dismissive of or disappointed by it (or however he reacts otherwise).
He’s generally a very reasonable, open-minded, open-eyed sort of fellow, so I wouldn’t expect him to toe the line reflexively as one might expect some members of the military to do.
Donald, I have a friend who is a lifelong military man, who I am reasonably sure served in some capacity under Breedlove until a year or two ago (unless there’s some other very high-up Breedlove out there). I’ll have to get his take on your link.
I’m also reasonably sure that he held Breedlove in high regard, so I’m curious to see if he’s dismissive of or disappointed by it (or however he reacts otherwise).
He’s generally a very reasonable, open-minded, open-eyed sort of fellow, so I wouldn’t expect him to toe the line reflexively as one might expect some members of the military to do.
Donald, I have a friend who is a lifelong military man, who I am reasonably sure served in some capacity under Breedlove until a year or two ago (unless there’s some other very high-up Breedlove out there). I’ll have to get his take on your link.
I’m also reasonably sure that he held Breedlove in high regard, so I’m curious to see if he’s dismissive of or disappointed by it (or however he reacts otherwise).
He’s generally a very reasonable, open-minded, open-eyed sort of fellow, so I wouldn’t expect him to toe the line reflexively as one might expect some members of the military to do.
“and it’s my impression that although she has been found to be careless and to have behaved wrongly in the matter of the emails, that that is the extent of it, and nothing serious has been substantiated against her apart from this.”
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
A smaller and important part is that we have taken to demonizing the opposition as a matter of course. There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist. Not just the count. So in some ways I ramp up the rhetoric to respond in kind.
I differentiate significantly between Obamas failure to lead effectively and the Clintons criminal sociopathy. It isn’t the same.
“and it’s my impression that although she has been found to be careless and to have behaved wrongly in the matter of the emails, that that is the extent of it, and nothing serious has been substantiated against her apart from this.”
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
A smaller and important part is that we have taken to demonizing the opposition as a matter of course. There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist. Not just the count. So in some ways I ramp up the rhetoric to respond in kind.
I differentiate significantly between Obamas failure to lead effectively and the Clintons criminal sociopathy. It isn’t the same.
“and it’s my impression that although she has been found to be careless and to have behaved wrongly in the matter of the emails, that that is the extent of it, and nothing serious has been substantiated against her apart from this.”
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
A smaller and important part is that we have taken to demonizing the opposition as a matter of course. There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist. Not just the count. So in some ways I ramp up the rhetoric to respond in kind.
I differentiate significantly between Obamas failure to lead effectively and the Clintons criminal sociopathy. It isn’t the same.
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
What, specifically, has been “proven”? Why hasn’t there been any prosecution?
I’ve been looking for anything that’s been proven, because I’m very curious what many people I know seem to be utterly convinced of. Some of it does look bad, but what I’ve been able to find on the Clintons varies from ridiculous conspiracy theories to things that might be true, given what is known, but that have never been demonstrated conclusively.
I can’t say with confidence that the Clintons are clean, but I don’t think you can say that you know they’re dirty.
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
What, specifically, has been “proven”? Why hasn’t there been any prosecution?
I’ve been looking for anything that’s been proven, because I’m very curious what many people I know seem to be utterly convinced of. Some of it does look bad, but what I’ve been able to find on the Clintons varies from ridiculous conspiracy theories to things that might be true, given what is known, but that have never been demonstrated conclusively.
I can’t say with confidence that the Clintons are clean, but I don’t think you can say that you know they’re dirty.
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
What, specifically, has been “proven”? Why hasn’t there been any prosecution?
I’ve been looking for anything that’s been proven, because I’m very curious what many people I know seem to be utterly convinced of. Some of it does look bad, but what I’ve been able to find on the Clintons varies from ridiculous conspiracy theories to things that might be true, given what is known, but that have never been demonstrated conclusively.
I can’t say with confidence that the Clintons are clean, but I don’t think you can say that you know they’re dirty.
And “criminal sociopathy”? Does everything have to be turned up to 11? WTF?
And “criminal sociopathy”? Does everything have to be turned up to 11? WTF?
And “criminal sociopathy”? Does everything have to be turned up to 11? WTF?
I try (but don’t always succeed) to be careful and ascribe racism or sexism to the statements rather than the person. To try and draw an example from outside of our community here, Steve Clemons, tweeted that Hillary should have ‘smiled’. He got called out, a lot more brutally than we do around here. And credit to him, he apologized and understood the problem after standing his ground a bit, which must have been hard, given that he got 1000 tweets calling him an asshole. But the fact remains that what he _said_ was sexist.
McT has been a bit more revealing than Marty about background and such (I think), which is fine, but I’ve got no idea what Marty does, what his family is, so for me to claim that he is racist or sexist based on something he writes here is just off. I personally worry that he may think we (insofar as Marty and McT are in the minority) are condescending to him by calling him out for things that we may think are sexist or racist, but not being straightforward. But I don’t think you can draw any firm conclusion about motives.
But since Marty admits that he ‘ramps up the rhetoric’, I don’t think he should be disappointed when he is treated in the way he treats others. It really shouldn’t surprise him when some people think he is sexist and racist, or that you feel a need to understand his motives, especially when he doesn’t bother to read links that people provide or read what people are writing. I’m sure he’ll keep playing the role that he thinks he is playing, that of poor beat up conservative just telling the truth to us group think liberals, but that requires having a hair trigger and failing to actually engage anyone. It’s a recipe for being ignored, which is unfortunate, cause it would be nice to have more voices trying to articulate conservative positions. But ‘hey you are calling me racist/sexist’ is not a position, it’s a twitch.
I try (but don’t always succeed) to be careful and ascribe racism or sexism to the statements rather than the person. To try and draw an example from outside of our community here, Steve Clemons, tweeted that Hillary should have ‘smiled’. He got called out, a lot more brutally than we do around here. And credit to him, he apologized and understood the problem after standing his ground a bit, which must have been hard, given that he got 1000 tweets calling him an asshole. But the fact remains that what he _said_ was sexist.
McT has been a bit more revealing than Marty about background and such (I think), which is fine, but I’ve got no idea what Marty does, what his family is, so for me to claim that he is racist or sexist based on something he writes here is just off. I personally worry that he may think we (insofar as Marty and McT are in the minority) are condescending to him by calling him out for things that we may think are sexist or racist, but not being straightforward. But I don’t think you can draw any firm conclusion about motives.
But since Marty admits that he ‘ramps up the rhetoric’, I don’t think he should be disappointed when he is treated in the way he treats others. It really shouldn’t surprise him when some people think he is sexist and racist, or that you feel a need to understand his motives, especially when he doesn’t bother to read links that people provide or read what people are writing. I’m sure he’ll keep playing the role that he thinks he is playing, that of poor beat up conservative just telling the truth to us group think liberals, but that requires having a hair trigger and failing to actually engage anyone. It’s a recipe for being ignored, which is unfortunate, cause it would be nice to have more voices trying to articulate conservative positions. But ‘hey you are calling me racist/sexist’ is not a position, it’s a twitch.
I try (but don’t always succeed) to be careful and ascribe racism or sexism to the statements rather than the person. To try and draw an example from outside of our community here, Steve Clemons, tweeted that Hillary should have ‘smiled’. He got called out, a lot more brutally than we do around here. And credit to him, he apologized and understood the problem after standing his ground a bit, which must have been hard, given that he got 1000 tweets calling him an asshole. But the fact remains that what he _said_ was sexist.
McT has been a bit more revealing than Marty about background and such (I think), which is fine, but I’ve got no idea what Marty does, what his family is, so for me to claim that he is racist or sexist based on something he writes here is just off. I personally worry that he may think we (insofar as Marty and McT are in the minority) are condescending to him by calling him out for things that we may think are sexist or racist, but not being straightforward. But I don’t think you can draw any firm conclusion about motives.
But since Marty admits that he ‘ramps up the rhetoric’, I don’t think he should be disappointed when he is treated in the way he treats others. It really shouldn’t surprise him when some people think he is sexist and racist, or that you feel a need to understand his motives, especially when he doesn’t bother to read links that people provide or read what people are writing. I’m sure he’ll keep playing the role that he thinks he is playing, that of poor beat up conservative just telling the truth to us group think liberals, but that requires having a hair trigger and failing to actually engage anyone. It’s a recipe for being ignored, which is unfortunate, cause it would be nice to have more voices trying to articulate conservative positions. But ‘hey you are calling me racist/sexist’ is not a position, it’s a twitch.
I cant say I KNOW OJ is guilty either, but I wouldn’t vote for him for President. I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
I cant say I KNOW OJ is guilty either, but I wouldn’t vote for him for President. I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
I cant say I KNOW OJ is guilty either, but I wouldn’t vote for him for President. I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
GftNC
the American right has maintained a fantastical, yet largely unchallenged, narrative about the Clintons since at least 1991. they built an entire industry around it, which is still operating today. they’ve written dozens and dozens of books about the Clintons; and the credulous gobble them up.
and now it’s simply become conventional wisdom that she’s the lyingest liar to have ever lied. even on much of the left, it’s now simply accepted as the truth.
IMO, a lot of it goes back to Newt Gingrinch, who ruined Congress and brought the no-compromise style to DC, and to the rise of right-wing radio in the early 90s, which grew up as the voice of the opposition during the Clinton years. it turned the demonization up to 11 and hasn’t let up since. the left has since joined the battle on the GOP’s terms.
like you, i and all my friends see Obama as smart, gracious, and well-meaning, if somewhat reserved. i’d vote for him again in a heartbeat. but the right has created a caricature to rail against because their entire M.O. is to oppose the left, always, without compromise; if they started letting the flock see Obama for what he is, they’d have a hard time justifying their actions.
GftNC
the American right has maintained a fantastical, yet largely unchallenged, narrative about the Clintons since at least 1991. they built an entire industry around it, which is still operating today. they’ve written dozens and dozens of books about the Clintons; and the credulous gobble them up.
and now it’s simply become conventional wisdom that she’s the lyingest liar to have ever lied. even on much of the left, it’s now simply accepted as the truth.
IMO, a lot of it goes back to Newt Gingrinch, who ruined Congress and brought the no-compromise style to DC, and to the rise of right-wing radio in the early 90s, which grew up as the voice of the opposition during the Clinton years. it turned the demonization up to 11 and hasn’t let up since. the left has since joined the battle on the GOP’s terms.
like you, i and all my friends see Obama as smart, gracious, and well-meaning, if somewhat reserved. i’d vote for him again in a heartbeat. but the right has created a caricature to rail against because their entire M.O. is to oppose the left, always, without compromise; if they started letting the flock see Obama for what he is, they’d have a hard time justifying their actions.
GftNC
the American right has maintained a fantastical, yet largely unchallenged, narrative about the Clintons since at least 1991. they built an entire industry around it, which is still operating today. they’ve written dozens and dozens of books about the Clintons; and the credulous gobble them up.
and now it’s simply become conventional wisdom that she’s the lyingest liar to have ever lied. even on much of the left, it’s now simply accepted as the truth.
IMO, a lot of it goes back to Newt Gingrinch, who ruined Congress and brought the no-compromise style to DC, and to the rise of right-wing radio in the early 90s, which grew up as the voice of the opposition during the Clinton years. it turned the demonization up to 11 and hasn’t let up since. the left has since joined the battle on the GOP’s terms.
like you, i and all my friends see Obama as smart, gracious, and well-meaning, if somewhat reserved. i’d vote for him again in a heartbeat. but the right has created a caricature to rail against because their entire M.O. is to oppose the left, always, without compromise; if they started letting the flock see Obama for what he is, they’d have a hard time justifying their actions.
lj,
you never disappoint me. Your reactions are incredibly consistent.
lj,
you never disappoint me. Your reactions are incredibly consistent.
lj,
you never disappoint me. Your reactions are incredibly consistent.
Nigel: I remain amazed that it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.
The thing is, our on-going level of xenophobia expresses itself most visible (most of the time) by a determination not to have our sovereignty impeded, in any way by any “damn furriners.”
That’s what kept us out of the League of Nations. That’s what keeps us out of large numbers of multi-national treaties — even though virtually every other country on earth has joined. (At best, we say something like “our national laws already cover this” — e.g. our laws against torture. Mostly, we don’t even bother to comment at all.)
That’s also a big, and explicit, part of why getting a trade treaty with the US is so difficult. Even if the administration negotiates one, perhaps because it is so blatantly obviously in our interest, getting the Senate to actually ratify it is chancy at best. No matter how much in our interest it is.
Nigel: I remain amazed that it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.
The thing is, our on-going level of xenophobia expresses itself most visible (most of the time) by a determination not to have our sovereignty impeded, in any way by any “damn furriners.”
That’s what kept us out of the League of Nations. That’s what keeps us out of large numbers of multi-national treaties — even though virtually every other country on earth has joined. (At best, we say something like “our national laws already cover this” — e.g. our laws against torture. Mostly, we don’t even bother to comment at all.)
That’s also a big, and explicit, part of why getting a trade treaty with the US is so difficult. Even if the administration negotiates one, perhaps because it is so blatantly obviously in our interest, getting the Senate to actually ratify it is chancy at best. No matter how much in our interest it is.
Nigel: I remain amazed that it took the US until 1988 to ratify the UN Convention on genocide.
The thing is, our on-going level of xenophobia expresses itself most visible (most of the time) by a determination not to have our sovereignty impeded, in any way by any “damn furriners.”
That’s what kept us out of the League of Nations. That’s what keeps us out of large numbers of multi-national treaties — even though virtually every other country on earth has joined. (At best, we say something like “our national laws already cover this” — e.g. our laws against torture. Mostly, we don’t even bother to comment at all.)
That’s also a big, and explicit, part of why getting a trade treaty with the US is so difficult. Even if the administration negotiates one, perhaps because it is so blatantly obviously in our interest, getting the Senate to actually ratify it is chancy at best. No matter how much in our interest it is.
the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU
. . .
I’m in Japan, so I the coverage here was not complete, but I only remember Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line.
If memory serves, that line wasn’t a matter of “lambasting the UK for leaving the EU.” It was a statement, before the vote, contradicting the Leave campaign’s argument that it would be easy to get replacement treaties with the UK’s trading partners.
Still interference, in some sense, I suppose. But since all it amounted to was a statement of fact, hardly in the same league with donating money or secret info to another country’s elections. (Of course, we’ve done that, too. Just not in this case.)
the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU
. . .
I’m in Japan, so I the coverage here was not complete, but I only remember Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line.
If memory serves, that line wasn’t a matter of “lambasting the UK for leaving the EU.” It was a statement, before the vote, contradicting the Leave campaign’s argument that it would be easy to get replacement treaties with the UK’s trading partners.
Still interference, in some sense, I suppose. But since all it amounted to was a statement of fact, hardly in the same league with donating money or secret info to another country’s elections. (Of course, we’ve done that, too. Just not in this case.)
the US appears to feel justified in lambasting the UK for leaving the EU
. . .
I’m in Japan, so I the coverage here was not complete, but I only remember Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line.
If memory serves, that line wasn’t a matter of “lambasting the UK for leaving the EU.” It was a statement, before the vote, contradicting the Leave campaign’s argument that it would be easy to get replacement treaties with the UK’s trading partners.
Still interference, in some sense, I suppose. But since all it amounted to was a statement of fact, hardly in the same league with donating money or secret info to another country’s elections. (Of course, we’ve done that, too. Just not in this case.)
Why the need to demonise the opposition,instead of just opposing them?
Because generally the stakes are quite high, sad to say. Each side wants to win, and when you are arguing over who gets what, demonization comes with the territory.
Have you ever witnessed the sibling heirs to a relatively small estate go totally bonkers arguing over its disposition?*
Kinda’ like that, but on a much bigger scale! 🙂
*I have. It’s not pretty.
Why the need to demonise the opposition,instead of just opposing them?
Because generally the stakes are quite high, sad to say. Each side wants to win, and when you are arguing over who gets what, demonization comes with the territory.
Have you ever witnessed the sibling heirs to a relatively small estate go totally bonkers arguing over its disposition?*
Kinda’ like that, but on a much bigger scale! 🙂
*I have. It’s not pretty.
Why the need to demonise the opposition,instead of just opposing them?
Because generally the stakes are quite high, sad to say. Each side wants to win, and when you are arguing over who gets what, demonization comes with the territory.
Have you ever witnessed the sibling heirs to a relatively small estate go totally bonkers arguing over its disposition?*
Kinda’ like that, but on a much bigger scale! 🙂
*I have. It’s not pretty.
the tradition of liberal technocrats who seem to have a fetish about being tough
A lot of that is reactive. Conservatives routinely make a campaign issue of liberals being “soft on ____________.” (Communism, when I was growing up. Terrorism now.) So liberals feel forced to prove otherwise.
the tradition of liberal technocrats who seem to have a fetish about being tough
A lot of that is reactive. Conservatives routinely make a campaign issue of liberals being “soft on ____________.” (Communism, when I was growing up. Terrorism now.) So liberals feel forced to prove otherwise.
the tradition of liberal technocrats who seem to have a fetish about being tough
A lot of that is reactive. Conservatives routinely make a campaign issue of liberals being “soft on ____________.” (Communism, when I was growing up. Terrorism now.) So liberals feel forced to prove otherwise.
I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
Well, again, what’s been “proven”? Why no prosecutions? (Vote for whomever you like; just stop moving the goal posts.)
And I didn’t say everything that’s been alleged about the Clintons is conspiracy theory. I said they ranged from conspiracy theories more plausible allegations. (Why do I bother writing such things if you aren’t going to read them?)
What do you think of the alleged Vince Foster cover-up, for example? That would be, IMO, on the conspiracy-theory end of the spectrum.
I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
Well, again, what’s been “proven”? Why no prosecutions? (Vote for whomever you like; just stop moving the goal posts.)
And I didn’t say everything that’s been alleged about the Clintons is conspiracy theory. I said they ranged from conspiracy theories more plausible allegations. (Why do I bother writing such things if you aren’t going to read them?)
What do you think of the alleged Vince Foster cover-up, for example? That would be, IMO, on the conspiracy-theory end of the spectrum.
I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
Well, again, what’s been “proven”? Why no prosecutions? (Vote for whomever you like; just stop moving the goal posts.)
And I didn’t say everything that’s been alleged about the Clintons is conspiracy theory. I said they ranged from conspiracy theories more plausible allegations. (Why do I bother writing such things if you aren’t going to read them?)
What do you think of the alleged Vince Foster cover-up, for example? That would be, IMO, on the conspiracy-theory end of the spectrum.
Sapient,
No, I don’t lose much sleep over Sovereignty and the ICC. But I feel a lot of the strum and drang is the apparent elevation to equality the interests of private entities (corporateions) vs a vs the Sovereign and/or the public interest. You may not find this disquieting, but some do.
As for me, my disquiet goes deeper…to the assumption that these trade deals are necessary to “protect property” and thus implicitly the promotion and spread of the system of financial capitalism.
But then, I am a crazy loon communist.
But I am busy today as I have set this time aside to go out and register under 60 ailiases to assist the corrupt sociopath to the presidency.
Sapient,
No, I don’t lose much sleep over Sovereignty and the ICC. But I feel a lot of the strum and drang is the apparent elevation to equality the interests of private entities (corporateions) vs a vs the Sovereign and/or the public interest. You may not find this disquieting, but some do.
As for me, my disquiet goes deeper…to the assumption that these trade deals are necessary to “protect property” and thus implicitly the promotion and spread of the system of financial capitalism.
But then, I am a crazy loon communist.
But I am busy today as I have set this time aside to go out and register under 60 ailiases to assist the corrupt sociopath to the presidency.
Sapient,
No, I don’t lose much sleep over Sovereignty and the ICC. But I feel a lot of the strum and drang is the apparent elevation to equality the interests of private entities (corporateions) vs a vs the Sovereign and/or the public interest. You may not find this disquieting, but some do.
As for me, my disquiet goes deeper…to the assumption that these trade deals are necessary to “protect property” and thus implicitly the promotion and spread of the system of financial capitalism.
But then, I am a crazy loon communist.
But I am busy today as I have set this time aside to go out and register under 60 ailiases to assist the corrupt sociopath to the presidency.
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
What, specifically, has been “proven”? Why hasn’t there been any prosecution?
HSH’s bold statement above is my main point about the Hillary question. It’s not as if there’s been any shortage of rich right-wingers or conservative politicians to finance or sponsor investigations over the years, and yet still no proof, still no prosecutions. Marty, can’t you think of another explanation for all the “smoke and fire”? It seems (literally) unbelievable that “now it’s simply become conventional wisdom that she’s the lyingest liar to have ever lied. even on much of the left, it’s now simply accepted as the truth”. Of course the left have their own criticisms of her (too much of a hawk, too much in the pockets of the banks), but there seems a little more justification for these.
In an election where the alternative is Trump, for God’s sake, the caricature of her which has been created is so incredibly damaging to America that it really deserves the most scrupulous examination. If no proof has ever been found, or prosecution embarked on, and if the left thinks she’s too much of a hawk and too much in the pockets of bankers (neither a disqualification in the view of the Right), I cannot see what on earth would prevent moderate Republicans like you and McKinney from at least re-examining the premises on which their prejudice against her is based.
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
What, specifically, has been “proven”? Why hasn’t there been any prosecution?
HSH’s bold statement above is my main point about the Hillary question. It’s not as if there’s been any shortage of rich right-wingers or conservative politicians to finance or sponsor investigations over the years, and yet still no proof, still no prosecutions. Marty, can’t you think of another explanation for all the “smoke and fire”? It seems (literally) unbelievable that “now it’s simply become conventional wisdom that she’s the lyingest liar to have ever lied. even on much of the left, it’s now simply accepted as the truth”. Of course the left have their own criticisms of her (too much of a hawk, too much in the pockets of the banks), but there seems a little more justification for these.
In an election where the alternative is Trump, for God’s sake, the caricature of her which has been created is so incredibly damaging to America that it really deserves the most scrupulous examination. If no proof has ever been found, or prosecution embarked on, and if the left thinks she’s too much of a hawk and too much in the pockets of bankers (neither a disqualification in the view of the Right), I cannot see what on earth would prevent moderate Republicans like you and McKinney from at least re-examining the premises on which their prejudice against her is based.
A large part of the answer is that the supporters of Bill and Hillary accept the explanation that “nothing serious” has been proven. While nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe calling people believing the mass of smoke and fire around the Clintons “conspiracy theorist” is purposeful denial of reality.IMO
What, specifically, has been “proven”? Why hasn’t there been any prosecution?
HSH’s bold statement above is my main point about the Hillary question. It’s not as if there’s been any shortage of rich right-wingers or conservative politicians to finance or sponsor investigations over the years, and yet still no proof, still no prosecutions. Marty, can’t you think of another explanation for all the “smoke and fire”? It seems (literally) unbelievable that “now it’s simply become conventional wisdom that she’s the lyingest liar to have ever lied. even on much of the left, it’s now simply accepted as the truth”. Of course the left have their own criticisms of her (too much of a hawk, too much in the pockets of the banks), but there seems a little more justification for these.
In an election where the alternative is Trump, for God’s sake, the caricature of her which has been created is so incredibly damaging to America that it really deserves the most scrupulous examination. If no proof has ever been found, or prosecution embarked on, and if the left thinks she’s too much of a hawk and too much in the pockets of bankers (neither a disqualification in the view of the Right), I cannot see what on earth would prevent moderate Republicans like you and McKinney from at least re-examining the premises on which their prejudice against her is based.
But I am busy today as I have set this time aside to go out and register under 60 ailiases to assist the corrupt sociopath to the presidency.
Thank you!
But I am busy today as I have set this time aside to go out and register under 60 ailiases to assist the corrupt sociopath to the presidency.
Thank you!
But I am busy today as I have set this time aside to go out and register under 60 ailiases to assist the corrupt sociopath to the presidency.
Thank you!
sapient, thanks for the ISDS links, I will check them out.
sapient, thanks for the ISDS links, I will check them out.
sapient, thanks for the ISDS links, I will check them out.
Wow, the OJ card is dropped.
“There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist. Not just the count. So in some ways I ramp up the rhetoric to respond in kind.”
As cleek pointed out, Marty, you are way late to the rhetoric-ramp-up. The professionals got there before the two of us. As we’ve had drilled into us from sizable quarters, not doing so would be politically correct, and probably un-Constitutional.
So I open carry large capacity language clips.
But never at Chili’s.
Besides, I resent the implication that anyone else here is as dedicated to the ramp-up as I am. ;-/
I can also sound exactly like Rihanna when I sing karaoke.
But, if the glove fits …..
The “modern” Republican Party, now personified by Donald Trump, purposefully and with malign intent, made themselves (I love it when Republicans claim “look what you made us do!”. It’s so Trayvon/Zimmerman) into what they are from the whole cloth of the Goldwater/Buckley/John Birch Society hat trick, aided and abetted and dovetailed joined by the racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, gay bashing, bullet-headed remnants of the old Confederate Democratic Party, yeah, when all of America, bipartisanly, was racist and misogynist and anti-Semitic and gay phobic to its gills, and then hooked up to and supercharged by Richard Nixon and then amplified to surround-sound by the Gingrich/Limbaugh foghorn/wood chipper.
I had not one fucking thing to do with that, except for the leaving of it.
And then pointing at it.
lj, who, if you read him closely has a piercing, lapidary way of tweezing open certain topics, had a little sentence in a comment about a week ago to the effect that those of us white males who want black and female candidates to get goddamned angry, knock the podium over, and take it to the ravening mosh pit don’t get how difficult that gambit is for anyone but a white male in this society to do, though Coulter and company seem to have a pretty good go at it.
By and large, they aren’t allowed to be Hillary the Plumber or Barack the Plumber. (See charges of “shrill” this morning against Hillary).
Anyway, I think lj implied that it is vaguely racist and misogynist to think they have the latitude to behave that way.
I admit to being a little bit racist and misogynist, probably in ways I don’t even realize.
I’m working on it. So are you, Marty. Working on it, that is.
In addition, what Russell said and probably a lot of what he doesn’t say.
Let’s posit, for fun, that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are criminally sociopathic.
What is it in the American people/voters that these two canny demagogues (positing) find so irresistably receptive of their criminal sociopathy.
Is it the stupid hats we wear during election season?
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Mencken, that elitist.
Wow, the OJ card is dropped.
“There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist. Not just the count. So in some ways I ramp up the rhetoric to respond in kind.”
As cleek pointed out, Marty, you are way late to the rhetoric-ramp-up. The professionals got there before the two of us. As we’ve had drilled into us from sizable quarters, not doing so would be politically correct, and probably un-Constitutional.
So I open carry large capacity language clips.
But never at Chili’s.
Besides, I resent the implication that anyone else here is as dedicated to the ramp-up as I am. ;-/
I can also sound exactly like Rihanna when I sing karaoke.
But, if the glove fits …..
The “modern” Republican Party, now personified by Donald Trump, purposefully and with malign intent, made themselves (I love it when Republicans claim “look what you made us do!”. It’s so Trayvon/Zimmerman) into what they are from the whole cloth of the Goldwater/Buckley/John Birch Society hat trick, aided and abetted and dovetailed joined by the racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, gay bashing, bullet-headed remnants of the old Confederate Democratic Party, yeah, when all of America, bipartisanly, was racist and misogynist and anti-Semitic and gay phobic to its gills, and then hooked up to and supercharged by Richard Nixon and then amplified to surround-sound by the Gingrich/Limbaugh foghorn/wood chipper.
I had not one fucking thing to do with that, except for the leaving of it.
And then pointing at it.
lj, who, if you read him closely has a piercing, lapidary way of tweezing open certain topics, had a little sentence in a comment about a week ago to the effect that those of us white males who want black and female candidates to get goddamned angry, knock the podium over, and take it to the ravening mosh pit don’t get how difficult that gambit is for anyone but a white male in this society to do, though Coulter and company seem to have a pretty good go at it.
By and large, they aren’t allowed to be Hillary the Plumber or Barack the Plumber. (See charges of “shrill” this morning against Hillary).
Anyway, I think lj implied that it is vaguely racist and misogynist to think they have the latitude to behave that way.
I admit to being a little bit racist and misogynist, probably in ways I don’t even realize.
I’m working on it. So are you, Marty. Working on it, that is.
In addition, what Russell said and probably a lot of what he doesn’t say.
Let’s posit, for fun, that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are criminally sociopathic.
What is it in the American people/voters that these two canny demagogues (positing) find so irresistably receptive of their criminal sociopathy.
Is it the stupid hats we wear during election season?
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Mencken, that elitist.
Wow, the OJ card is dropped.
“There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist. Not just the count. So in some ways I ramp up the rhetoric to respond in kind.”
As cleek pointed out, Marty, you are way late to the rhetoric-ramp-up. The professionals got there before the two of us. As we’ve had drilled into us from sizable quarters, not doing so would be politically correct, and probably un-Constitutional.
So I open carry large capacity language clips.
But never at Chili’s.
Besides, I resent the implication that anyone else here is as dedicated to the ramp-up as I am. ;-/
I can also sound exactly like Rihanna when I sing karaoke.
But, if the glove fits …..
The “modern” Republican Party, now personified by Donald Trump, purposefully and with malign intent, made themselves (I love it when Republicans claim “look what you made us do!”. It’s so Trayvon/Zimmerman) into what they are from the whole cloth of the Goldwater/Buckley/John Birch Society hat trick, aided and abetted and dovetailed joined by the racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, gay bashing, bullet-headed remnants of the old Confederate Democratic Party, yeah, when all of America, bipartisanly, was racist and misogynist and anti-Semitic and gay phobic to its gills, and then hooked up to and supercharged by Richard Nixon and then amplified to surround-sound by the Gingrich/Limbaugh foghorn/wood chipper.
I had not one fucking thing to do with that, except for the leaving of it.
And then pointing at it.
lj, who, if you read him closely has a piercing, lapidary way of tweezing open certain topics, had a little sentence in a comment about a week ago to the effect that those of us white males who want black and female candidates to get goddamned angry, knock the podium over, and take it to the ravening mosh pit don’t get how difficult that gambit is for anyone but a white male in this society to do, though Coulter and company seem to have a pretty good go at it.
By and large, they aren’t allowed to be Hillary the Plumber or Barack the Plumber. (See charges of “shrill” this morning against Hillary).
Anyway, I think lj implied that it is vaguely racist and misogynist to think they have the latitude to behave that way.
I admit to being a little bit racist and misogynist, probably in ways I don’t even realize.
I’m working on it. So are you, Marty. Working on it, that is.
In addition, what Russell said and probably a lot of what he doesn’t say.
Let’s posit, for fun, that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are criminally sociopathic.
What is it in the American people/voters that these two canny demagogues (positing) find so irresistably receptive of their criminal sociopathy.
Is it the stupid hats we wear during election season?
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Mencken, that elitist.
“If no proof has ever been found, or prosecution embarked on,”
Lots of proof has been found. Working backwards, the Director of the FBI and The AG determined that she had used a server that wasn’t approved, never put her email in the government email system so it could be preserved, when asked for her email she deleted 10s of thousands of emails, some of the emails were classified both when sent and after the fact, she multiple devices to access the emails from places it was likely they could be hacked and…
here is the important part to me
She denied all of this at various times and for most of it she reiterated her denial the day after the FBI Director testified before Congress that she in fact lied.
The “decision” not to prosecute her was ok,I saw all the usual suspects say that they would have(Giuliani et al).
But there was nothing that came close to exonerating her, for, at a minimum, breaking departmental policy and lying about it. That’s a big deal when the next job you want is President and it is likely that any other job in government you wanted would not be obtainable if it required a clearance.
Benghazi, well, she is just guilty of malfeasance. Doesn’t make that act criminal.
Jumping way down the list to hsh’s Vince Foster, who knows? There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas at the time about his danger to the Clintons. I don’t know, just smoke I suppose.
All the way back to now, the abuse of the Foundation is unclear if they will have to get pardoned for their involvement.
People keep talking about the bar being set for Hilary. That is true. There is almost no other candidate that could have so many black marks and still be in the race. Even the suspicion of one of these things would exclude most candidates from consideration. The appearance of impropriety would exclude the rest. She has a bar that is so low anyone could get over it.
There is a lot of evidence that is corroborated on all this stuff
“If no proof has ever been found, or prosecution embarked on,”
Lots of proof has been found. Working backwards, the Director of the FBI and The AG determined that she had used a server that wasn’t approved, never put her email in the government email system so it could be preserved, when asked for her email she deleted 10s of thousands of emails, some of the emails were classified both when sent and after the fact, she multiple devices to access the emails from places it was likely they could be hacked and…
here is the important part to me
She denied all of this at various times and for most of it she reiterated her denial the day after the FBI Director testified before Congress that she in fact lied.
The “decision” not to prosecute her was ok,I saw all the usual suspects say that they would have(Giuliani et al).
But there was nothing that came close to exonerating her, for, at a minimum, breaking departmental policy and lying about it. That’s a big deal when the next job you want is President and it is likely that any other job in government you wanted would not be obtainable if it required a clearance.
Benghazi, well, she is just guilty of malfeasance. Doesn’t make that act criminal.
Jumping way down the list to hsh’s Vince Foster, who knows? There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas at the time about his danger to the Clintons. I don’t know, just smoke I suppose.
All the way back to now, the abuse of the Foundation is unclear if they will have to get pardoned for their involvement.
People keep talking about the bar being set for Hilary. That is true. There is almost no other candidate that could have so many black marks and still be in the race. Even the suspicion of one of these things would exclude most candidates from consideration. The appearance of impropriety would exclude the rest. She has a bar that is so low anyone could get over it.
There is a lot of evidence that is corroborated on all this stuff
“If no proof has ever been found, or prosecution embarked on,”
Lots of proof has been found. Working backwards, the Director of the FBI and The AG determined that she had used a server that wasn’t approved, never put her email in the government email system so it could be preserved, when asked for her email she deleted 10s of thousands of emails, some of the emails were classified both when sent and after the fact, she multiple devices to access the emails from places it was likely they could be hacked and…
here is the important part to me
She denied all of this at various times and for most of it she reiterated her denial the day after the FBI Director testified before Congress that she in fact lied.
The “decision” not to prosecute her was ok,I saw all the usual suspects say that they would have(Giuliani et al).
But there was nothing that came close to exonerating her, for, at a minimum, breaking departmental policy and lying about it. That’s a big deal when the next job you want is President and it is likely that any other job in government you wanted would not be obtainable if it required a clearance.
Benghazi, well, she is just guilty of malfeasance. Doesn’t make that act criminal.
Jumping way down the list to hsh’s Vince Foster, who knows? There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas at the time about his danger to the Clintons. I don’t know, just smoke I suppose.
All the way back to now, the abuse of the Foundation is unclear if they will have to get pardoned for their involvement.
People keep talking about the bar being set for Hilary. That is true. There is almost no other candidate that could have so many black marks and still be in the race. Even the suspicion of one of these things would exclude most candidates from consideration. The appearance of impropriety would exclude the rest. She has a bar that is so low anyone could get over it.
There is a lot of evidence that is corroborated on all this stuff
Benghazi, well, she is just guilty of malfeasance.
for what? for cutting funding for embassy security?
There is almost no other candidate that could have so many black marks and still be in the race.
well, Trump is currently accused in a lawsuit of raping a 13 year old.
Benghazi, well, she is just guilty of malfeasance.
for what? for cutting funding for embassy security?
There is almost no other candidate that could have so many black marks and still be in the race.
well, Trump is currently accused in a lawsuit of raping a 13 year old.
Benghazi, well, she is just guilty of malfeasance.
for what? for cutting funding for embassy security?
There is almost no other candidate that could have so many black marks and still be in the race.
well, Trump is currently accused in a lawsuit of raping a 13 year old.
“What is causing this extreme divergence of views among rational, well-meaning people, if not racism and sexism?”
It’s those two things, plus the fact that straight white fellers don’t get to dominate the country anymore, so they’re extra cranky right along through here. Eventually it’ll quiet down to the whimper of whipped dogs.
“What is causing this extreme divergence of views among rational, well-meaning people, if not racism and sexism?”
It’s those two things, plus the fact that straight white fellers don’t get to dominate the country anymore, so they’re extra cranky right along through here. Eventually it’ll quiet down to the whimper of whipped dogs.
“What is causing this extreme divergence of views among rational, well-meaning people, if not racism and sexism?”
It’s those two things, plus the fact that straight white fellers don’t get to dominate the country anymore, so they’re extra cranky right along through here. Eventually it’ll quiet down to the whimper of whipped dogs.
So the only thing you know of that’s been proven is that she had an email server in her basement and lied about sending or receiving classified emails (though most were classified after the fact and the others, a small handful out of tens of thousand, were not marked properly as such).
Not good, mind you, but not sociopathic criminality. I leave it to you to decide if, in your mind, this makes her worse than Trump as a potential POTUS, taking the good with the bad on both of them. There’s plenty of smoke around him, too, of course. I’m sure we’ll find out if there’s also (you’re) fire(d).
So the only thing you know of that’s been proven is that she had an email server in her basement and lied about sending or receiving classified emails (though most were classified after the fact and the others, a small handful out of tens of thousand, were not marked properly as such).
Not good, mind you, but not sociopathic criminality. I leave it to you to decide if, in your mind, this makes her worse than Trump as a potential POTUS, taking the good with the bad on both of them. There’s plenty of smoke around him, too, of course. I’m sure we’ll find out if there’s also (you’re) fire(d).
So the only thing you know of that’s been proven is that she had an email server in her basement and lied about sending or receiving classified emails (though most were classified after the fact and the others, a small handful out of tens of thousand, were not marked properly as such).
Not good, mind you, but not sociopathic criminality. I leave it to you to decide if, in your mind, this makes her worse than Trump as a potential POTUS, taking the good with the bad on both of them. There’s plenty of smoke around him, too, of course. I’m sure we’ll find out if there’s also (you’re) fire(d).
“I’m working on it. So are you, Marty. Working on it, that is”
We all have our crosses to bear. But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny. I can rail against Trump or Bill Clinton, you can rail against Paul Ryan and those points are perfectly valid. As soon as the attention gets diverted to them the criticisms are the product of some deficiency on my part. That’s just BS. They are grownups, playing in the big leagues, they get criticized just like everyone else.
There is no crying in baseball.
“I’m working on it. So are you, Marty. Working on it, that is”
We all have our crosses to bear. But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny. I can rail against Trump or Bill Clinton, you can rail against Paul Ryan and those points are perfectly valid. As soon as the attention gets diverted to them the criticisms are the product of some deficiency on my part. That’s just BS. They are grownups, playing in the big leagues, they get criticized just like everyone else.
There is no crying in baseball.
“I’m working on it. So are you, Marty. Working on it, that is”
We all have our crosses to bear. But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny. I can rail against Trump or Bill Clinton, you can rail against Paul Ryan and those points are perfectly valid. As soon as the attention gets diverted to them the criticisms are the product of some deficiency on my part. That’s just BS. They are grownups, playing in the big leagues, they get criticized just like everyone else.
There is no crying in baseball.
But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny.
So do I. I’m thankful that it isn’t the case. (I also object to newborns with birth marks being fed to alligators, just for the record.)
But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny.
So do I. I’m thankful that it isn’t the case. (I also object to newborns with birth marks being fed to alligators, just for the record.)
But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny.
So do I. I’m thankful that it isn’t the case. (I also object to newborns with birth marks being fed to alligators, just for the record.)
But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny.
This is demonstrably untrue Marty, at least on this site. You’ve heard plenty of criticism of Obama and Hillary from the lefties here, and even some nuanced criticism from many more of us. This is the kind of exaggeration and caricature which creates the problem in the discourse we’re talking about.
But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny.
This is demonstrably untrue Marty, at least on this site. You’ve heard plenty of criticism of Obama and Hillary from the lefties here, and even some nuanced criticism from many more of us. This is the kind of exaggeration and caricature which creates the problem in the discourse we’re talking about.
But I object to every criticism of Obama and Hillary being written off to racism and misogyny.
This is demonstrably untrue Marty, at least on this site. You’ve heard plenty of criticism of Obama and Hillary from the lefties here, and even some nuanced criticism from many more of us. This is the kind of exaggeration and caricature which creates the problem in the discourse we’re talking about.
“So the only thing you know of that’s been proven ..”
no I’m just using a simple example. I am not required to write a treatise to make my point, nor am I trying to convince you or GftNC to dislike her. Whatever I write someone will say, well that’s not so bad. Unless Scott Walker did it. Then it would be cause to demand his resignation.
Trump is worse, but that’s the point. She is unacceptable, him being worse than that doesn’t make her suddenly acceptable.
“So the only thing you know of that’s been proven ..”
no I’m just using a simple example. I am not required to write a treatise to make my point, nor am I trying to convince you or GftNC to dislike her. Whatever I write someone will say, well that’s not so bad. Unless Scott Walker did it. Then it would be cause to demand his resignation.
Trump is worse, but that’s the point. She is unacceptable, him being worse than that doesn’t make her suddenly acceptable.
“So the only thing you know of that’s been proven ..”
no I’m just using a simple example. I am not required to write a treatise to make my point, nor am I trying to convince you or GftNC to dislike her. Whatever I write someone will say, well that’s not so bad. Unless Scott Walker did it. Then it would be cause to demand his resignation.
Trump is worse, but that’s the point. She is unacceptable, him being worse than that doesn’t make her suddenly acceptable.
” This is the kind of exaggeration and caricature which creates the problem in the discourse we’re talking about.”
Remember this the day they call you a racist.
” This is the kind of exaggeration and caricature which creates the problem in the discourse we’re talking about.”
Remember this the day they call you a racist.
” This is the kind of exaggeration and caricature which creates the problem in the discourse we’re talking about.”
Remember this the day they call you a racist.
I repeat, you’ve heard plenty of criticism of Obama and Hillary from the lefties here, and even some nuanced criticism from many more of us.
Your assertion that every criticism of Obama and Hillary is written off to racism and misogyny is false.
I repeat, you’ve heard plenty of criticism of Obama and Hillary from the lefties here, and even some nuanced criticism from many more of us.
Your assertion that every criticism of Obama and Hillary is written off to racism and misogyny is false.
I repeat, you’ve heard plenty of criticism of Obama and Hillary from the lefties here, and even some nuanced criticism from many more of us.
Your assertion that every criticism of Obama and Hillary is written off to racism and misogyny is false.
There is no crying in baseball.
Not always. Mostly we save it for the golf course.
There is no crying in baseball.
Not always. Mostly we save it for the golf course.
There is no crying in baseball.
Not always. Mostly we save it for the golf course.
Nobody has called you a racist. I definitely haven’t, and even lj took care to specify that he was not calling you a racist, just some of your comments.
Nobody has called you a racist. I definitely haven’t, and even lj took care to specify that he was not calling you a racist, just some of your comments.
Nobody has called you a racist. I definitely haven’t, and even lj took care to specify that he was not calling you a racist, just some of your comments.
no I’m just using a simple example. I am not required to write a treatise to make my point…
Sure, but you could simply say “it was proven that she handed a contract to the nation of Uzbekistan in exchange for a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation” without it being a treatise.
You asserted rather forcefully that she is sociopathically criminal. Back it up.
Remember this the day they call you a racist.
This doesn’t cut it. No one is claiming that charges of racism and sexism are non-existent. You wrote that they are thrown at every criticism of Obama and Clinton. That’s simply not true. If that’s not what you meant, just say so, and try to be more accurate about what you write relative to what you mean.
I get that the Count is over the top, but it’s (usually) an obvious farcical, in-character, stylized rhetorical flourish. You make assertions that seem to be intended to be taken literally, Marty.
no I’m just using a simple example. I am not required to write a treatise to make my point…
Sure, but you could simply say “it was proven that she handed a contract to the nation of Uzbekistan in exchange for a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation” without it being a treatise.
You asserted rather forcefully that she is sociopathically criminal. Back it up.
Remember this the day they call you a racist.
This doesn’t cut it. No one is claiming that charges of racism and sexism are non-existent. You wrote that they are thrown at every criticism of Obama and Clinton. That’s simply not true. If that’s not what you meant, just say so, and try to be more accurate about what you write relative to what you mean.
I get that the Count is over the top, but it’s (usually) an obvious farcical, in-character, stylized rhetorical flourish. You make assertions that seem to be intended to be taken literally, Marty.
no I’m just using a simple example. I am not required to write a treatise to make my point…
Sure, but you could simply say “it was proven that she handed a contract to the nation of Uzbekistan in exchange for a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation” without it being a treatise.
You asserted rather forcefully that she is sociopathically criminal. Back it up.
Remember this the day they call you a racist.
This doesn’t cut it. No one is claiming that charges of racism and sexism are non-existent. You wrote that they are thrown at every criticism of Obama and Clinton. That’s simply not true. If that’s not what you meant, just say so, and try to be more accurate about what you write relative to what you mean.
I get that the Count is over the top, but it’s (usually) an obvious farcical, in-character, stylized rhetorical flourish. You make assertions that seem to be intended to be taken literally, Marty.
GftNC, Sure, nuanced criticism, like the nuanced criticism of say Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or even Trump. The point you are making doesn’t address the reaction when someone has a substantive criticism of either of them.
Sure they didn’t do this well or they shouldn’t have done that is bandied around among lefties.
But let someone say she isn’t qualified to be President and that can only be misogyny, even if it is in the same sentence that says that Trump isn’t qualified to be President. It is not a caricature, is a completely predictable response. So if we are quibbling about the word *every*, I hope that is more clear.
GftNC, Sure, nuanced criticism, like the nuanced criticism of say Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or even Trump. The point you are making doesn’t address the reaction when someone has a substantive criticism of either of them.
Sure they didn’t do this well or they shouldn’t have done that is bandied around among lefties.
But let someone say she isn’t qualified to be President and that can only be misogyny, even if it is in the same sentence that says that Trump isn’t qualified to be President. It is not a caricature, is a completely predictable response. So if we are quibbling about the word *every*, I hope that is more clear.
GftNC, Sure, nuanced criticism, like the nuanced criticism of say Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or even Trump. The point you are making doesn’t address the reaction when someone has a substantive criticism of either of them.
Sure they didn’t do this well or they shouldn’t have done that is bandied around among lefties.
But let someone say she isn’t qualified to be President and that can only be misogyny, even if it is in the same sentence that says that Trump isn’t qualified to be President. It is not a caricature, is a completely predictable response. So if we are quibbling about the word *every*, I hope that is more clear.
“There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas at the time about his danger to the Clintons.”
There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas too about the danger John F. Kennedy posed to America.
Lots of great barbecue down there, I’m told. Smoke too.
Also, oxygen.
Several Texans I’m pleased to know personally are stand-up people. It’s the ones lying down who I don’t know that worry me.
So, on the email server thing, first, I’d like to know what Hillary THOUGHT she was doing. But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.
As far as hacking goes, there is not a government or private computer/device that hasn’t been hacked.
Department of State computers? Give me a break. Heck, elements of DOD are probably hacking them as we speak.
As with Trump’s tax returns (I want a law that the IRS automatically makes public the tax returns of all candidates for public office; off to the fainting couch with you), the NSA could tell us what was in Hillary’s emails, couldn’t they?
Or are they too busy monitoring my internet bloviations?
“There’s no crying in baseball.”
I cried a little in my car after a game I played just yesterday. We choked and lost it. I made too stunning catches in the outfield early in the game and then lost a ball in the sun in the bottom of the ninth.
Tell it to Earl Weaver.
“Unless Scott Walker did it.”
Now there’s an honest, upfront criminal sociopath.
“There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas at the time about his danger to the Clintons.”
There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas too about the danger John F. Kennedy posed to America.
Lots of great barbecue down there, I’m told. Smoke too.
Also, oxygen.
Several Texans I’m pleased to know personally are stand-up people. It’s the ones lying down who I don’t know that worry me.
So, on the email server thing, first, I’d like to know what Hillary THOUGHT she was doing. But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.
As far as hacking goes, there is not a government or private computer/device that hasn’t been hacked.
Department of State computers? Give me a break. Heck, elements of DOD are probably hacking them as we speak.
As with Trump’s tax returns (I want a law that the IRS automatically makes public the tax returns of all candidates for public office; off to the fainting couch with you), the NSA could tell us what was in Hillary’s emails, couldn’t they?
Or are they too busy monitoring my internet bloviations?
“There’s no crying in baseball.”
I cried a little in my car after a game I played just yesterday. We choked and lost it. I made too stunning catches in the outfield early in the game and then lost a ball in the sun in the bottom of the ninth.
Tell it to Earl Weaver.
“Unless Scott Walker did it.”
Now there’s an honest, upfront criminal sociopath.
“There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas at the time about his danger to the Clintons.”
There was a ton of stuff in the press in Texas too about the danger John F. Kennedy posed to America.
Lots of great barbecue down there, I’m told. Smoke too.
Also, oxygen.
Several Texans I’m pleased to know personally are stand-up people. It’s the ones lying down who I don’t know that worry me.
So, on the email server thing, first, I’d like to know what Hillary THOUGHT she was doing. But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.
As far as hacking goes, there is not a government or private computer/device that hasn’t been hacked.
Department of State computers? Give me a break. Heck, elements of DOD are probably hacking them as we speak.
As with Trump’s tax returns (I want a law that the IRS automatically makes public the tax returns of all candidates for public office; off to the fainting couch with you), the NSA could tell us what was in Hillary’s emails, couldn’t they?
Or are they too busy monitoring my internet bloviations?
“There’s no crying in baseball.”
I cried a little in my car after a game I played just yesterday. We choked and lost it. I made too stunning catches in the outfield early in the game and then lost a ball in the sun in the bottom of the ninth.
Tell it to Earl Weaver.
“Unless Scott Walker did it.”
Now there’s an honest, upfront criminal sociopath.
There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist.
Really? Really? I guess we read very different stuff. Unless you are tightly restricting who you count.
Say you just include politicians. But no, that’s not going to be enough. (My state Assemblywoman is a Republican. In a district where a majority of the registered voters are Democrats. And not just non-Republican; majority Democrats.)
So, just national politicians? Well that might work. As long as you keep to requiring complete, overall embrace. Because if you don’t exclude cases where others applaud Republicans for specific stances, your characterization fails again. For example, just last night Hillary Clinton** was praising Tom DeLay. . . who is definitely a Republican (FYI the topic was foster children).
** I’m assuming you include Clinton as someone
There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist.
Really? Really? I guess we read very different stuff. Unless you are tightly restricting who you count.
Say you just include politicians. But no, that’s not going to be enough. (My state Assemblywoman is a Republican. In a district where a majority of the registered voters are Democrats. And not just non-Republican; majority Democrats.)
So, just national politicians? Well that might work. As long as you keep to requiring complete, overall embrace. Because if you don’t exclude cases where others applaud Republicans for specific stances, your characterization fails again. For example, just last night Hillary Clinton** was praising Tom DeLay. . . who is definitely a Republican (FYI the topic was foster children).
** I’m assuming you include Clinton as someone
There is no description of any Republican by anyone on the left that doesn’t make them a racist, misogynist evil minded fascist.
Really? Really? I guess we read very different stuff. Unless you are tightly restricting who you count.
Say you just include politicians. But no, that’s not going to be enough. (My state Assemblywoman is a Republican. In a district where a majority of the registered voters are Democrats. And not just non-Republican; majority Democrats.)
So, just national politicians? Well that might work. As long as you keep to requiring complete, overall embrace. Because if you don’t exclude cases where others applaud Republicans for specific stances, your characterization fails again. For example, just last night Hillary Clinton** was praising Tom DeLay. . . who is definitely a Republican (FYI the topic was foster children).
** I’m assuming you include Clinton as someone
well played, Marty.
well played, Marty.
well played, Marty.
Marty, seriously, if someone says a woman who has been a Senator, and the Secretary of State, is not qualified to be President, misogyny is not an unreasonable motive to explore. The fact that someone says it in the same sentence as saying Trump isn’t qualified to be President doesn’t really cut any ice, because I believe we are all agreed that nothing in his resume would generally be considered a qualification.
Marty, seriously, if someone says a woman who has been a Senator, and the Secretary of State, is not qualified to be President, misogyny is not an unreasonable motive to explore. The fact that someone says it in the same sentence as saying Trump isn’t qualified to be President doesn’t really cut any ice, because I believe we are all agreed that nothing in his resume would generally be considered a qualification.
Marty, seriously, if someone says a woman who has been a Senator, and the Secretary of State, is not qualified to be President, misogyny is not an unreasonable motive to explore. The fact that someone says it in the same sentence as saying Trump isn’t qualified to be President doesn’t really cut any ice, because I believe we are all agreed that nothing in his resume would generally be considered a qualification.
Wait .. what? Tom Delay is a foster child and a sociopath?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-hillary-000000730.html
I’d like to see his emails.
Wait .. what? Tom Delay is a foster child and a sociopath?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-hillary-000000730.html
I’d like to see his emails.
Wait .. what? Tom Delay is a foster child and a sociopath?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-hillary-000000730.html
I’d like to see his emails.
“misogyny is not an unreasonable motive to explore.”
Yes, it is. She isn’t random woman. She has been on the scene for decades. People have had time to form opinions based on her lack of accomplishments and temperament, and of course her ongoing criminal career. Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
“misogyny is not an unreasonable motive to explore.”
Yes, it is. She isn’t random woman. She has been on the scene for decades. People have had time to form opinions based on her lack of accomplishments and temperament, and of course her ongoing criminal career. Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
“misogyny is not an unreasonable motive to explore.”
Yes, it is. She isn’t random woman. She has been on the scene for decades. People have had time to form opinions based on her lack of accomplishments and temperament, and of course her ongoing criminal career. Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
LJ, on the Israeli Palestinian issue I think that American politicians engage in racist dog whistling. That was part of my deleted rant.
For instance, one could oppose BDS as a tactic. I have had reservations myself, though I have come to support it in its weaker forms. But it is racist dog whistling to say that BDS is part of the rising tide of antisemitism. Boycotts and sanctions are standard nonviolent methods used to pressure people into granting rights. By linking it to antisemitism, the clear implication is that people, including its Palestinian organizers, are not motivated by anything so unimportant as Palestinian rights, but by the only thing that could motivate them– hatred of Jews. It’s a deeply cynical criticism and the fact that she feels she can get away with it says something ugly about Democrats.
http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/
And one can say this and still recognize the need to stop Trump.
Snarki, regarding friendship with Kissinger you must have gone to an interesting high school. I didn’t know any war criminals at mine. But if you want to equate the way people at that level with high school, I agree. They hobnob with each other, not with people tortured by Pinochet or bombed in East Timor or Cambodia. Very much like high school in that what matters is being part of the in crowd. David Brooks always struck me this way– what mattered to him was that people in DC all get along and go to the same dinner parties even if during office hours they plan wars of aggression. Heck, maybe they do it at dinner parties.
LJ, on the Israeli Palestinian issue I think that American politicians engage in racist dog whistling. That was part of my deleted rant.
For instance, one could oppose BDS as a tactic. I have had reservations myself, though I have come to support it in its weaker forms. But it is racist dog whistling to say that BDS is part of the rising tide of antisemitism. Boycotts and sanctions are standard nonviolent methods used to pressure people into granting rights. By linking it to antisemitism, the clear implication is that people, including its Palestinian organizers, are not motivated by anything so unimportant as Palestinian rights, but by the only thing that could motivate them– hatred of Jews. It’s a deeply cynical criticism and the fact that she feels she can get away with it says something ugly about Democrats.
http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/
And one can say this and still recognize the need to stop Trump.
Snarki, regarding friendship with Kissinger you must have gone to an interesting high school. I didn’t know any war criminals at mine. But if you want to equate the way people at that level with high school, I agree. They hobnob with each other, not with people tortured by Pinochet or bombed in East Timor or Cambodia. Very much like high school in that what matters is being part of the in crowd. David Brooks always struck me this way– what mattered to him was that people in DC all get along and go to the same dinner parties even if during office hours they plan wars of aggression. Heck, maybe they do it at dinner parties.
LJ, on the Israeli Palestinian issue I think that American politicians engage in racist dog whistling. That was part of my deleted rant.
For instance, one could oppose BDS as a tactic. I have had reservations myself, though I have come to support it in its weaker forms. But it is racist dog whistling to say that BDS is part of the rising tide of antisemitism. Boycotts and sanctions are standard nonviolent methods used to pressure people into granting rights. By linking it to antisemitism, the clear implication is that people, including its Palestinian organizers, are not motivated by anything so unimportant as Palestinian rights, but by the only thing that could motivate them– hatred of Jews. It’s a deeply cynical criticism and the fact that she feels she can get away with it says something ugly about Democrats.
http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/
And one can say this and still recognize the need to stop Trump.
Snarki, regarding friendship with Kissinger you must have gone to an interesting high school. I didn’t know any war criminals at mine. But if you want to equate the way people at that level with high school, I agree. They hobnob with each other, not with people tortured by Pinochet or bombed in East Timor or Cambodia. Very much like high school in that what matters is being part of the in crowd. David Brooks always struck me this way– what mattered to him was that people in DC all get along and go to the same dinner parties even if during office hours they plan wars of aggression. Heck, maybe they do it at dinner parties.
“Ongoing criminal career”, eh? I believe this conversation may now have come full circle…..
“Ongoing criminal career”, eh? I believe this conversation may now have come full circle…..
“Ongoing criminal career”, eh? I believe this conversation may now have come full circle…..
What GftNC said.
What GftNC said.
What GftNC said.
The Count: But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.
And I’d like to know this: do the rank-and-file Hillary haters imagine that the “classified” material in those emails was the name of an under-cover CIA officer, or the password for launching a nuke? The professional Hillary-haters know better, of course, but it’s their professional duty to insinuate that “classified”=”existentially important”.
Incidentally, I’m still pissed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was denounced for stating the obvious when asked about He, Trump, while James Comey was praised for expounding on Hillary beyond the call of duty.
–TP
The Count: But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.
And I’d like to know this: do the rank-and-file Hillary haters imagine that the “classified” material in those emails was the name of an under-cover CIA officer, or the password for launching a nuke? The professional Hillary-haters know better, of course, but it’s their professional duty to insinuate that “classified”=”existentially important”.
Incidentally, I’m still pissed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was denounced for stating the obvious when asked about He, Trump, while James Comey was praised for expounding on Hillary beyond the call of duty.
–TP
The Count: But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.
And I’d like to know this: do the rank-and-file Hillary haters imagine that the “classified” material in those emails was the name of an under-cover CIA officer, or the password for launching a nuke? The professional Hillary-haters know better, of course, but it’s their professional duty to insinuate that “classified”=”existentially important”.
Incidentally, I’m still pissed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was denounced for stating the obvious when asked about He, Trump, while James Comey was praised for expounding on Hillary beyond the call of duty.
–TP
GftNC,
The circle yes, I have an opinion based on my assessment of her character, actions and qualifications. None of which are based on her sex.
GftNC,
The circle yes, I have an opinion based on my assessment of her character, actions and qualifications. None of which are based on her sex.
GftNC,
The circle yes, I have an opinion based on my assessment of her character, actions and qualifications. None of which are based on her sex.
None of which are based on her sex.
…or proof, if we’re talking about her criminal career.
None of which are based on her sex.
…or proof, if we’re talking about her criminal career.
None of which are based on her sex.
…or proof, if we’re talking about her criminal career.
Gosh, that’s why it’s called an opinion. Some things have proof, some don’t so much. I have an opinion on what things are true.
Gosh, that’s why it’s called an opinion. Some things have proof, some don’t so much. I have an opinion on what things are true.
Gosh, that’s why it’s called an opinion. Some things have proof, some don’t so much. I have an opinion on what things are true.
Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
when Trump said this:
“If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman’s card.”
was he talking about her accomplishments and temperament ?
when Scott Baio retweeted that “cunt” tweet, was he talking about her accomplishments and temperament ?
Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
when Trump said this:
“If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman’s card.”
was he talking about her accomplishments and temperament ?
when Scott Baio retweeted that “cunt” tweet, was he talking about her accomplishments and temperament ?
Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
when Trump said this:
“If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman’s card.”
was he talking about her accomplishments and temperament ?
when Scott Baio retweeted that “cunt” tweet, was he talking about her accomplishments and temperament ?
Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
that’s your party’s nominee. explore that.
Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
that’s your party’s nominee. explore that.
Exploring misogyny is a way to intimidate and silence her critics.
that’s your party’s nominee. explore that.
“The Count: But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.”
I can’t speak for all Hillary haters, but I am sure she was trying to keep her emails from becoming traceable through automatic backups on government servers. She wanted to have control over what was deleted and what was saved and who had access to the servers they resided on. In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any mails that might prove politically damaging. Even if they didn’t quite get them all.
Intentional evasion of a basic tenet of government policy that every work email you send is subject to management by the government IT staff.
“The Count: But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.”
I can’t speak for all Hillary haters, but I am sure she was trying to keep her emails from becoming traceable through automatic backups on government servers. She wanted to have control over what was deleted and what was saved and who had access to the servers they resided on. In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any mails that might prove politically damaging. Even if they didn’t quite get them all.
Intentional evasion of a basic tenet of government policy that every work email you send is subject to management by the government IT staff.
“The Count: But I’d like to know too what Hillary haters THINK she thought she was doing.”
I can’t speak for all Hillary haters, but I am sure she was trying to keep her emails from becoming traceable through automatic backups on government servers. She wanted to have control over what was deleted and what was saved and who had access to the servers they resided on. In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any mails that might prove politically damaging. Even if they didn’t quite get them all.
Intentional evasion of a basic tenet of government policy that every work email you send is subject to management by the government IT staff.
In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any mails that might prove politically damaging.
prove it.
In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any mails that might prove politically damaging.
prove it.
In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any mails that might prove politically damaging.
prove it.
She was able to, she had control, her lawyers deleted thousands of emails and wiped the drive. That proves she was able to do it.
She was able to, she had control, her lawyers deleted thousands of emails and wiped the drive. That proves she was able to do it.
She was able to, she had control, her lawyers deleted thousands of emails and wiped the drive. That proves she was able to do it.
prove she did it.
that she was able to is irrelevant.
prove she did it.
that she was able to is irrelevant.
prove she did it.
that she was able to is irrelevant.
I have an opinion on what things are true.
Whew. For a minute there I was having doubts about my rantings. All is good. Carry on.
I have an opinion on what things are true.
Whew. For a minute there I was having doubts about my rantings. All is good. Carry on.
I have an opinion on what things are true.
Whew. For a minute there I was having doubts about my rantings. All is good. Carry on.
30,000, 22 million, but who’s counting.
This isn’t so much a “tu quoque” comment as a “you have to be sh*tting me” one.
Seriously, just an ounce of self-awareness would be welcome.
30,000, 22 million, but who’s counting.
This isn’t so much a “tu quoque” comment as a “you have to be sh*tting me” one.
Seriously, just an ounce of self-awareness would be welcome.
30,000, 22 million, but who’s counting.
This isn’t so much a “tu quoque” comment as a “you have to be sh*tting me” one.
Seriously, just an ounce of self-awareness would be welcome.
Saying someone has had a long criminal career isn’t an opinion. It’s a statement of fact.
You can certainly suspect such, with some degree of confidence less than 100%. If that’s the case, say so. Of all the charges that have been leveled against HRC, I would imagine you don’t believe with certainty that they’re all true. Maybe you have a higher degree of confidence that some percentage of them are true, but not all.
This would all be something other than your earlier general assertion that some unspecified set of her alleged misdeeds were proven. Other than certain aspects of the email thing, nothing has, particularly as criminality is concerned.
It’s my opinion that Winston Churchill was actually a housefly in disguise. It’s my opinion that the real value of pi is 7.
Or, more appropriately, it’s my opinion that some of the nudity on Game of Thrones is gratuitous – a subjective assessment that can’t really be established as fact, though it can be argued to have some degree of validity.
Saying someone has had a long criminal career isn’t an opinion. It’s a statement of fact.
You can certainly suspect such, with some degree of confidence less than 100%. If that’s the case, say so. Of all the charges that have been leveled against HRC, I would imagine you don’t believe with certainty that they’re all true. Maybe you have a higher degree of confidence that some percentage of them are true, but not all.
This would all be something other than your earlier general assertion that some unspecified set of her alleged misdeeds were proven. Other than certain aspects of the email thing, nothing has, particularly as criminality is concerned.
It’s my opinion that Winston Churchill was actually a housefly in disguise. It’s my opinion that the real value of pi is 7.
Or, more appropriately, it’s my opinion that some of the nudity on Game of Thrones is gratuitous – a subjective assessment that can’t really be established as fact, though it can be argued to have some degree of validity.
Saying someone has had a long criminal career isn’t an opinion. It’s a statement of fact.
You can certainly suspect such, with some degree of confidence less than 100%. If that’s the case, say so. Of all the charges that have been leveled against HRC, I would imagine you don’t believe with certainty that they’re all true. Maybe you have a higher degree of confidence that some percentage of them are true, but not all.
This would all be something other than your earlier general assertion that some unspecified set of her alleged misdeeds were proven. Other than certain aspects of the email thing, nothing has, particularly as criminality is concerned.
It’s my opinion that Winston Churchill was actually a housefly in disguise. It’s my opinion that the real value of pi is 7.
Or, more appropriately, it’s my opinion that some of the nudity on Game of Thrones is gratuitous – a subjective assessment that can’t really be established as fact, though it can be argued to have some degree of validity.
Thank you for that link, Russell. I knew about Colin Powell, but had completely forgotten the Rove stuff. Honestly, the hypocrisy is beyond belief.
Thank you for that link, Russell. I knew about Colin Powell, but had completely forgotten the Rove stuff. Honestly, the hypocrisy is beyond belief.
Thank you for that link, Russell. I knew about Colin Powell, but had completely forgotten the Rove stuff. Honestly, the hypocrisy is beyond belief.
I have it on good authority that John Jay, first US Secretary of State (acting) did NOT keep his email on the official server.
It’s been a long run of criminality ever since.
Just for fun, how many here run their own private email servers? My own crime spree started decades ago, and the timestamps on the code actually precede the issuing of the SMTP RFC821.
I have it on good authority that John Jay, first US Secretary of State (acting) did NOT keep his email on the official server.
It’s been a long run of criminality ever since.
Just for fun, how many here run their own private email servers? My own crime spree started decades ago, and the timestamps on the code actually precede the issuing of the SMTP RFC821.
I have it on good authority that John Jay, first US Secretary of State (acting) did NOT keep his email on the official server.
It’s been a long run of criminality ever since.
Just for fun, how many here run their own private email servers? My own crime spree started decades ago, and the timestamps on the code actually precede the issuing of the SMTP RFC821.
I stood near Karl Rove at baggage claim in Denver some years ago.
Any doubts about whether or not I’m all talk and no action should therefore be put to rest, given that he still lives.
I’d hate his guts even if he were a woman.
I stood near Karl Rove at baggage claim in Denver some years ago.
Any doubts about whether or not I’m all talk and no action should therefore be put to rest, given that he still lives.
I’d hate his guts even if he were a woman.
I stood near Karl Rove at baggage claim in Denver some years ago.
Any doubts about whether or not I’m all talk and no action should therefore be put to rest, given that he still lives.
I’d hate his guts even if he were a woman.
Not me. Everything’s in the cloud, and I expect hostile foreign powers are monitoring my criminal mastermindedness 24/7
Not me. Everything’s in the cloud, and I expect hostile foreign powers are monitoring my criminal mastermindedness 24/7
Not me. Everything’s in the cloud, and I expect hostile foreign powers are monitoring my criminal mastermindedness 24/7
“In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any emails that might prove politically damaging.”
Except that many CDS sufferers think their opinion that all of the emails she didn’t delete are politically damaging truth too.
“Dear Chelsea:
Turn left at Albuquerque.
Love, Mom”
Commie hag!
“In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any emails that might prove politically damaging.”
Except that many CDS sufferers think their opinion that all of the emails she didn’t delete are politically damaging truth too.
“Dear Chelsea:
Turn left at Albuquerque.
Love, Mom”
Commie hag!
“In the end, she succeeded in being able to delete any emails that might prove politically damaging.”
Except that many CDS sufferers think their opinion that all of the emails she didn’t delete are politically damaging truth too.
“Dear Chelsea:
Turn left at Albuquerque.
Love, Mom”
Commie hag!
Just for fun, how many here run their own private email servers?
i did, way back in the day. but now i let Google handle that for me.
i’m actually about to throw my only Linux box away – a ~20 year old VAIO laptop.
Just for fun, how many here run their own private email servers?
i did, way back in the day. but now i let Google handle that for me.
i’m actually about to throw my only Linux box away – a ~20 year old VAIO laptop.
Just for fun, how many here run their own private email servers?
i did, way back in the day. but now i let Google handle that for me.
i’m actually about to throw my only Linux box away – a ~20 year old VAIO laptop.
Russell,
The 22million was the RNC mail server for sending out political mailings that was required by law to not be a government server. Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal. Not even close to the same fing thing.
Russell,
The 22million was the RNC mail server for sending out political mailings that was required by law to not be a government server. Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal. Not even close to the same fing thing.
Russell,
The 22million was the RNC mail server for sending out political mailings that was required by law to not be a government server. Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal. Not even close to the same fing thing.
Colin Powell had a State department account that he used primarily. Like most of us he also had a private email that it was determined his assistant had forwarded 13 emails to when he didn’t have access to his State account. Once again, not even close to the same thing.
Colin Powell had a State department account that he used primarily. Like most of us he also had a private email that it was determined his assistant had forwarded 13 emails to when he didn’t have access to his State account. Once again, not even close to the same thing.
Colin Powell had a State department account that he used primarily. Like most of us he also had a private email that it was determined his assistant had forwarded 13 emails to when he didn’t have access to his State account. Once again, not even close to the same thing.
Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal.
you must’ve been so upset!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal.
you must’ve been so upset!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal.
you must’ve been so upset!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
The 22million was the RNC mail server for sending out political mailings that was required by law to not be a government server. Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal. Not even close to the same fing thing.
The email domain was created to handle political mailings that were required by law to not be on a government server.
In the course of an investigation of Bush’s midterm firing of several US AG’s, it emerged that the political account was, illegally, being used for internal White House communications.
It was against the law. Millions – not thousands – of emails were deleted.
Catch up.
The 22million was the RNC mail server for sending out political mailings that was required by law to not be a government server. Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal. Not even close to the same fing thing.
The email domain was created to handle political mailings that were required by law to not be on a government server.
In the course of an investigation of Bush’s midterm firing of several US AG’s, it emerged that the political account was, illegally, being used for internal White House communications.
It was against the law. Millions – not thousands – of emails were deleted.
Catch up.
The 22million was the RNC mail server for sending out political mailings that was required by law to not be a government server. Sending political mailings on government servers is illegal. Not even close to the same fing thing.
The email domain was created to handle political mailings that were required by law to not be on a government server.
In the course of an investigation of Bush’s midterm firing of several US AG’s, it emerged that the political account was, illegally, being used for internal White House communications.
It was against the law. Millions – not thousands – of emails were deleted.
Catch up.
Regarding racist, sexist, etc. These accusations have become a nuclear conversation stopper. They are overused, and should be abandoned.
Regarding racist, sexist, etc. These accusations have become a nuclear conversation stopper. They are overused, and should be abandoned.
Regarding racist, sexist, etc. These accusations have become a nuclear conversation stopper. They are overused, and should be abandoned.
While often open racism, and usually covert sexism, is still so prevalent, we cannot abandon these terms (although of course we should be careful that they are not just a way to shut down difficult conversations). How would you explain e.g. white supremacists’ support for Trump? What is it about him that you would suggest they like so much?
While often open racism, and usually covert sexism, is still so prevalent, we cannot abandon these terms (although of course we should be careful that they are not just a way to shut down difficult conversations). How would you explain e.g. white supremacists’ support for Trump? What is it about him that you would suggest they like so much?
While often open racism, and usually covert sexism, is still so prevalent, we cannot abandon these terms (although of course we should be careful that they are not just a way to shut down difficult conversations). How would you explain e.g. white supremacists’ support for Trump? What is it about him that you would suggest they like so much?
I would guess they think he shares their bigotry.
I would guess they think he shares their bigotry.
I would guess they think he shares their bigotry.
I see, umbrella terms OK. I could live with that, I guess, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t shut down the conversation just the same to say “that’s bigotry”.
I see, umbrella terms OK. I could live with that, I guess, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t shut down the conversation just the same to say “that’s bigotry”.
I see, umbrella terms OK. I could live with that, I guess, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t shut down the conversation just the same to say “that’s bigotry”.
HRC is running for president of the USA, not the PTA. It is a tough job and taking hits is part of it. Is is sexist to call her a liar?
Here’s a fun link: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/07/05/hillary-clinton-vs-james-comey-email-sca
Yep, she’s a liar.
There is another mash-up going around comparing her before and after statements on SSM.
Yep, more lying.
She’s married to a world class liar. A man who lied right up until he was confronted with irrefutable evidence and had no choice but to confess.
Prior to that, his enablers echoed his lies. After, they said his lies didn’t matter, not a big deal, etc.
It’s a sham marriage by any normal standard which is its own kind of lie.
One can argue she’s a better and safer alternative to Trump and be on defensible, even safe ground. But that bar is so low, it’s underground.
Here’s another fun one: the Marc Rich pardon. Anyone want to spin that?
Did you know that almost every state requires non-profits to file detailed financial reports and lists of donors?
That’s why some non-profits go ‘offshore’. Here’s another fun link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clin
For most outside the echo chamber, HRC and the love-of-her-life and friend of Jeffrey Epstein husband are among the least transparent, least accountable human beings in the world.
She may have spent here entire life caring more than anyone else in the world about children, but it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb.
HRC is running for president of the USA, not the PTA. It is a tough job and taking hits is part of it. Is is sexist to call her a liar?
Here’s a fun link: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/07/05/hillary-clinton-vs-james-comey-email-sca
Yep, she’s a liar.
There is another mash-up going around comparing her before and after statements on SSM.
Yep, more lying.
She’s married to a world class liar. A man who lied right up until he was confronted with irrefutable evidence and had no choice but to confess.
Prior to that, his enablers echoed his lies. After, they said his lies didn’t matter, not a big deal, etc.
It’s a sham marriage by any normal standard which is its own kind of lie.
One can argue she’s a better and safer alternative to Trump and be on defensible, even safe ground. But that bar is so low, it’s underground.
Here’s another fun one: the Marc Rich pardon. Anyone want to spin that?
Did you know that almost every state requires non-profits to file detailed financial reports and lists of donors?
That’s why some non-profits go ‘offshore’. Here’s another fun link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clin
For most outside the echo chamber, HRC and the love-of-her-life and friend of Jeffrey Epstein husband are among the least transparent, least accountable human beings in the world.
She may have spent here entire life caring more than anyone else in the world about children, but it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb.
HRC is running for president of the USA, not the PTA. It is a tough job and taking hits is part of it. Is is sexist to call her a liar?
Here’s a fun link: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/07/05/hillary-clinton-vs-james-comey-email-sca
Yep, she’s a liar.
There is another mash-up going around comparing her before and after statements on SSM.
Yep, more lying.
She’s married to a world class liar. A man who lied right up until he was confronted with irrefutable evidence and had no choice but to confess.
Prior to that, his enablers echoed his lies. After, they said his lies didn’t matter, not a big deal, etc.
It’s a sham marriage by any normal standard which is its own kind of lie.
One can argue she’s a better and safer alternative to Trump and be on defensible, even safe ground. But that bar is so low, it’s underground.
Here’s another fun one: the Marc Rich pardon. Anyone want to spin that?
Did you know that almost every state requires non-profits to file detailed financial reports and lists of donors?
That’s why some non-profits go ‘offshore’. Here’s another fun link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clin
For most outside the echo chamber, HRC and the love-of-her-life and friend of Jeffrey Epstein husband are among the least transparent, least accountable human beings in the world.
She may have spent here entire life caring more than anyone else in the world about children, but it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb.
I can spin the Marc Rich pardon – she didn’t do it.
I can spin the Marc Rich pardon – she didn’t do it.
I can spin the Marc Rich pardon – she didn’t do it.
It’s a sham marriage
1. mind reading
2. none of your business
3. irrelevant
It’s a sham marriage
1. mind reading
2. none of your business
3. irrelevant
It’s a sham marriage
1. mind reading
2. none of your business
3. irrelevant
I can spin the Marc Rich pardon – she didn’t do it.
Technically correct. It was the love-of-her life-Jeffrey-Goldstein-traveling-companion husband. Maybe someone will ask her about that someday.
I can spin the Marc Rich pardon – she didn’t do it.
Technically correct. It was the love-of-her life-Jeffrey-Goldstein-traveling-companion husband. Maybe someone will ask her about that someday.
I can spin the Marc Rich pardon – she didn’t do it.
Technically correct. It was the love-of-her life-Jeffrey-Goldstein-traveling-companion husband. Maybe someone will ask her about that someday.
So all of Bill Clinton’s sins, real and imagined, are fair game to be visited upon his wife?
So all of Bill Clinton’s sins, real and imagined, are fair game to be visited upon his wife?
So all of Bill Clinton’s sins, real and imagined, are fair game to be visited upon his wife?
As long as being First Lady is touted as part of her resume yes.
As long as being First Lady is touted as part of her resume yes.
As long as being First Lady is touted as part of her resume yes.
As long as being First Lady is touted as part of her resume yes.
Because when she touts that she is saying she was involved and a primary mover in every decision, official and unofficial, public and personal, that Bill ever made?
As long as being First Lady is touted as part of her resume yes.
Because when she touts that she is saying she was involved and a primary mover in every decision, official and unofficial, public and personal, that Bill ever made?
As long as being First Lady is touted as part of her resume yes.
Because when she touts that she is saying she was involved and a primary mover in every decision, official and unofficial, public and personal, that Bill ever made?
And including Bill’s travels with Jeffrey Epstein and lying about Ms. Lewinsky?
And including Bill’s travels with Jeffrey Epstein and lying about Ms. Lewinsky?
And including Bill’s travels with Jeffrey Epstein and lying about Ms. Lewinsky?
I see the cavalry has arrived. Welcome, McKinney. (aside…my picks for the PGA: Stenson or Reed).
….but it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb.
Indeed. And those are the children we should be primarily be concerned about.
Bill Clinton was not so much a liar as he just didn’t say what you folks wanted him to say.
I won’t try to spin the Rich pardon. It was contemptible.
So when do the black helicopters at the Mena airport get fired up again? Always loved those. Great show.
I see the cavalry has arrived. Welcome, McKinney. (aside…my picks for the PGA: Stenson or Reed).
….but it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb.
Indeed. And those are the children we should be primarily be concerned about.
Bill Clinton was not so much a liar as he just didn’t say what you folks wanted him to say.
I won’t try to spin the Rich pardon. It was contemptible.
So when do the black helicopters at the Mena airport get fired up again? Always loved those. Great show.
I see the cavalry has arrived. Welcome, McKinney. (aside…my picks for the PGA: Stenson or Reed).
….but it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb.
Indeed. And those are the children we should be primarily be concerned about.
Bill Clinton was not so much a liar as he just didn’t say what you folks wanted him to say.
I won’t try to spin the Rich pardon. It was contemptible.
So when do the black helicopters at the Mena airport get fired up again? Always loved those. Great show.
McKT, your last link isn’t working.
Off the top of my head:
It’s not sexist to call someone a liar, if you can stand it up. What is SSM?
Bill’s lies are, or should be, pretty irrelevant, I think.
As for it being “a sham marriage, which is its own kind of lie”, I think this grossly underestimates the huge range of different kinds of true and successful marriage, which can variously provide companionship, intellectual stimulation, affection, shared love for family, sexual love, and any combination of these or many more kinds of gratification.
The Marc Rich pardon: I seem to remember that this stank quite a bit. Weren’t there various kinds of legal opinion justifications after the event, none of which were that convincing? But again: Bill.
Jeffrey Epstein: absolutely ghastly, although one has to assume his paedophilia and trafficking were unknown, or otherwise would have been considered too risky. I do not consider a spouse’s libertinage to necessarily be a black mark against their spouse.
Abortion: It’s inevitable that people who are “pro-life” think of abortion as the murder of children. Neither this conviction, nor it’s obverse (or do I mean converse?) seems susceptible to argument, so I won’t try.
What may be sexist is using Bill’s lies, or possible lies, or behaviour, to tar Hillary. Nor am I so convinced that Bill’s lies, or behaviour, were so much worse than many other successful politicians and presidents (e.g. Nixon, Reagan, JFK).
McKT, your last link isn’t working.
Off the top of my head:
It’s not sexist to call someone a liar, if you can stand it up. What is SSM?
Bill’s lies are, or should be, pretty irrelevant, I think.
As for it being “a sham marriage, which is its own kind of lie”, I think this grossly underestimates the huge range of different kinds of true and successful marriage, which can variously provide companionship, intellectual stimulation, affection, shared love for family, sexual love, and any combination of these or many more kinds of gratification.
The Marc Rich pardon: I seem to remember that this stank quite a bit. Weren’t there various kinds of legal opinion justifications after the event, none of which were that convincing? But again: Bill.
Jeffrey Epstein: absolutely ghastly, although one has to assume his paedophilia and trafficking were unknown, or otherwise would have been considered too risky. I do not consider a spouse’s libertinage to necessarily be a black mark against their spouse.
Abortion: It’s inevitable that people who are “pro-life” think of abortion as the murder of children. Neither this conviction, nor it’s obverse (or do I mean converse?) seems susceptible to argument, so I won’t try.
What may be sexist is using Bill’s lies, or possible lies, or behaviour, to tar Hillary. Nor am I so convinced that Bill’s lies, or behaviour, were so much worse than many other successful politicians and presidents (e.g. Nixon, Reagan, JFK).
McKT, your last link isn’t working.
Off the top of my head:
It’s not sexist to call someone a liar, if you can stand it up. What is SSM?
Bill’s lies are, or should be, pretty irrelevant, I think.
As for it being “a sham marriage, which is its own kind of lie”, I think this grossly underestimates the huge range of different kinds of true and successful marriage, which can variously provide companionship, intellectual stimulation, affection, shared love for family, sexual love, and any combination of these or many more kinds of gratification.
The Marc Rich pardon: I seem to remember that this stank quite a bit. Weren’t there various kinds of legal opinion justifications after the event, none of which were that convincing? But again: Bill.
Jeffrey Epstein: absolutely ghastly, although one has to assume his paedophilia and trafficking were unknown, or otherwise would have been considered too risky. I do not consider a spouse’s libertinage to necessarily be a black mark against their spouse.
Abortion: It’s inevitable that people who are “pro-life” think of abortion as the murder of children. Neither this conviction, nor it’s obverse (or do I mean converse?) seems susceptible to argument, so I won’t try.
What may be sexist is using Bill’s lies, or possible lies, or behaviour, to tar Hillary. Nor am I so convinced that Bill’s lies, or behaviour, were so much worse than many other successful politicians and presidents (e.g. Nixon, Reagan, JFK).
what’s awesome about that ‘reason’ video is the way it lies about lying. right off the bat, first 20 seconds:
Clinton: “i did not email any classified material to anyone.”
cut to Comey: “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to have contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.”
the video’s editor’s clear implication is that Comey is saying that Clinton wrote those 110 emails. the report says otherwise. Clinton was on the receiving end of many of those emails, and in some cases only participated in the chains at a managerial level when the chains got bumped up to her office: “hey boss, what about this?”
another implication is that this classified information originated from within the US govt and Clinton included it in her emails without authorization, as if information once classified is somehow off limits to anyone else in the world. but in fact, much of the information in the emails came to the State Dept from sources outside the US govt. that the information had been classified wasn’t known to those sources because they don’t work for the US government and the US government isn’t the only source of information in the world. their emails were effectively classified retroactively because the senders had no way to know it was classified at the time it was sent.
more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
what’s awesome about that ‘reason’ video is the way it lies about lying. right off the bat, first 20 seconds:
Clinton: “i did not email any classified material to anyone.”
cut to Comey: “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to have contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.”
the video’s editor’s clear implication is that Comey is saying that Clinton wrote those 110 emails. the report says otherwise. Clinton was on the receiving end of many of those emails, and in some cases only participated in the chains at a managerial level when the chains got bumped up to her office: “hey boss, what about this?”
another implication is that this classified information originated from within the US govt and Clinton included it in her emails without authorization, as if information once classified is somehow off limits to anyone else in the world. but in fact, much of the information in the emails came to the State Dept from sources outside the US govt. that the information had been classified wasn’t known to those sources because they don’t work for the US government and the US government isn’t the only source of information in the world. their emails were effectively classified retroactively because the senders had no way to know it was classified at the time it was sent.
more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
what’s awesome about that ‘reason’ video is the way it lies about lying. right off the bat, first 20 seconds:
Clinton: “i did not email any classified material to anyone.”
cut to Comey: “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to have contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.”
the video’s editor’s clear implication is that Comey is saying that Clinton wrote those 110 emails. the report says otherwise. Clinton was on the receiving end of many of those emails, and in some cases only participated in the chains at a managerial level when the chains got bumped up to her office: “hey boss, what about this?”
another implication is that this classified information originated from within the US govt and Clinton included it in her emails without authorization, as if information once classified is somehow off limits to anyone else in the world. but in fact, much of the information in the emails came to the State Dept from sources outside the US govt. that the information had been classified wasn’t known to those sources because they don’t work for the US government and the US government isn’t the only source of information in the world. their emails were effectively classified retroactively because the senders had no way to know it was classified at the time it was sent.
more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
I have a former classmate – a Bosniak, a Sanders supporter, a first-time political enthusiast this year who’s now very, very bitter – who has never forgotten Clinton’s self-aggrandizing lies about coming under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. It was somewhat surprising to hear the amount of venom that generated even all these years later.
BSing on a point like that fits right in tin ears and bad judgement. She was greeted with a mess of television cameras on the tarmac, yet she felt safe in puffing herself up by concocting a tale that could be very baldly shown to be false…
I have a former classmate – a Bosniak, a Sanders supporter, a first-time political enthusiast this year who’s now very, very bitter – who has never forgotten Clinton’s self-aggrandizing lies about coming under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. It was somewhat surprising to hear the amount of venom that generated even all these years later.
BSing on a point like that fits right in tin ears and bad judgement. She was greeted with a mess of television cameras on the tarmac, yet she felt safe in puffing herself up by concocting a tale that could be very baldly shown to be false…
I have a former classmate – a Bosniak, a Sanders supporter, a first-time political enthusiast this year who’s now very, very bitter – who has never forgotten Clinton’s self-aggrandizing lies about coming under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. It was somewhat surprising to hear the amount of venom that generated even all these years later.
BSing on a point like that fits right in tin ears and bad judgement. She was greeted with a mess of television cameras on the tarmac, yet she felt safe in puffing herself up by concocting a tale that could be very baldly shown to be false…
“another implication is that this classified information originated from within the US govt and Clinton included it in her emails without authorization, as if information once classified is somehow off limits to anyone else in the world. but in fact, much of the information in the emails came to the State Dept from sources outside the US govt. that the information had been classified wasn’t known to those sources because they don’t work for the US government ”
None of this is relevant, she should have been using the secure account where classified emails were permitted. Then it wouldn’t have mattered who sent it or if she sent it. That’s the point. Then she lied about it.
“another implication is that this classified information originated from within the US govt and Clinton included it in her emails without authorization, as if information once classified is somehow off limits to anyone else in the world. but in fact, much of the information in the emails came to the State Dept from sources outside the US govt. that the information had been classified wasn’t known to those sources because they don’t work for the US government ”
None of this is relevant, she should have been using the secure account where classified emails were permitted. Then it wouldn’t have mattered who sent it or if she sent it. That’s the point. Then she lied about it.
“another implication is that this classified information originated from within the US govt and Clinton included it in her emails without authorization, as if information once classified is somehow off limits to anyone else in the world. but in fact, much of the information in the emails came to the State Dept from sources outside the US govt. that the information had been classified wasn’t known to those sources because they don’t work for the US government ”
None of this is relevant, she should have been using the secure account where classified emails were permitted. Then it wouldn’t have mattered who sent it or if she sent it. That’s the point. Then she lied about it.
McKinney,
In that little mash-up video you linked to, Jim Comey says that “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received”.
Care to examine that for us the way you would if the Director of the FBI had said it about a client of yours, in a press conference to announce that his agency was NOT asking for an indictment?
“Determined” how? What “owning agency”? When did the “classified” material become owned by the unspecified agency? What was classified about the “material” anyway? (Was it the agency director’s cellphone number, or nuclear codes, or what?) These are some of the questions I’d ask if I were NOT a CDS sufferer, and IANevenAL.
BTW, “it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb” is a nice, lawyerly touch. I suppose that the “primarily” would be sotto voce if you were speaking to a jury, to avoid drawing attention to the fact that pre-natal care for mothers (the wombs you reference) is in fact a pretty good indication of actual, practical concern for children who have not yet made a break for it.
–TP
McKinney,
In that little mash-up video you linked to, Jim Comey says that “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received”.
Care to examine that for us the way you would if the Director of the FBI had said it about a client of yours, in a press conference to announce that his agency was NOT asking for an indictment?
“Determined” how? What “owning agency”? When did the “classified” material become owned by the unspecified agency? What was classified about the “material” anyway? (Was it the agency director’s cellphone number, or nuclear codes, or what?) These are some of the questions I’d ask if I were NOT a CDS sufferer, and IANevenAL.
BTW, “it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb” is a nice, lawyerly touch. I suppose that the “primarily” would be sotto voce if you were speaking to a jury, to avoid drawing attention to the fact that pre-natal care for mothers (the wombs you reference) is in fact a pretty good indication of actual, practical concern for children who have not yet made a break for it.
–TP
McKinney,
In that little mash-up video you linked to, Jim Comey says that “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received”.
Care to examine that for us the way you would if the Director of the FBI had said it about a client of yours, in a press conference to announce that his agency was NOT asking for an indictment?
“Determined” how? What “owning agency”? When did the “classified” material become owned by the unspecified agency? What was classified about the “material” anyway? (Was it the agency director’s cellphone number, or nuclear codes, or what?) These are some of the questions I’d ask if I were NOT a CDS sufferer, and IANevenAL.
BTW, “it’s fair to say that her concern extends primarily to children who have successfully left the womb” is a nice, lawyerly touch. I suppose that the “primarily” would be sotto voce if you were speaking to a jury, to avoid drawing attention to the fact that pre-natal care for mothers (the wombs you reference) is in fact a pretty good indication of actual, practical concern for children who have not yet made a break for it.
–TP
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
BC spoke on her behalf at the convention. He has campaigned aggressively for her. She takes full advantage of whatever advantage that shitheel brings to the table.
Spin it as you see fit. As I said, outside the echo chamber, it stinks to high heaven.
Better than Trump? BFD.
Aside: The PGA? No clue. Looks like about a 15 way knife fight right now.
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
BC spoke on her behalf at the convention. He has campaigned aggressively for her. She takes full advantage of whatever advantage that shitheel brings to the table.
Spin it as you see fit. As I said, outside the echo chamber, it stinks to high heaven.
Better than Trump? BFD.
Aside: The PGA? No clue. Looks like about a 15 way knife fight right now.
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
BC spoke on her behalf at the convention. He has campaigned aggressively for her. She takes full advantage of whatever advantage that shitheel brings to the table.
Spin it as you see fit. As I said, outside the echo chamber, it stinks to high heaven.
Better than Trump? BFD.
Aside: The PGA? No clue. Looks like about a 15 way knife fight right now.
Better than Trump? BFD.
Actually, POTUS is a BFD, and she’s better than Trump.
Now I have to go find out who Jeffrey freaking Epstein is.
Wasn’t he in Welcome Back Kotter?
Better than Trump? BFD.
Actually, POTUS is a BFD, and she’s better than Trump.
Now I have to go find out who Jeffrey freaking Epstein is.
Wasn’t he in Welcome Back Kotter?
Better than Trump? BFD.
Actually, POTUS is a BFD, and she’s better than Trump.
Now I have to go find out who Jeffrey freaking Epstein is.
Wasn’t he in Welcome Back Kotter?
I have a former classmate – a Bosniak, a Sanders supporter, a first-time political enthusiast this year who’s now very, very bitter – who has never forgotten Clinton’s self-aggrandizing lies about coming under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. It was somewhat surprising to hear the amount of venom that generated even all these years later.
Another good example of HRC’s mendacity. She and Bill would still be in Arkansas–although probably long since divorced–if she hadn’t made enabling his serial lying about virtually every aspect of his life a matter of course.
As for mind reading, go back and read Doc’s post. Talk about mind reading. Not to mention stereotyping.
I have a former classmate – a Bosniak, a Sanders supporter, a first-time political enthusiast this year who’s now very, very bitter – who has never forgotten Clinton’s self-aggrandizing lies about coming under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. It was somewhat surprising to hear the amount of venom that generated even all these years later.
Another good example of HRC’s mendacity. She and Bill would still be in Arkansas–although probably long since divorced–if she hadn’t made enabling his serial lying about virtually every aspect of his life a matter of course.
As for mind reading, go back and read Doc’s post. Talk about mind reading. Not to mention stereotyping.
I have a former classmate – a Bosniak, a Sanders supporter, a first-time political enthusiast this year who’s now very, very bitter – who has never forgotten Clinton’s self-aggrandizing lies about coming under sniper fire when landing in Bosnia. It was somewhat surprising to hear the amount of venom that generated even all these years later.
Another good example of HRC’s mendacity. She and Bill would still be in Arkansas–although probably long since divorced–if she hadn’t made enabling his serial lying about virtually every aspect of his life a matter of course.
As for mind reading, go back and read Doc’s post. Talk about mind reading. Not to mention stereotyping.
“HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC.”
And Ted Cruz would be a total unknown but for Fidel Castro. I’m not sure how we’ll ever forgive Castro for that one.
“HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC.”
And Ted Cruz would be a total unknown but for Fidel Castro. I’m not sure how we’ll ever forgive Castro for that one.
“HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC.”
And Ted Cruz would be a total unknown but for Fidel Castro. I’m not sure how we’ll ever forgive Castro for that one.
Now I have to go find out who Jeffrey freaking Epstein is.
Shower up afterward. He seems to be a real POS. But then if we didn’t have a system that enabled jerks like him to
stealmake billions then all those celebs who lapped up his lavishness would never have spoken to him.Lots of ways to play this game! Love it!
Now I have to go find out who Jeffrey freaking Epstein is.
Shower up afterward. He seems to be a real POS. But then if we didn’t have a system that enabled jerks like him to
stealmake billions then all those celebs who lapped up his lavishness would never have spoken to him.Lots of ways to play this game! Love it!
Now I have to go find out who Jeffrey freaking Epstein is.
Shower up afterward. He seems to be a real POS. But then if we didn’t have a system that enabled jerks like him to
stealmake billions then all those celebs who lapped up his lavishness would never have spoken to him.Lots of ways to play this game! Love it!
the report says otherwise. Clinton was on the receiving end of many of those emails, and in some cases only participated in the chains at a managerial level when the chains got bumped up to her office: “hey boss, what about this?”
From your link:
…and this is from March. The final FBI report was less forgiving.
OTOH:
This raises a point rarely touched on in discussions of this affair. Okay, the docs were classified. We’ve heard that every time. But… most weren’t Secret or above? What, then? Were they Confidential? Or are they using the sloppy language that includes various “unclassified but controlled” classifications (For Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive, Sensitive But Unclassified) under the rubric of “classified”? I’m slightly curious now.
—
“Determined” how? What “owning agency”? When did the “classified” material become owned by the unspecified agency? What was classified about the “material” anyway? (Was it the agency director’s cellphone number, or nuclear codes, or what?) These are some of the questions I’d ask if I were NOT a CDS sufferer, and IANevenAL.
If you were a lawyer who was familiar with internal workings of gov’t agencies (as I’d hope you were in such a case), you wouldn’t be asking those questions, as they revolve around bureaucratic Terms of Art and boilerplate language for released statements. That statement by Comey sounds very straightforward and clear to my quite-modestly-bureaucratically-tuned ear. Not detailed, nor precise, but it’s meant as an executive summary, so that wouldn’t be expected…
—
I’ll be the first to say that the gov’t aggressively overclassifies documents. I’ll likewise be quick to point out the degree to which mishandling classified information is prosecuted in an extremely selective and highly political manner. What personally bothers me the most about the whole mess was Clinton’s blase attitude that rules should not apply to her because she didn’t want to be inconvenienced (and it’s hard to find a more forgiving way to describe her refusal to use the older-model secure smartphone she was offered as an alternative to the Blackberry she so dearly wanted). That is absolutely not an attribute that is desirable in an executive.
the report says otherwise. Clinton was on the receiving end of many of those emails, and in some cases only participated in the chains at a managerial level when the chains got bumped up to her office: “hey boss, what about this?”
From your link:
…and this is from March. The final FBI report was less forgiving.
OTOH:
This raises a point rarely touched on in discussions of this affair. Okay, the docs were classified. We’ve heard that every time. But… most weren’t Secret or above? What, then? Were they Confidential? Or are they using the sloppy language that includes various “unclassified but controlled” classifications (For Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive, Sensitive But Unclassified) under the rubric of “classified”? I’m slightly curious now.
—
“Determined” how? What “owning agency”? When did the “classified” material become owned by the unspecified agency? What was classified about the “material” anyway? (Was it the agency director’s cellphone number, or nuclear codes, or what?) These are some of the questions I’d ask if I were NOT a CDS sufferer, and IANevenAL.
If you were a lawyer who was familiar with internal workings of gov’t agencies (as I’d hope you were in such a case), you wouldn’t be asking those questions, as they revolve around bureaucratic Terms of Art and boilerplate language for released statements. That statement by Comey sounds very straightforward and clear to my quite-modestly-bureaucratically-tuned ear. Not detailed, nor precise, but it’s meant as an executive summary, so that wouldn’t be expected…
—
I’ll be the first to say that the gov’t aggressively overclassifies documents. I’ll likewise be quick to point out the degree to which mishandling classified information is prosecuted in an extremely selective and highly political manner. What personally bothers me the most about the whole mess was Clinton’s blase attitude that rules should not apply to her because she didn’t want to be inconvenienced (and it’s hard to find a more forgiving way to describe her refusal to use the older-model secure smartphone she was offered as an alternative to the Blackberry she so dearly wanted). That is absolutely not an attribute that is desirable in an executive.
the report says otherwise. Clinton was on the receiving end of many of those emails, and in some cases only participated in the chains at a managerial level when the chains got bumped up to her office: “hey boss, what about this?”
From your link:
…and this is from March. The final FBI report was less forgiving.
OTOH:
This raises a point rarely touched on in discussions of this affair. Okay, the docs were classified. We’ve heard that every time. But… most weren’t Secret or above? What, then? Were they Confidential? Or are they using the sloppy language that includes various “unclassified but controlled” classifications (For Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive, Sensitive But Unclassified) under the rubric of “classified”? I’m slightly curious now.
—
“Determined” how? What “owning agency”? When did the “classified” material become owned by the unspecified agency? What was classified about the “material” anyway? (Was it the agency director’s cellphone number, or nuclear codes, or what?) These are some of the questions I’d ask if I were NOT a CDS sufferer, and IANevenAL.
If you were a lawyer who was familiar with internal workings of gov’t agencies (as I’d hope you were in such a case), you wouldn’t be asking those questions, as they revolve around bureaucratic Terms of Art and boilerplate language for released statements. That statement by Comey sounds very straightforward and clear to my quite-modestly-bureaucratically-tuned ear. Not detailed, nor precise, but it’s meant as an executive summary, so that wouldn’t be expected…
—
I’ll be the first to say that the gov’t aggressively overclassifies documents. I’ll likewise be quick to point out the degree to which mishandling classified information is prosecuted in an extremely selective and highly political manner. What personally bothers me the most about the whole mess was Clinton’s blase attitude that rules should not apply to her because she didn’t want to be inconvenienced (and it’s hard to find a more forgiving way to describe her refusal to use the older-model secure smartphone she was offered as an alternative to the Blackberry she so dearly wanted). That is absolutely not an attribute that is desirable in an executive.
Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
Using a relative’s career as a political springboard is extremely common. Would Al Gore have won his first campaign for a House seat (as a 28 year old law school dropout, if his father hadn’t been a US Senator (and previous holder of that same seat)?
Picking the right parents (or the right spouse) is often used as a political leg up. Maybe (OK, certainly) it shouldn’t be. But to act like its an unusual feature of Clinton’s is to ignore history.
Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
Using a relative’s career as a political springboard is extremely common. Would Al Gore have won his first campaign for a House seat (as a 28 year old law school dropout, if his father hadn’t been a US Senator (and previous holder of that same seat)?
Picking the right parents (or the right spouse) is often used as a political leg up. Maybe (OK, certainly) it shouldn’t be. But to act like its an unusual feature of Clinton’s is to ignore history.
Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
Using a relative’s career as a political springboard is extremely common. Would Al Gore have won his first campaign for a House seat (as a 28 year old law school dropout, if his father hadn’t been a US Senator (and previous holder of that same seat)?
Picking the right parents (or the right spouse) is often used as a political leg up. Maybe (OK, certainly) it shouldn’t be. But to act like its an unusual feature of Clinton’s is to ignore history.
Here’s my take on all this stuff.
JFK would screw anything with a skirt. LBJ too, apparently.
Nixon wasn’t prone to that particular abuse of power, he found a million other ways to screw folks.
Carter – say whatever you want about him, he was, and remains, a genuinely nice guy.
Reagan arguably suffered from senile dementia while in office. Nancy, of course, offered her advice and guidance, based on her consultations with her astrologer.
Bush I, good family man apparently, but way way *way* too friendly with the spooks and rat-f**kers for my taste. “Outside the loop” my ass. Corruption is not just about the bedroom.
Bill Clinton was IMO a pretty corrupt guy at a personal level. Not a bad President, though, in spite of it.
Bush II, that well-meaning man of god, apparently considered rat-f**king a kind of family pastime, and surrounded himself with the most bloodthirsty cabal of ghouls I think this nation has ever seen assembled in one place. Plus, there is just something off about the man. My personal opinion is that he suffers from a pretty serious cognitive deficit, perhaps alcohol induced. But what the hell do I know.
Obama actually seems pretty good, all things considered.
That’s just presidents.
Access to attractive young people for purposes of sex appears to be one of the perks of national office. With or without wetsuits. Hollywood for ugly people, right?
Also, too, sweet insider financial deals. Also, too, access to big buckets of money other than for your own personal use.
Some folks go straight for the dark side, some stay squeaky clean, and most IMO end up somewhere in the grey zone.
Professional politics, especially at high levels, is one of those fields that seem to bring out the id in everyone who participates.
I don’t really care if Bill Clinton screwed around. Not my problem. I don’t care if Hillary is the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin. If I was woman and went that way, I would want to be the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin.
I don’t care if they know sleazy people. We all know sleazy people. Some of us are, or have been, sleazy people, no doubt.
I don’t look to elected representatives to set a High Moral Tone for my life. I have my own resources to draw on in that regard.
I want them to keep the f**king lights on.
It would be great if they would also behave themselves like rational adults in their personal life, because that will make it much more likely that they will succeed at the keeping-the-lights-on part.
What they do at home, I just do not care.
I surely don’t care if the Clintons share a bedroom or not. Not my freaking business, nor is it anyone else’s other than them or their family.
I never fail to be amazed at the stuff that people obsess about.
Here’s my take on all this stuff.
JFK would screw anything with a skirt. LBJ too, apparently.
Nixon wasn’t prone to that particular abuse of power, he found a million other ways to screw folks.
Carter – say whatever you want about him, he was, and remains, a genuinely nice guy.
Reagan arguably suffered from senile dementia while in office. Nancy, of course, offered her advice and guidance, based on her consultations with her astrologer.
Bush I, good family man apparently, but way way *way* too friendly with the spooks and rat-f**kers for my taste. “Outside the loop” my ass. Corruption is not just about the bedroom.
Bill Clinton was IMO a pretty corrupt guy at a personal level. Not a bad President, though, in spite of it.
Bush II, that well-meaning man of god, apparently considered rat-f**king a kind of family pastime, and surrounded himself with the most bloodthirsty cabal of ghouls I think this nation has ever seen assembled in one place. Plus, there is just something off about the man. My personal opinion is that he suffers from a pretty serious cognitive deficit, perhaps alcohol induced. But what the hell do I know.
Obama actually seems pretty good, all things considered.
That’s just presidents.
Access to attractive young people for purposes of sex appears to be one of the perks of national office. With or without wetsuits. Hollywood for ugly people, right?
Also, too, sweet insider financial deals. Also, too, access to big buckets of money other than for your own personal use.
Some folks go straight for the dark side, some stay squeaky clean, and most IMO end up somewhere in the grey zone.
Professional politics, especially at high levels, is one of those fields that seem to bring out the id in everyone who participates.
I don’t really care if Bill Clinton screwed around. Not my problem. I don’t care if Hillary is the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin. If I was woman and went that way, I would want to be the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin.
I don’t care if they know sleazy people. We all know sleazy people. Some of us are, or have been, sleazy people, no doubt.
I don’t look to elected representatives to set a High Moral Tone for my life. I have my own resources to draw on in that regard.
I want them to keep the f**king lights on.
It would be great if they would also behave themselves like rational adults in their personal life, because that will make it much more likely that they will succeed at the keeping-the-lights-on part.
What they do at home, I just do not care.
I surely don’t care if the Clintons share a bedroom or not. Not my freaking business, nor is it anyone else’s other than them or their family.
I never fail to be amazed at the stuff that people obsess about.
Here’s my take on all this stuff.
JFK would screw anything with a skirt. LBJ too, apparently.
Nixon wasn’t prone to that particular abuse of power, he found a million other ways to screw folks.
Carter – say whatever you want about him, he was, and remains, a genuinely nice guy.
Reagan arguably suffered from senile dementia while in office. Nancy, of course, offered her advice and guidance, based on her consultations with her astrologer.
Bush I, good family man apparently, but way way *way* too friendly with the spooks and rat-f**kers for my taste. “Outside the loop” my ass. Corruption is not just about the bedroom.
Bill Clinton was IMO a pretty corrupt guy at a personal level. Not a bad President, though, in spite of it.
Bush II, that well-meaning man of god, apparently considered rat-f**king a kind of family pastime, and surrounded himself with the most bloodthirsty cabal of ghouls I think this nation has ever seen assembled in one place. Plus, there is just something off about the man. My personal opinion is that he suffers from a pretty serious cognitive deficit, perhaps alcohol induced. But what the hell do I know.
Obama actually seems pretty good, all things considered.
That’s just presidents.
Access to attractive young people for purposes of sex appears to be one of the perks of national office. With or without wetsuits. Hollywood for ugly people, right?
Also, too, sweet insider financial deals. Also, too, access to big buckets of money other than for your own personal use.
Some folks go straight for the dark side, some stay squeaky clean, and most IMO end up somewhere in the grey zone.
Professional politics, especially at high levels, is one of those fields that seem to bring out the id in everyone who participates.
I don’t really care if Bill Clinton screwed around. Not my problem. I don’t care if Hillary is the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin. If I was woman and went that way, I would want to be the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin.
I don’t care if they know sleazy people. We all know sleazy people. Some of us are, or have been, sleazy people, no doubt.
I don’t look to elected representatives to set a High Moral Tone for my life. I have my own resources to draw on in that regard.
I want them to keep the f**king lights on.
It would be great if they would also behave themselves like rational adults in their personal life, because that will make it much more likely that they will succeed at the keeping-the-lights-on part.
What they do at home, I just do not care.
I surely don’t care if the Clintons share a bedroom or not. Not my freaking business, nor is it anyone else’s other than them or their family.
I never fail to be amazed at the stuff that people obsess about.
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
I can only assume you are now trolling for the fun of it (most unusual for you, I must say). This is an astonishing comment; by all accounts she graduated well from Yale Law School, which I have always understood to be one of the top if not the top law school in America. It seems that entry to the best US law schools is extremely competitive, and that graduates of the best US law schools are often the brightest and best, because unlike in the UK, the law is seen as being a passport to the best paid and most prestigious jobs. And of course, not all law graduates aspire to well-paid jobs in the private sector.
So why, since she is by common consent (even among many of her enemies or political opponents) considered unusually clever and capable, would you think that she could not have got into the Senate under her own steam? Maybe in New York, maybe somewhere else. Secretary of State I grant you may have had something to do with her previous run against Obama, which may well have been premature given her experience to that point, but if she had gone into the Senate mid-way through her career and stayed for a few terms, why could she not have run successfully for POTUS? I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been tough, but then she is pretty tough. And if it would have taken longer for a woman to make it under her own steam, then it would have taken longer. George W Bush couldn’t have been POTUS without his family connections, JFK too probably, etc etc. How is it different for HRC, other than, you know, the woman thing.
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
I can only assume you are now trolling for the fun of it (most unusual for you, I must say). This is an astonishing comment; by all accounts she graduated well from Yale Law School, which I have always understood to be one of the top if not the top law school in America. It seems that entry to the best US law schools is extremely competitive, and that graduates of the best US law schools are often the brightest and best, because unlike in the UK, the law is seen as being a passport to the best paid and most prestigious jobs. And of course, not all law graduates aspire to well-paid jobs in the private sector.
So why, since she is by common consent (even among many of her enemies or political opponents) considered unusually clever and capable, would you think that she could not have got into the Senate under her own steam? Maybe in New York, maybe somewhere else. Secretary of State I grant you may have had something to do with her previous run against Obama, which may well have been premature given her experience to that point, but if she had gone into the Senate mid-way through her career and stayed for a few terms, why could she not have run successfully for POTUS? I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been tough, but then she is pretty tough. And if it would have taken longer for a woman to make it under her own steam, then it would have taken longer. George W Bush couldn’t have been POTUS without his family connections, JFK too probably, etc etc. How is it different for HRC, other than, you know, the woman thing.
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
I can only assume you are now trolling for the fun of it (most unusual for you, I must say). This is an astonishing comment; by all accounts she graduated well from Yale Law School, which I have always understood to be one of the top if not the top law school in America. It seems that entry to the best US law schools is extremely competitive, and that graduates of the best US law schools are often the brightest and best, because unlike in the UK, the law is seen as being a passport to the best paid and most prestigious jobs. And of course, not all law graduates aspire to well-paid jobs in the private sector.
So why, since she is by common consent (even among many of her enemies or political opponents) considered unusually clever and capable, would you think that she could not have got into the Senate under her own steam? Maybe in New York, maybe somewhere else. Secretary of State I grant you may have had something to do with her previous run against Obama, which may well have been premature given her experience to that point, but if she had gone into the Senate mid-way through her career and stayed for a few terms, why could she not have run successfully for POTUS? I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been tough, but then she is pretty tough. And if it would have taken longer for a woman to make it under her own steam, then it would have taken longer. George W Bush couldn’t have been POTUS without his family connections, JFK too probably, etc etc. How is it different for HRC, other than, you know, the woman thing.
Reagan arguably suffered from senile dementia while in office.
I can confirm that I attended a function at which he spoke, during his Presidency, and he didn’t seem to know what country he was in.
“It’s wonderful to be in….in….in….in…this great country”.
I am not exaggerating. I suppose it is possible that he knew there were several possible names (Britain, Great Britain, the UK, England), but the impression given was unmistakeable. I immediately told people that I thought he had Alzheimer’s.
Reagan arguably suffered from senile dementia while in office.
I can confirm that I attended a function at which he spoke, during his Presidency, and he didn’t seem to know what country he was in.
“It’s wonderful to be in….in….in….in…this great country”.
I am not exaggerating. I suppose it is possible that he knew there were several possible names (Britain, Great Britain, the UK, England), but the impression given was unmistakeable. I immediately told people that I thought he had Alzheimer’s.
Reagan arguably suffered from senile dementia while in office.
I can confirm that I attended a function at which he spoke, during his Presidency, and he didn’t seem to know what country he was in.
“It’s wonderful to be in….in….in….in…this great country”.
I am not exaggerating. I suppose it is possible that he knew there were several possible names (Britain, Great Britain, the UK, England), but the impression given was unmistakeable. I immediately told people that I thought he had Alzheimer’s.
“HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.”
Well, if anything is not transparent, as in unknowable (as opposed to an opinion of what the truth is), it’s what Hillary Clinton would have made of herself sans Bill Clinton.
Maybe she would have been a spinster librarian.
According to most conservative opinion I’ve heard, including just two days ago from David Brooks, she was a very successful junior Senator from New York who could work across the aisle, where sociopathy sits.
I’m much more successful in all of my parallel lives, but you wouldn’t know it from looking at me.
Can you guess why?
I hope Clinton channels some of that sociopathy into knocking heads together and getting all expectant mothers in America guaranteed, subsidized cradle to grave healthcare coverage so they bring more of their babies to term and/or have better access to birth control.
I have more, but after reading this thread, I dread the next four years.
I see nothing but violence and hatred in our future
Let’s just do without a President.
“HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.”
Well, if anything is not transparent, as in unknowable (as opposed to an opinion of what the truth is), it’s what Hillary Clinton would have made of herself sans Bill Clinton.
Maybe she would have been a spinster librarian.
According to most conservative opinion I’ve heard, including just two days ago from David Brooks, she was a very successful junior Senator from New York who could work across the aisle, where sociopathy sits.
I’m much more successful in all of my parallel lives, but you wouldn’t know it from looking at me.
Can you guess why?
I hope Clinton channels some of that sociopathy into knocking heads together and getting all expectant mothers in America guaranteed, subsidized cradle to grave healthcare coverage so they bring more of their babies to term and/or have better access to birth control.
I have more, but after reading this thread, I dread the next four years.
I see nothing but violence and hatred in our future
Let’s just do without a President.
“HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.”
Well, if anything is not transparent, as in unknowable (as opposed to an opinion of what the truth is), it’s what Hillary Clinton would have made of herself sans Bill Clinton.
Maybe she would have been a spinster librarian.
According to most conservative opinion I’ve heard, including just two days ago from David Brooks, she was a very successful junior Senator from New York who could work across the aisle, where sociopathy sits.
I’m much more successful in all of my parallel lives, but you wouldn’t know it from looking at me.
Can you guess why?
I hope Clinton channels some of that sociopathy into knocking heads together and getting all expectant mothers in America guaranteed, subsidized cradle to grave healthcare coverage so they bring more of their babies to term and/or have better access to birth control.
I have more, but after reading this thread, I dread the next four years.
I see nothing but violence and hatred in our future
Let’s just do without a President.
Using a relative’s career as a political springboard is extremely common.
I acknowledge nepotism as a fact of life. That was not my point, although the ‘everyone does it’ defense has always struck me as lame. HRC has capitalized on her husband’s career from the get go. Fine. But for those of us not sharing the Kool Aid, she doesn’t get to cherry pick only the “good stuff” about Bill or to avoid the consequences of her own enabling behavior.
Using a relative’s career as a political springboard is extremely common.
I acknowledge nepotism as a fact of life. That was not my point, although the ‘everyone does it’ defense has always struck me as lame. HRC has capitalized on her husband’s career from the get go. Fine. But for those of us not sharing the Kool Aid, she doesn’t get to cherry pick only the “good stuff” about Bill or to avoid the consequences of her own enabling behavior.
Using a relative’s career as a political springboard is extremely common.
I acknowledge nepotism as a fact of life. That was not my point, although the ‘everyone does it’ defense has always struck me as lame. HRC has capitalized on her husband’s career from the get go. Fine. But for those of us not sharing the Kool Aid, she doesn’t get to cherry pick only the “good stuff” about Bill or to avoid the consequences of her own enabling behavior.
“If I was woman and went that way, I would want to be the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin.”
Just when I agree upthread with even the whats what Russell doesn’t say, he says them.
I’m pretty sure that Michelle Obama would never have risen above White House gardener withput Barack.
“If I was woman and went that way, I would want to be the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin.”
Just when I agree upthread with even the whats what Russell doesn’t say, he says them.
I’m pretty sure that Michelle Obama would never have risen above White House gardener withput Barack.
“If I was woman and went that way, I would want to be the sekrit lesbian lover of Huma Abedin.”
Just when I agree upthread with even the whats what Russell doesn’t say, he says them.
I’m pretty sure that Michelle Obama would never have risen above White House gardener withput Barack.
Yes, Hillary leveraged her husband’s political career. And Trump leveraged his father’s money. This isn’t an “everybody does it” defense. It’s an observation that, since as you say everybody does it, and specifically her opponent does it, it seems . . . odd . . . to be so obsessed by Clinton’s doing so. And, from here, it does look like obsession.
I’m fine if you dislike Clinton. I don’t much care for her myself, and wish I saw a better option at this point. But to keep going on about things she has done which amount, for better or worse, to business as usual?
If you do see a better alternative, please share. Or if you are just trying to counter what you see as hagiography, say that– we can agree she has serious feet of clay and move on. But otherwise…?
Yes, Hillary leveraged her husband’s political career. And Trump leveraged his father’s money. This isn’t an “everybody does it” defense. It’s an observation that, since as you say everybody does it, and specifically her opponent does it, it seems . . . odd . . . to be so obsessed by Clinton’s doing so. And, from here, it does look like obsession.
I’m fine if you dislike Clinton. I don’t much care for her myself, and wish I saw a better option at this point. But to keep going on about things she has done which amount, for better or worse, to business as usual?
If you do see a better alternative, please share. Or if you are just trying to counter what you see as hagiography, say that– we can agree she has serious feet of clay and move on. But otherwise…?
Yes, Hillary leveraged her husband’s political career. And Trump leveraged his father’s money. This isn’t an “everybody does it” defense. It’s an observation that, since as you say everybody does it, and specifically her opponent does it, it seems . . . odd . . . to be so obsessed by Clinton’s doing so. And, from here, it does look like obsession.
I’m fine if you dislike Clinton. I don’t much care for her myself, and wish I saw a better option at this point. But to keep going on about things she has done which amount, for better or worse, to business as usual?
If you do see a better alternative, please share. Or if you are just trying to counter what you see as hagiography, say that– we can agree she has serious feet of clay and move on. But otherwise…?
Otherwise? We need to keep in mind what we’re getting ourselves into. Trump’s resilient popularity is to no small degree borne of dissatisfaction of the past decade or two of broadly similar economic policy – likewise with Sanders’. There’s been winners, and there’s been losers, and saying there haven’t or that in the greater scheme the losers don’t matter isn’t helping matters. At all. To repeat an observation I heard elsewhere, if we have a couple more Clintons, we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump.
Otherwise? We need to keep in mind what we’re getting ourselves into. Trump’s resilient popularity is to no small degree borne of dissatisfaction of the past decade or two of broadly similar economic policy – likewise with Sanders’. There’s been winners, and there’s been losers, and saying there haven’t or that in the greater scheme the losers don’t matter isn’t helping matters. At all. To repeat an observation I heard elsewhere, if we have a couple more Clintons, we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump.
Otherwise? We need to keep in mind what we’re getting ourselves into. Trump’s resilient popularity is to no small degree borne of dissatisfaction of the past decade or two of broadly similar economic policy – likewise with Sanders’. There’s been winners, and there’s been losers, and saying there haven’t or that in the greater scheme the losers don’t matter isn’t helping matters. At all. To repeat an observation I heard elsewhere, if we have a couple more Clintons, we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump.
HRC has capitalized on her husband’s career from the get go.
She was also a helpmate in her husband’s career. “Enabler” as to some things (including some very good things) perhaps. Anyone who has been married knows that it’s very important, and a mixed bag.
HRC has capitalized on her husband’s career from the get go.
She was also a helpmate in her husband’s career. “Enabler” as to some things (including some very good things) perhaps. Anyone who has been married knows that it’s very important, and a mixed bag.
HRC has capitalized on her husband’s career from the get go.
She was also a helpmate in her husband’s career. “Enabler” as to some things (including some very good things) perhaps. Anyone who has been married knows that it’s very important, and a mixed bag.
To pivot from Hillary for the moment, but still on the subject of sexism, I wanted to float something about Roger Ailes, which I was reminded of because of McKinney’s mention of Jeffrey Epstein, and also having just now read this horrible account. From the various stories that several women have told, it seems to me he wasn’t just a serial harasser, but also something akin to a pimp or procurer “If you want to play with the big boys you have to lay with the big boys, and sleep with me and whomever else I tell you to”. Had this occurred to anybody else here? Is there a separate offence for this? A kind of “aggravated sexual harassment”?
To pivot from Hillary for the moment, but still on the subject of sexism, I wanted to float something about Roger Ailes, which I was reminded of because of McKinney’s mention of Jeffrey Epstein, and also having just now read this horrible account. From the various stories that several women have told, it seems to me he wasn’t just a serial harasser, but also something akin to a pimp or procurer “If you want to play with the big boys you have to lay with the big boys, and sleep with me and whomever else I tell you to”. Had this occurred to anybody else here? Is there a separate offence for this? A kind of “aggravated sexual harassment”?
To pivot from Hillary for the moment, but still on the subject of sexism, I wanted to float something about Roger Ailes, which I was reminded of because of McKinney’s mention of Jeffrey Epstein, and also having just now read this horrible account. From the various stories that several women have told, it seems to me he wasn’t just a serial harasser, but also something akin to a pimp or procurer “If you want to play with the big boys you have to lay with the big boys, and sleep with me and whomever else I tell you to”. Had this occurred to anybody else here? Is there a separate offence for this? A kind of “aggravated sexual harassment”?
GftNC, I don’t know that there’s an “aggravated sexual harassment” with which to charge Roger Ailes, but I do know that he was welcomed into Trump’s campaign.
As to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump is currently facing a civil rape lawsuit in NY regarding his relationship with Epstein. It’s even more horrifying than underaged sex, and I’m not providing a link – people can do their own research.
GftNC, I don’t know that there’s an “aggravated sexual harassment” with which to charge Roger Ailes, but I do know that he was welcomed into Trump’s campaign.
As to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump is currently facing a civil rape lawsuit in NY regarding his relationship with Epstein. It’s even more horrifying than underaged sex, and I’m not providing a link – people can do their own research.
GftNC, I don’t know that there’s an “aggravated sexual harassment” with which to charge Roger Ailes, but I do know that he was welcomed into Trump’s campaign.
As to Jeffrey Epstein, Trump is currently facing a civil rape lawsuit in NY regarding his relationship with Epstein. It’s even more horrifying than underaged sex, and I’m not providing a link – people can do their own research.
Thanks Sapient. Yes, it is his connection with Trump, but even more his creation of Fox, an organisation which I think is overwhelmingly responsible for the creation of the Tea Party and thus the current, degraded state of the Republican party and American political discourse in general that explains my interest in him. That he has created something so morally corrupt, while being personally so morally corrupt, is not surprising, but there is satisfaction in his exposure.
Thanks Sapient. Yes, it is his connection with Trump, but even more his creation of Fox, an organisation which I think is overwhelmingly responsible for the creation of the Tea Party and thus the current, degraded state of the Republican party and American political discourse in general that explains my interest in him. That he has created something so morally corrupt, while being personally so morally corrupt, is not surprising, but there is satisfaction in his exposure.
Thanks Sapient. Yes, it is his connection with Trump, but even more his creation of Fox, an organisation which I think is overwhelmingly responsible for the creation of the Tea Party and thus the current, degraded state of the Republican party and American political discourse in general that explains my interest in him. That he has created something so morally corrupt, while being personally so morally corrupt, is not surprising, but there is satisfaction in his exposure.
Anyway, away from sleeze.
Even if, for the sake of argument, Hillary is married to someone with a weak moral compass, can any of you anti-Hillary people defend Trump?
[Disclaimer: I like Hillary more and more. Actually, I’m growing to love Hillary, and have always been a Tim Kaine champion.]
Anyway, away from sleeze.
Even if, for the sake of argument, Hillary is married to someone with a weak moral compass, can any of you anti-Hillary people defend Trump?
[Disclaimer: I like Hillary more and more. Actually, I’m growing to love Hillary, and have always been a Tim Kaine champion.]
Anyway, away from sleeze.
Even if, for the sake of argument, Hillary is married to someone with a weak moral compass, can any of you anti-Hillary people defend Trump?
[Disclaimer: I like Hillary more and more. Actually, I’m growing to love Hillary, and have always been a Tim Kaine champion.]
No need for Hillary to disclose anything.
Donald, when are your Russian friends going to hack your tax returns?
No need for Hillary to disclose anything.
Donald, when are your Russian friends going to hack your tax returns?
No need for Hillary to disclose anything.
Donald, when are your Russian friends going to hack your tax returns?
Well, not that it will cut much ice with the Martys of this world, but the world is rooting very desperately for your pick, Sapient. I must confess, I admire her values, am moved by the historic nature of her nomination, and would sacrifice on the alter of any god you might specify to guarantee her victory. I think she might turn out to be an excellent POTUS. More power to your canvassing, Sapient, and that of bobbyp, and anyone else who is going to volunteer for her.
Well, not that it will cut much ice with the Martys of this world, but the world is rooting very desperately for your pick, Sapient. I must confess, I admire her values, am moved by the historic nature of her nomination, and would sacrifice on the alter of any god you might specify to guarantee her victory. I think she might turn out to be an excellent POTUS. More power to your canvassing, Sapient, and that of bobbyp, and anyone else who is going to volunteer for her.
Well, not that it will cut much ice with the Martys of this world, but the world is rooting very desperately for your pick, Sapient. I must confess, I admire her values, am moved by the historic nature of her nomination, and would sacrifice on the alter of any god you might specify to guarantee her victory. I think she might turn out to be an excellent POTUS. More power to your canvassing, Sapient, and that of bobbyp, and anyone else who is going to volunteer for her.
Thank you GftNC! I will take your good cheer with me!
Just to clarify my 8:25 pm, I did not mean our Donald Johnson, of course. I need to think of the Donald as Trump, because I know many Donalds that I honor and respect.
Thank you GftNC! I will take your good cheer with me!
Just to clarify my 8:25 pm, I did not mean our Donald Johnson, of course. I need to think of the Donald as Trump, because I know many Donalds that I honor and respect.
Thank you GftNC! I will take your good cheer with me!
Just to clarify my 8:25 pm, I did not mean our Donald Johnson, of course. I need to think of the Donald as Trump, because I know many Donalds that I honor and respect.
if we have a couple more Clintons, we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump.
Not sure what your strategy is, NV. Trump now, so that not a worse Trump later?
Hard to be a listener to you, without being an “enabler” of the dark side. What’s your strategy for a better world?
if we have a couple more Clintons, we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump.
Not sure what your strategy is, NV. Trump now, so that not a worse Trump later?
Hard to be a listener to you, without being an “enabler” of the dark side. What’s your strategy for a better world?
if we have a couple more Clintons, we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump.
Not sure what your strategy is, NV. Trump now, so that not a worse Trump later?
Hard to be a listener to you, without being an “enabler” of the dark side. What’s your strategy for a better world?
Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton. Not that complicated. However, ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power. And so it goes…
Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton. Not that complicated. However, ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power. And so it goes…
Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton. Not that complicated. However, ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power. And so it goes…
…and for the record, it’s hard to disagree with you without being branded an enabler of “the dark side”. Which is more than a little bit of a problem. But right now, we all need to shut up and clap as loud as we can until November, right? Except that nothing will change with you on that score after November. We saw that with Obama. Campaign criticism was out because we Mustn’t Enable The Dark Side, but it was also wrong to criticize the sitting President because it undermined his support in the face of the Dark Side. Then Midterms, so shut up. Then the long walk to the next Presidential, so shut up. Then midterms, so shut up. And here we are. So yeah, I’m not feeling too much sympathy for your rhetorical perplexity at how someone could react differently than you to ongoing political events. You’re playing at playing the election IOT play the long game and reinforce your preferred status quo. I’m playing at playing the long game to upset it. Simple, really.
…and for the record, it’s hard to disagree with you without being branded an enabler of “the dark side”. Which is more than a little bit of a problem. But right now, we all need to shut up and clap as loud as we can until November, right? Except that nothing will change with you on that score after November. We saw that with Obama. Campaign criticism was out because we Mustn’t Enable The Dark Side, but it was also wrong to criticize the sitting President because it undermined his support in the face of the Dark Side. Then Midterms, so shut up. Then the long walk to the next Presidential, so shut up. Then midterms, so shut up. And here we are. So yeah, I’m not feeling too much sympathy for your rhetorical perplexity at how someone could react differently than you to ongoing political events. You’re playing at playing the election IOT play the long game and reinforce your preferred status quo. I’m playing at playing the long game to upset it. Simple, really.
…and for the record, it’s hard to disagree with you without being branded an enabler of “the dark side”. Which is more than a little bit of a problem. But right now, we all need to shut up and clap as loud as we can until November, right? Except that nothing will change with you on that score after November. We saw that with Obama. Campaign criticism was out because we Mustn’t Enable The Dark Side, but it was also wrong to criticize the sitting President because it undermined his support in the face of the Dark Side. Then Midterms, so shut up. Then the long walk to the next Presidential, so shut up. Then midterms, so shut up. And here we are. So yeah, I’m not feeling too much sympathy for your rhetorical perplexity at how someone could react differently than you to ongoing political events. You’re playing at playing the election IOT play the long game and reinforce your preferred status quo. I’m playing at playing the long game to upset it. Simple, really.
Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton
I’m not entirely clear. Are you saying that Trump is not “corporate elitist scum” and therefore should be elected? Or just that you can’t stand Clinton, to the point that nothing else matters? Or what?
Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton
I’m not entirely clear. Are you saying that Trump is not “corporate elitist scum” and therefore should be elected? Or just that you can’t stand Clinton, to the point that nothing else matters? Or what?
Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton
I’m not entirely clear. Are you saying that Trump is not “corporate elitist scum” and therefore should be elected? Or just that you can’t stand Clinton, to the point that nothing else matters? Or what?
I’m seriously beginning to think about looking into vote-pairing as far as my own swing state vote goes, but if you feel the need to hold your nose and vote for Clinton, by all means do so. However, if you’re holding your nose when you do it, don’t let the centerist apparatchiks convince you that you’re just resting your hand on your face. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Ideally, Clinton would have never been nominated. Since she has been, if elected, her removal in four years should be considered not just an option, but a priority. If hope triumphs over experience and she’s not as bad as her record suggests she will be, that can be reconsidered, but the baseline assumption should be that four more years is the absolute most she can hope to spend in the White House. Hit the midterms hard so that it’s more difficult for the center-right wing of the Democrats to scaremonger in 2020 (regardless of who takes office in November), and keep looking forward.
I shudder to think of the sort of jurists she’ll be putting on the bench if elected. Whether or not they’ll be as bad as Trumpist jurists will depend entirely on the case put before them. There will be cases where they will, but a Clinton presidency will if anything tighten the corporatist noose in SCOTUS’s hands. And war’s a given. So yeah. Grim times ahead, no matter who wins in November. Clinton would be better in some ways, but in others she’ll be just as bad, and people will die because of it. The lesser evil is still evil, and it’s useful to keep that in mind even if you succumb to pressure and vote for it. Ofc, if you think you can get away with voting for a third party, please do so.
I’m seriously beginning to think about looking into vote-pairing as far as my own swing state vote goes, but if you feel the need to hold your nose and vote for Clinton, by all means do so. However, if you’re holding your nose when you do it, don’t let the centerist apparatchiks convince you that you’re just resting your hand on your face. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Ideally, Clinton would have never been nominated. Since she has been, if elected, her removal in four years should be considered not just an option, but a priority. If hope triumphs over experience and she’s not as bad as her record suggests she will be, that can be reconsidered, but the baseline assumption should be that four more years is the absolute most she can hope to spend in the White House. Hit the midterms hard so that it’s more difficult for the center-right wing of the Democrats to scaremonger in 2020 (regardless of who takes office in November), and keep looking forward.
I shudder to think of the sort of jurists she’ll be putting on the bench if elected. Whether or not they’ll be as bad as Trumpist jurists will depend entirely on the case put before them. There will be cases where they will, but a Clinton presidency will if anything tighten the corporatist noose in SCOTUS’s hands. And war’s a given. So yeah. Grim times ahead, no matter who wins in November. Clinton would be better in some ways, but in others she’ll be just as bad, and people will die because of it. The lesser evil is still evil, and it’s useful to keep that in mind even if you succumb to pressure and vote for it. Ofc, if you think you can get away with voting for a third party, please do so.
I’m seriously beginning to think about looking into vote-pairing as far as my own swing state vote goes, but if you feel the need to hold your nose and vote for Clinton, by all means do so. However, if you’re holding your nose when you do it, don’t let the centerist apparatchiks convince you that you’re just resting your hand on your face. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Ideally, Clinton would have never been nominated. Since she has been, if elected, her removal in four years should be considered not just an option, but a priority. If hope triumphs over experience and she’s not as bad as her record suggests she will be, that can be reconsidered, but the baseline assumption should be that four more years is the absolute most she can hope to spend in the White House. Hit the midterms hard so that it’s more difficult for the center-right wing of the Democrats to scaremonger in 2020 (regardless of who takes office in November), and keep looking forward.
I shudder to think of the sort of jurists she’ll be putting on the bench if elected. Whether or not they’ll be as bad as Trumpist jurists will depend entirely on the case put before them. There will be cases where they will, but a Clinton presidency will if anything tighten the corporatist noose in SCOTUS’s hands. And war’s a given. So yeah. Grim times ahead, no matter who wins in November. Clinton would be better in some ways, but in others she’ll be just as bad, and people will die because of it. The lesser evil is still evil, and it’s useful to keep that in mind even if you succumb to pressure and vote for it. Ofc, if you think you can get away with voting for a third party, please do so.
I’m not entirely clear.
My ramble above probably did little to clarify this point, come to think of it. “Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton” was a direct response to the question “What’s your strategy for a better world?”.
I’m not entirely clear.
My ramble above probably did little to clarify this point, come to think of it. “Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton” was a direct response to the question “What’s your strategy for a better world?”.
I’m not entirely clear.
My ramble above probably did little to clarify this point, come to think of it. “Stop electing center-right corporate elitist scum like Clinton” was a direct response to the question “What’s your strategy for a better world?”.
NV: If you were a lawyer who was familiar with internal workings of gov’t agencies … bureaucratic Terms of Art … That statement by Comey sounds very straightforward and clear to my quite-modestly-bureaucratically-tuned ear.
NV,
“WMD” was a “Term of Art” too. Bureaucrats have been known to manipulate the supposed arcana of their official duties for political purposes.
That statement by Comey was a political exercise, not a bureaucratic duty in the first place. The FBI director is not required by law or custom to give that kind of press conference. In the most charitable possible light, Comey did it because the GOP’s political witch hunt du jour forced him to.
In a less charitable light, Comey had personal political motives, which he camouflaged with those “Terms of Art”, designed to sound ominous without being remotely explicit — because, quite possibly, any sensible citizen who heard an actual description of that “classified material” might, quite possibly, react with “Pfftt. Is that all you’re on about?”
–TP
NV: If you were a lawyer who was familiar with internal workings of gov’t agencies … bureaucratic Terms of Art … That statement by Comey sounds very straightforward and clear to my quite-modestly-bureaucratically-tuned ear.
NV,
“WMD” was a “Term of Art” too. Bureaucrats have been known to manipulate the supposed arcana of their official duties for political purposes.
That statement by Comey was a political exercise, not a bureaucratic duty in the first place. The FBI director is not required by law or custom to give that kind of press conference. In the most charitable possible light, Comey did it because the GOP’s political witch hunt du jour forced him to.
In a less charitable light, Comey had personal political motives, which he camouflaged with those “Terms of Art”, designed to sound ominous without being remotely explicit — because, quite possibly, any sensible citizen who heard an actual description of that “classified material” might, quite possibly, react with “Pfftt. Is that all you’re on about?”
–TP
NV: If you were a lawyer who was familiar with internal workings of gov’t agencies … bureaucratic Terms of Art … That statement by Comey sounds very straightforward and clear to my quite-modestly-bureaucratically-tuned ear.
NV,
“WMD” was a “Term of Art” too. Bureaucrats have been known to manipulate the supposed arcana of their official duties for political purposes.
That statement by Comey was a political exercise, not a bureaucratic duty in the first place. The FBI director is not required by law or custom to give that kind of press conference. In the most charitable possible light, Comey did it because the GOP’s political witch hunt du jour forced him to.
In a less charitable light, Comey had personal political motives, which he camouflaged with those “Terms of Art”, designed to sound ominous without being remotely explicit — because, quite possibly, any sensible citizen who heard an actual description of that “classified material” might, quite possibly, react with “Pfftt. Is that all you’re on about?”
–TP
I’ve got no problem at all with electing a better quality of politicians in the future. But the reality is that we have a choice to make come November.
It’s one thing to find all of the available alternatives unappetizing. But we are going to end up with one of them. All we can do is choose which. Carrying on about how both are bad, or evil if you prefer to put it that way, is not particularly helpful in making that choice.
Unless, I suppose, you want to abdicate and leave the decision to others. Others who, I must point out, made the choices which brought us to the alternatives you dislike. Which rather suggests that, whichever choice the rest of the electorate makes without you won’t be to your liking.
I’ve got no problem at all with electing a better quality of politicians in the future. But the reality is that we have a choice to make come November.
It’s one thing to find all of the available alternatives unappetizing. But we are going to end up with one of them. All we can do is choose which. Carrying on about how both are bad, or evil if you prefer to put it that way, is not particularly helpful in making that choice.
Unless, I suppose, you want to abdicate and leave the decision to others. Others who, I must point out, made the choices which brought us to the alternatives you dislike. Which rather suggests that, whichever choice the rest of the electorate makes without you won’t be to your liking.
I’ve got no problem at all with electing a better quality of politicians in the future. But the reality is that we have a choice to make come November.
It’s one thing to find all of the available alternatives unappetizing. But we are going to end up with one of them. All we can do is choose which. Carrying on about how both are bad, or evil if you prefer to put it that way, is not particularly helpful in making that choice.
Unless, I suppose, you want to abdicate and leave the decision to others. Others who, I must point out, made the choices which brought us to the alternatives you dislike. Which rather suggests that, whichever choice the rest of the electorate makes without you won’t be to your liking.
TP – the fact that I realized some or even all of the material was pffft-worthy may have influenced my judgement in taking the statement at face value (i.e., pro formo boilerplate statement that says very little) w/o particular thought of ulterior motives. Again, though, I’m somewhat critical of and given to look askance upon our dear gov’t’s classification policy.
wj – carrying on about how one can only be supported through ignorance or malice and the other is functionally faultless isn’t particularly helpful either, yet that you have no problem understanding. A recurring theme in this thread has how someone could possibly support Trump. sapient has fairly doggedly worked to keep us on message by reducing the possibilities to their being racists or rubes, and I fear I may have taken their bait in the comment you deemed unclear. It was fairly plainly bait so I should have known better; you have my apology for causing confusion with exasperated vitriol in response to blatant trolling.
TP – the fact that I realized some or even all of the material was pffft-worthy may have influenced my judgement in taking the statement at face value (i.e., pro formo boilerplate statement that says very little) w/o particular thought of ulterior motives. Again, though, I’m somewhat critical of and given to look askance upon our dear gov’t’s classification policy.
wj – carrying on about how one can only be supported through ignorance or malice and the other is functionally faultless isn’t particularly helpful either, yet that you have no problem understanding. A recurring theme in this thread has how someone could possibly support Trump. sapient has fairly doggedly worked to keep us on message by reducing the possibilities to their being racists or rubes, and I fear I may have taken their bait in the comment you deemed unclear. It was fairly plainly bait so I should have known better; you have my apology for causing confusion with exasperated vitriol in response to blatant trolling.
TP – the fact that I realized some or even all of the material was pffft-worthy may have influenced my judgement in taking the statement at face value (i.e., pro formo boilerplate statement that says very little) w/o particular thought of ulterior motives. Again, though, I’m somewhat critical of and given to look askance upon our dear gov’t’s classification policy.
wj – carrying on about how one can only be supported through ignorance or malice and the other is functionally faultless isn’t particularly helpful either, yet that you have no problem understanding. A recurring theme in this thread has how someone could possibly support Trump. sapient has fairly doggedly worked to keep us on message by reducing the possibilities to their being racists or rubes, and I fear I may have taken their bait in the comment you deemed unclear. It was fairly plainly bait so I should have known better; you have my apology for causing confusion with exasperated vitriol in response to blatant trolling.
just a quick note to Donald Johnson, thanks for linking to Hillary’s AIPAC speech. I would ask questions, but I don’t think the current atmosphere would be very conducive to getting points across.
just a quick note to Donald Johnson, thanks for linking to Hillary’s AIPAC speech. I would ask questions, but I don’t think the current atmosphere would be very conducive to getting points across.
just a quick note to Donald Johnson, thanks for linking to Hillary’s AIPAC speech. I would ask questions, but I don’t think the current atmosphere would be very conducive to getting points across.
ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power.
that was cute.
ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power.
that was cute.
ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power.
that was cute.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/jill-steins-plan-to-stop-trump-by-electing-him.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/jill-steins-plan-to-stop-trump-by-electing-him.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/jill-steins-plan-to-stop-trump-by-electing-him.html
sapient has fairly doggedly worked to keep us on message by reducing the possibilities to their being racists or rubes,
Forgot about rubles.
sapient has fairly doggedly worked to keep us on message by reducing the possibilities to their being racists or rubes,
Forgot about rubles.
sapient has fairly doggedly worked to keep us on message by reducing the possibilities to their being racists or rubes,
Forgot about rubles.
I think I’d worry more about the “strong executive” noose tightening around SCOTUS with Hillary than the corporatist one. Not sure why she wouldn’t appoint justices like Ginsberg, but I guess that remains to be seen.
I think I’d worry more about the “strong executive” noose tightening around SCOTUS with Hillary than the corporatist one. Not sure why she wouldn’t appoint justices like Ginsberg, but I guess that remains to be seen.
I think I’d worry more about the “strong executive” noose tightening around SCOTUS with Hillary than the corporatist one. Not sure why she wouldn’t appoint justices like Ginsberg, but I guess that remains to be seen.
NV,
You have to know I sympathize, but we are faced with a political choice. You could do a Henry Thereau and just sit out as a matter of principle, but if you go into the voting both, you are joining the hoi polloi in the performance of your civic duty.
There is no question that Clinton would be “better” by just about any standard than Trump, including foreign policy.
Does the Green Party present a viable alternative? From a political standpoint, all they can offer is the ability to throw the result to the GOP.
There are a couple of other things to consider if you are thinking of throwing away your vote on Jill Stein:
1. You can make the ‘lesser evil’ all the way down the line. The Greens do not call for the overthrow of capitalism. From a real ‘hard left’ position, doesn’t that make them sell outs?
2. Jill Stein is more than a bit batty.
Just a few more points for you to consider.
Best Regards,
NV,
You have to know I sympathize, but we are faced with a political choice. You could do a Henry Thereau and just sit out as a matter of principle, but if you go into the voting both, you are joining the hoi polloi in the performance of your civic duty.
There is no question that Clinton would be “better” by just about any standard than Trump, including foreign policy.
Does the Green Party present a viable alternative? From a political standpoint, all they can offer is the ability to throw the result to the GOP.
There are a couple of other things to consider if you are thinking of throwing away your vote on Jill Stein:
1. You can make the ‘lesser evil’ all the way down the line. The Greens do not call for the overthrow of capitalism. From a real ‘hard left’ position, doesn’t that make them sell outs?
2. Jill Stein is more than a bit batty.
Just a few more points for you to consider.
Best Regards,
NV,
You have to know I sympathize, but we are faced with a political choice. You could do a Henry Thereau and just sit out as a matter of principle, but if you go into the voting both, you are joining the hoi polloi in the performance of your civic duty.
There is no question that Clinton would be “better” by just about any standard than Trump, including foreign policy.
Does the Green Party present a viable alternative? From a political standpoint, all they can offer is the ability to throw the result to the GOP.
There are a couple of other things to consider if you are thinking of throwing away your vote on Jill Stein:
1. You can make the ‘lesser evil’ all the way down the line. The Greens do not call for the overthrow of capitalism. From a real ‘hard left’ position, doesn’t that make them sell outs?
2. Jill Stein is more than a bit batty.
Just a few more points for you to consider.
Best Regards,
For the avoidance of doubt, I (and I bet many other Clinton supporters) do not think Hillary is “functionally faultless”, only that her apparent concerns over a working lifetime reflect values we appreciate or share, and that her brains and competence suggest she could be a good POTUS. I agree that there have been episodes where her honesty is in doubt (e.g. disembarking under enemy fire), and that some of her sympathies or loyalties are highly questionable (e.g. Israel, or the banks/big corporations), although I think one can argue these questions for or against her in good faith. There could certainly be candidates better than her, and without her negatives, but Trump is not one of them, and like pretty much the whole rest of the world I desperately wish for his defeat.
However, as I said when I referred elsewhere to the progression in conceivability from Palin to Trump, where I do agree wholeheartedly with NV is that unless big changes are made in America in terms of reducing inequality of income, opportunity and access to justice etc, “we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump”. I just hope that Clinton is the woman to make these changes, and unlike NV, I think she might have realised that it’s necessary, and be able to do it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I (and I bet many other Clinton supporters) do not think Hillary is “functionally faultless”, only that her apparent concerns over a working lifetime reflect values we appreciate or share, and that her brains and competence suggest she could be a good POTUS. I agree that there have been episodes where her honesty is in doubt (e.g. disembarking under enemy fire), and that some of her sympathies or loyalties are highly questionable (e.g. Israel, or the banks/big corporations), although I think one can argue these questions for or against her in good faith. There could certainly be candidates better than her, and without her negatives, but Trump is not one of them, and like pretty much the whole rest of the world I desperately wish for his defeat.
However, as I said when I referred elsewhere to the progression in conceivability from Palin to Trump, where I do agree wholeheartedly with NV is that unless big changes are made in America in terms of reducing inequality of income, opportunity and access to justice etc, “we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump”. I just hope that Clinton is the woman to make these changes, and unlike NV, I think she might have realised that it’s necessary, and be able to do it.
For the avoidance of doubt, I (and I bet many other Clinton supporters) do not think Hillary is “functionally faultless”, only that her apparent concerns over a working lifetime reflect values we appreciate or share, and that her brains and competence suggest she could be a good POTUS. I agree that there have been episodes where her honesty is in doubt (e.g. disembarking under enemy fire), and that some of her sympathies or loyalties are highly questionable (e.g. Israel, or the banks/big corporations), although I think one can argue these questions for or against her in good faith. There could certainly be candidates better than her, and without her negatives, but Trump is not one of them, and like pretty much the whole rest of the world I desperately wish for his defeat.
However, as I said when I referred elsewhere to the progression in conceivability from Palin to Trump, where I do agree wholeheartedly with NV is that unless big changes are made in America in terms of reducing inequality of income, opportunity and access to justice etc, “we’re very likely to end up facing a far, far worse version of our current Greater Evil Trump”. I just hope that Clinton is the woman to make these changes, and unlike NV, I think she might have realised that it’s necessary, and be able to do it.
GftNC, I just want to say (to you and Nigel both) that I think it’s great that you folks have something to say about politics in our country. Not just OK, but good because it gives us a little distance and perspective.
It’s just like some of us here hoping that Jeremy Corbyn gets dumped as Labour’s leader. I don’t know much about Owen Smith (other than that he has an outside shot at best) — but I do know that he is a long ways better than Corbyn.
With Brexit going forward, and its likely impact, at some point Labour is going to end up back in office. It’s not my country, but I can still wish that it take the opportunity to step away from disaster.
GftNC, I just want to say (to you and Nigel both) that I think it’s great that you folks have something to say about politics in our country. Not just OK, but good because it gives us a little distance and perspective.
It’s just like some of us here hoping that Jeremy Corbyn gets dumped as Labour’s leader. I don’t know much about Owen Smith (other than that he has an outside shot at best) — but I do know that he is a long ways better than Corbyn.
With Brexit going forward, and its likely impact, at some point Labour is going to end up back in office. It’s not my country, but I can still wish that it take the opportunity to step away from disaster.
GftNC, I just want to say (to you and Nigel both) that I think it’s great that you folks have something to say about politics in our country. Not just OK, but good because it gives us a little distance and perspective.
It’s just like some of us here hoping that Jeremy Corbyn gets dumped as Labour’s leader. I don’t know much about Owen Smith (other than that he has an outside shot at best) — but I do know that he is a long ways better than Corbyn.
With Brexit going forward, and its likely impact, at some point Labour is going to end up back in office. It’s not my country, but I can still wish that it take the opportunity to step away from disaster.
when Bernie Sanders decided to run for President he didn’t do it as an independent, or a Green or any other non-viable party. he did it as a Democrat. and, he did it because (and he explicitly said this) the Democratic party has the infrastructure and access to allow him to make a viable run. since he’s not a billionaire Ross Perot type, he couldn’t have done it without the Democratic party.
other lefties should take that path. get into Democratic primaries and use the party apparatus to get their message out. it doesn’t guarantee a win, but it’s a hell of a lot better than languishing on a fringe party’s ticket where you have to fight just to get on the ballot.
if your message is good enough, you’ll win. if not, well, you weren’t going to win as a Green, either.
when Bernie Sanders decided to run for President he didn’t do it as an independent, or a Green or any other non-viable party. he did it as a Democrat. and, he did it because (and he explicitly said this) the Democratic party has the infrastructure and access to allow him to make a viable run. since he’s not a billionaire Ross Perot type, he couldn’t have done it without the Democratic party.
other lefties should take that path. get into Democratic primaries and use the party apparatus to get their message out. it doesn’t guarantee a win, but it’s a hell of a lot better than languishing on a fringe party’s ticket where you have to fight just to get on the ballot.
if your message is good enough, you’ll win. if not, well, you weren’t going to win as a Green, either.
when Bernie Sanders decided to run for President he didn’t do it as an independent, or a Green or any other non-viable party. he did it as a Democrat. and, he did it because (and he explicitly said this) the Democratic party has the infrastructure and access to allow him to make a viable run. since he’s not a billionaire Ross Perot type, he couldn’t have done it without the Democratic party.
other lefties should take that path. get into Democratic primaries and use the party apparatus to get their message out. it doesn’t guarantee a win, but it’s a hell of a lot better than languishing on a fringe party’s ticket where you have to fight just to get on the ballot.
if your message is good enough, you’ll win. if not, well, you weren’t going to win as a Green, either.
I’ve actually voted for Jill Stein. Way back when, once upon a time I voted for Barry Commoner.
Haha! Barry who?
These occasions were in contexts when the state-level outcome in my states of residence (MA any NY, respectively) were not in question. My purpose was to demonstrate some constituency for issues that tend to exclusively be the brief of oddball parties like the Greens or Citizen’s.
Many of those issues were championed under the (D) brand this year by Sanders, so Bernie had my support for the last year. I’m glad to see that his positions are to some degree reflected in the (D) platform.
I will not vote for Stein this year, because as much as (some of) her and Sanders’ positions are closer to my own than Clinton’s, the higher priority, to me, is preventing Trump from being POTUS.
If all of that seems overly transactional and compromised, that’s fine with me.
It’s a big country, lots of different kinds of people live in it, and I don’t expect my point of view to prevail in all cases. My perspective is, frankly, a minority one, and I’m glad when it gets a hearing at all.
This year it did, and I’m glad for that.
If you want to vote for someone who will actually be POTUS this time around, your choices are Clinton or Trump.
If you are willing to settle for making a rhetorical point with your vote, your choices expand to Stein and Johnson. And maybe Vermin Supreme.
It’s your vote, and your choice to do with it as you will.
My personal experience has been that voting to make rhetorical points is not so consequential. It’s nice to make a point, but the tangible effect of it can be kind of limited.
When a lot is at stake, sometimes you make choices that aren’t just all about your personal druthers.
I’ve actually voted for Jill Stein. Way back when, once upon a time I voted for Barry Commoner.
Haha! Barry who?
These occasions were in contexts when the state-level outcome in my states of residence (MA any NY, respectively) were not in question. My purpose was to demonstrate some constituency for issues that tend to exclusively be the brief of oddball parties like the Greens or Citizen’s.
Many of those issues were championed under the (D) brand this year by Sanders, so Bernie had my support for the last year. I’m glad to see that his positions are to some degree reflected in the (D) platform.
I will not vote for Stein this year, because as much as (some of) her and Sanders’ positions are closer to my own than Clinton’s, the higher priority, to me, is preventing Trump from being POTUS.
If all of that seems overly transactional and compromised, that’s fine with me.
It’s a big country, lots of different kinds of people live in it, and I don’t expect my point of view to prevail in all cases. My perspective is, frankly, a minority one, and I’m glad when it gets a hearing at all.
This year it did, and I’m glad for that.
If you want to vote for someone who will actually be POTUS this time around, your choices are Clinton or Trump.
If you are willing to settle for making a rhetorical point with your vote, your choices expand to Stein and Johnson. And maybe Vermin Supreme.
It’s your vote, and your choice to do with it as you will.
My personal experience has been that voting to make rhetorical points is not so consequential. It’s nice to make a point, but the tangible effect of it can be kind of limited.
When a lot is at stake, sometimes you make choices that aren’t just all about your personal druthers.
I’ve actually voted for Jill Stein. Way back when, once upon a time I voted for Barry Commoner.
Haha! Barry who?
These occasions were in contexts when the state-level outcome in my states of residence (MA any NY, respectively) were not in question. My purpose was to demonstrate some constituency for issues that tend to exclusively be the brief of oddball parties like the Greens or Citizen’s.
Many of those issues were championed under the (D) brand this year by Sanders, so Bernie had my support for the last year. I’m glad to see that his positions are to some degree reflected in the (D) platform.
I will not vote for Stein this year, because as much as (some of) her and Sanders’ positions are closer to my own than Clinton’s, the higher priority, to me, is preventing Trump from being POTUS.
If all of that seems overly transactional and compromised, that’s fine with me.
It’s a big country, lots of different kinds of people live in it, and I don’t expect my point of view to prevail in all cases. My perspective is, frankly, a minority one, and I’m glad when it gets a hearing at all.
This year it did, and I’m glad for that.
If you want to vote for someone who will actually be POTUS this time around, your choices are Clinton or Trump.
If you are willing to settle for making a rhetorical point with your vote, your choices expand to Stein and Johnson. And maybe Vermin Supreme.
It’s your vote, and your choice to do with it as you will.
My personal experience has been that voting to make rhetorical points is not so consequential. It’s nice to make a point, but the tangible effect of it can be kind of limited.
When a lot is at stake, sometimes you make choices that aren’t just all about your personal druthers.
Thank you wj, and amen to that. Despite never having been a member of any political party hitherto, I have taken what steps I can to contribute to the defeat of Corbyn, because although I do believe that like the US, we too have a situation where we need to make serious changes “in terms of reducing inequality of income, opportunity and access to justice etc”, I think this cannot be done unless the party which believes in doing it wins an election.
Thank you wj, and amen to that. Despite never having been a member of any political party hitherto, I have taken what steps I can to contribute to the defeat of Corbyn, because although I do believe that like the US, we too have a situation where we need to make serious changes “in terms of reducing inequality of income, opportunity and access to justice etc”, I think this cannot be done unless the party which believes in doing it wins an election.
Thank you wj, and amen to that. Despite never having been a member of any political party hitherto, I have taken what steps I can to contribute to the defeat of Corbyn, because although I do believe that like the US, we too have a situation where we need to make serious changes “in terms of reducing inequality of income, opportunity and access to justice etc”, I think this cannot be done unless the party which believes in doing it wins an election.
And yes, Stein is kind of batty.
And yes, Stein is kind of batty.
And yes, Stein is kind of batty.
Well, I plan to vote for Stein. Not this year, but in 2014, when she’s the VP candidate with Al Franken.
Because who wouldn’t vote for Franken/Stein?
But as president? No way. Not only for the possible electoral harm, but it would be too painful to undo my vaccinations. Because PURITY!
Ouch.
Well, I plan to vote for Stein. Not this year, but in 2014, when she’s the VP candidate with Al Franken.
Because who wouldn’t vote for Franken/Stein?
But as president? No way. Not only for the possible electoral harm, but it would be too painful to undo my vaccinations. Because PURITY!
Ouch.
Well, I plan to vote for Stein. Not this year, but in 2014, when she’s the VP candidate with Al Franken.
Because who wouldn’t vote for Franken/Stein?
But as president? No way. Not only for the possible electoral harm, but it would be too painful to undo my vaccinations. Because PURITY!
Ouch.
Russell, what you can do to get your views out there is to answer polls (rather than hanging up on them). And give them the name of the third party candidate you would like to see, even if you really have no intention of actually voting that way.
If enough people do that, we could at least see a third party’s candidate up there in the debates. It almost certainly won’t change the election result (although if Johnson is there, it could pull votes from Trump). But it could change the conversation in the future.
Russell, what you can do to get your views out there is to answer polls (rather than hanging up on them). And give them the name of the third party candidate you would like to see, even if you really have no intention of actually voting that way.
If enough people do that, we could at least see a third party’s candidate up there in the debates. It almost certainly won’t change the election result (although if Johnson is there, it could pull votes from Trump). But it could change the conversation in the future.
Russell, what you can do to get your views out there is to answer polls (rather than hanging up on them). And give them the name of the third party candidate you would like to see, even if you really have no intention of actually voting that way.
If enough people do that, we could at least see a third party’s candidate up there in the debates. It almost certainly won’t change the election result (although if Johnson is there, it could pull votes from Trump). But it could change the conversation in the future.
2024 not 2014. No edit button. I blame Obama.
2024 not 2014. No edit button. I blame Obama.
2024 not 2014. No edit button. I blame Obama.
Russell, what you can do to get your views out there is to answer polls
Of all the ways in which I’ve participated in the political process, the one that I think had the greatest impact, by far, was calling rep’s offices.
Senators and House Reps, at both the federal and state level.
It makes an even bigger dent if you have any kind of track record of supporting them, but net/net, a phone call to the office is your most likely way of moving the needle.
Not that many people do it, so anyone who does gets bonus points.
Cheap and easy. Takes five minutes.
Russell, what you can do to get your views out there is to answer polls
Of all the ways in which I’ve participated in the political process, the one that I think had the greatest impact, by far, was calling rep’s offices.
Senators and House Reps, at both the federal and state level.
It makes an even bigger dent if you have any kind of track record of supporting them, but net/net, a phone call to the office is your most likely way of moving the needle.
Not that many people do it, so anyone who does gets bonus points.
Cheap and easy. Takes five minutes.
Russell, what you can do to get your views out there is to answer polls
Of all the ways in which I’ve participated in the political process, the one that I think had the greatest impact, by far, was calling rep’s offices.
Senators and House Reps, at both the federal and state level.
It makes an even bigger dent if you have any kind of track record of supporting them, but net/net, a phone call to the office is your most likely way of moving the needle.
Not that many people do it, so anyone who does gets bonus points.
Cheap and easy. Takes five minutes.
Last night on Bill Maher, Barnie Frank got Cornell West to concede that he would vote for Hillary if, come election day, it was clear that Jill Stein could not win and unclear whether He, Trump would lose. I’m not sure it was worth the effort.
I don’t know offhand which state Cornell West votes in, but it makes a difference whether it’s OH or MA, for example. Voters in most states, like MA, have a little more room to vote “on principles” than do the voters in a handful of states, like OH, where the tally and not the “statement” is what matters.
Voters in the “battleground states” have the power to decide the election. Voters in the “safe” states have, as compensation, more freedom to express disgust with their nose without spiting their face.
–TP
Last night on Bill Maher, Barnie Frank got Cornell West to concede that he would vote for Hillary if, come election day, it was clear that Jill Stein could not win and unclear whether He, Trump would lose. I’m not sure it was worth the effort.
I don’t know offhand which state Cornell West votes in, but it makes a difference whether it’s OH or MA, for example. Voters in most states, like MA, have a little more room to vote “on principles” than do the voters in a handful of states, like OH, where the tally and not the “statement” is what matters.
Voters in the “battleground states” have the power to decide the election. Voters in the “safe” states have, as compensation, more freedom to express disgust with their nose without spiting their face.
–TP
Last night on Bill Maher, Barnie Frank got Cornell West to concede that he would vote for Hillary if, come election day, it was clear that Jill Stein could not win and unclear whether He, Trump would lose. I’m not sure it was worth the effort.
I don’t know offhand which state Cornell West votes in, but it makes a difference whether it’s OH or MA, for example. Voters in most states, like MA, have a little more room to vote “on principles” than do the voters in a handful of states, like OH, where the tally and not the “statement” is what matters.
Voters in the “battleground states” have the power to decide the election. Voters in the “safe” states have, as compensation, more freedom to express disgust with their nose without spiting their face.
–TP
Thanks for the clarification, sapient. Given our usually heated interactions, I wasn’t sure if you meant me or Trump. That’s happened to me a few times ( not from you until now) where someone in a thread said ” Donald” and for a moment I wondered who the target was.
LJ– understood. As I said earlier, I’m worn down and depressed by our political choices and not real eager to get into arguments, though I still post angry things, which just means I am confused.
Thanks for the clarification, sapient. Given our usually heated interactions, I wasn’t sure if you meant me or Trump. That’s happened to me a few times ( not from you until now) where someone in a thread said ” Donald” and for a moment I wondered who the target was.
LJ– understood. As I said earlier, I’m worn down and depressed by our political choices and not real eager to get into arguments, though I still post angry things, which just means I am confused.
Thanks for the clarification, sapient. Given our usually heated interactions, I wasn’t sure if you meant me or Trump. That’s happened to me a few times ( not from you until now) where someone in a thread said ” Donald” and for a moment I wondered who the target was.
LJ– understood. As I said earlier, I’m worn down and depressed by our political choices and not real eager to get into arguments, though I still post angry things, which just means I am confused.
A view from outside the convention from a pro Palestinian activist, someone depressed( like me) and uneasy about the split in the Democratic Party.
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/establishment-outsiders-counseling/
I don’t know how split it will be in the voting booths. I hope people vote Clinton if in a swing state and then come out determined to pressure her.
A view from outside the convention from a pro Palestinian activist, someone depressed( like me) and uneasy about the split in the Democratic Party.
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/establishment-outsiders-counseling/
I don’t know how split it will be in the voting booths. I hope people vote Clinton if in a swing state and then come out determined to pressure her.
A view from outside the convention from a pro Palestinian activist, someone depressed( like me) and uneasy about the split in the Democratic Party.
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/establishment-outsiders-counseling/
I don’t know how split it will be in the voting booths. I hope people vote Clinton if in a swing state and then come out determined to pressure her.
And another post not about the campaign specifically, but about the Saudis, Yemen, the UN, Israel, the US, our hypocrisy, and how that hurts everyone.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/saudi-arabia-yemen-russia-syria-foreign-policy-united-nations-blackmail-214124#ixzz4FugE39bK
Well, probably not everyone.
This does have a connection with th campaign, in that issues like this help drive what one might call dissatisfaction with the mainstream Democrats by lefties.
And another post not about the campaign specifically, but about the Saudis, Yemen, the UN, Israel, the US, our hypocrisy, and how that hurts everyone.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/saudi-arabia-yemen-russia-syria-foreign-policy-united-nations-blackmail-214124#ixzz4FugE39bK
Well, probably not everyone.
This does have a connection with th campaign, in that issues like this help drive what one might call dissatisfaction with the mainstream Democrats by lefties.
And another post not about the campaign specifically, but about the Saudis, Yemen, the UN, Israel, the US, our hypocrisy, and how that hurts everyone.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/saudi-arabia-yemen-russia-syria-foreign-policy-united-nations-blackmail-214124#ixzz4FugE39bK
Well, probably not everyone.
This does have a connection with th campaign, in that issues like this help drive what one might call dissatisfaction with the mainstream Democrats by lefties.
For the avoidance of doubt, I (and I bet many other Clinton supporters) do not think Hillary is “functionally faultless”, only that her apparent concerns over a working lifetime reflect values we appreciate or share, and that her brains and competence suggest she could be a good POTUS. I agree that there have been episodes where her honesty is in doubt (e.g. disembarking under enemy fire), and that some of her sympathies or loyalties are highly questionable (e.g. Israel, or the banks/big corporations), although I think one can argue these questions for or against her in good faith. There could certainly be candidates better than her, and without her negatives, but Trump is not one of them, and like pretty much the whole rest of the world I desperately wish for his defeat.
This!
For the avoidance of doubt, I (and I bet many other Clinton supporters) do not think Hillary is “functionally faultless”, only that her apparent concerns over a working lifetime reflect values we appreciate or share, and that her brains and competence suggest she could be a good POTUS. I agree that there have been episodes where her honesty is in doubt (e.g. disembarking under enemy fire), and that some of her sympathies or loyalties are highly questionable (e.g. Israel, or the banks/big corporations), although I think one can argue these questions for or against her in good faith. There could certainly be candidates better than her, and without her negatives, but Trump is not one of them, and like pretty much the whole rest of the world I desperately wish for his defeat.
This!
For the avoidance of doubt, I (and I bet many other Clinton supporters) do not think Hillary is “functionally faultless”, only that her apparent concerns over a working lifetime reflect values we appreciate or share, and that her brains and competence suggest she could be a good POTUS. I agree that there have been episodes where her honesty is in doubt (e.g. disembarking under enemy fire), and that some of her sympathies or loyalties are highly questionable (e.g. Israel, or the banks/big corporations), although I think one can argue these questions for or against her in good faith. There could certainly be candidates better than her, and without her negatives, but Trump is not one of them, and like pretty much the whole rest of the world I desperately wish for his defeat.
This!
I, for one, am extremely grateful to Donald Trump, for making the decision to vote for Hillary Clinton much, much, MUCH easier.
I, for one, am extremely grateful to Donald Trump, for making the decision to vote for Hillary Clinton much, much, MUCH easier.
I, for one, am extremely grateful to Donald Trump, for making the decision to vote for Hillary Clinton much, much, MUCH easier.
An asshole for a party of fu*kibg assholes:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-fire-marshall-clinton-voter-accusation
An asshole for a party of fu*kibg assholes:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-fire-marshall-clinton-voter-accusation
An asshole for a party of fu*kibg assholes:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-fire-marshall-clinton-voter-accusation
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
and
Another good example of HRC’s mendacity. She and Bill would still be in Arkansas–although probably long since divorced–if she hadn’t made enabling his serial lying about virtually every aspect of his life a matter of course.
It sounds like she’s riding on Bill’s coattails while he’s riding on hers. Hillary wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton!
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
and
Another good example of HRC’s mendacity. She and Bill would still be in Arkansas–although probably long since divorced–if she hadn’t made enabling his serial lying about virtually every aspect of his life a matter of course.
It sounds like she’s riding on Bill’s coattails while he’s riding on hers. Hillary wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton!
HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere–who knows where–but for her marriage to BC. Her marriage to BC was her only qualification for running for the shoe-in seat as the junior senator from NY.
and
Another good example of HRC’s mendacity. She and Bill would still be in Arkansas–although probably long since divorced–if she hadn’t made enabling his serial lying about virtually every aspect of his life a matter of course.
It sounds like she’s riding on Bill’s coattails while he’s riding on hers. Hillary wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton!
Donald,
The great and looming divide on what passes for the left will be foreign policy…specifically Israel/Palestine. Viet Nam rent the party back in the 60’s, and the ‘establishment’ bailed in ’72 when McGovern secured the Democratic Party nomination.
So whenever I am in discussions with a center-right Dem who asserts I “have no other place to go”, I retort, “Just like you guys had no other place to go in 1972? Tell me, where did you folks go?”
Donald,
The great and looming divide on what passes for the left will be foreign policy…specifically Israel/Palestine. Viet Nam rent the party back in the 60’s, and the ‘establishment’ bailed in ’72 when McGovern secured the Democratic Party nomination.
So whenever I am in discussions with a center-right Dem who asserts I “have no other place to go”, I retort, “Just like you guys had no other place to go in 1972? Tell me, where did you folks go?”
Donald,
The great and looming divide on what passes for the left will be foreign policy…specifically Israel/Palestine. Viet Nam rent the party back in the 60’s, and the ‘establishment’ bailed in ’72 when McGovern secured the Democratic Party nomination.
So whenever I am in discussions with a center-right Dem who asserts I “have no other place to go”, I retort, “Just like you guys had no other place to go in 1972? Tell me, where did you folks go?”
Bill and Hillary Clinton, separate they are unknown lawyers toiling in obscurity, but together, twice elected president, twice US senator, served as Secretary of State, and governor of Arkansas.
They are they CDOs of the political world, separately they would be rated as junk but mix them up and cut them into tranches and they are AAA. Funny that.
Bill and Hillary Clinton, separate they are unknown lawyers toiling in obscurity, but together, twice elected president, twice US senator, served as Secretary of State, and governor of Arkansas.
They are they CDOs of the political world, separately they would be rated as junk but mix them up and cut them into tranches and they are AAA. Funny that.
Bill and Hillary Clinton, separate they are unknown lawyers toiling in obscurity, but together, twice elected president, twice US senator, served as Secretary of State, and governor of Arkansas.
They are they CDOs of the political world, separately they would be rated as junk but mix them up and cut them into tranches and they are AAA. Funny that.
Bobbyp–
I think that’s right, or hope it is. I also appreciated your TPP posts. I read Dean Baker too.
I also appreciate what NV has to say, though I end up voting Democratic because Republicans are worse and the protest vote ( assuming my state is safe) just doesn’t seem to do anything.
Bobbyp–
I think that’s right, or hope it is. I also appreciated your TPP posts. I read Dean Baker too.
I also appreciate what NV has to say, though I end up voting Democratic because Republicans are worse and the protest vote ( assuming my state is safe) just doesn’t seem to do anything.
Bobbyp–
I think that’s right, or hope it is. I also appreciated your TPP posts. I read Dean Baker too.
I also appreciate what NV has to say, though I end up voting Democratic because Republicans are worse and the protest vote ( assuming my state is safe) just doesn’t seem to do anything.
How many Republican assholes does it take to get an elevator stuck between floors.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/if-only-we-d-had-video-of-that
I wish that building in Colorado Springs (see above link) had burned to the ground while they were in the elevator …
…. and AFTER the fire marshall had ceded to HIS demands that America become great again by ignoring the fire regs and allowing the rest of the overflow vermin Republican crowd into the room for cooking.
How many Republican assholes does it take to get an elevator stuck between floors.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/if-only-we-d-had-video-of-that
I wish that building in Colorado Springs (see above link) had burned to the ground while they were in the elevator …
…. and AFTER the fire marshall had ceded to HIS demands that America become great again by ignoring the fire regs and allowing the rest of the overflow vermin Republican crowd into the room for cooking.
How many Republican assholes does it take to get an elevator stuck between floors.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/if-only-we-d-had-video-of-that
I wish that building in Colorado Springs (see above link) had burned to the ground while they were in the elevator …
…. and AFTER the fire marshall had ceded to HIS demands that America become great again by ignoring the fire regs and allowing the rest of the overflow vermin Republican crowd into the room for cooking.
that was cute.
D’ya know what’s so fun about being an ideological majoritarian? Ideological purity isn’t “purity”, it’s “practicality” and “pragmatism”. Privilege of the majority, indeed.
I think I’d worry more about the “strong executive” noose tightening around SCOTUS with Hillary than the corporatist one.
I’d considered mentioning that, but tried to keep it slightly shorter (I know, I know: it’s a little late for me to worry about that). This probably scares me just as much, yes.
that was cute.
D’ya know what’s so fun about being an ideological majoritarian? Ideological purity isn’t “purity”, it’s “practicality” and “pragmatism”. Privilege of the majority, indeed.
I think I’d worry more about the “strong executive” noose tightening around SCOTUS with Hillary than the corporatist one.
I’d considered mentioning that, but tried to keep it slightly shorter (I know, I know: it’s a little late for me to worry about that). This probably scares me just as much, yes.
that was cute.
D’ya know what’s so fun about being an ideological majoritarian? Ideological purity isn’t “purity”, it’s “practicality” and “pragmatism”. Privilege of the majority, indeed.
I think I’d worry more about the “strong executive” noose tightening around SCOTUS with Hillary than the corporatist one.
I’d considered mentioning that, but tried to keep it slightly shorter (I know, I know: it’s a little late for me to worry about that). This probably scares me just as much, yes.
Peaceful judicial decisions are not adequate punishment for the attempted theft of the voting franchise.
Do these Republican filth have any clue how lucky they are bullets are not ballots in this country. Or do their arsenals of weaponry give them a false sense of security about not being killed in their beds?
NOTHING in America is more corrupt than this fucking shit:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/circuit-court-north-carolina-law-targeted-african-americans-surgical-precision
At least in Chicago, the franchise was expanded by chauffeuring the dead to the polls. And why shouldn’t dead black American citizens be permitted to vote since they weren’t allowed to vote when they were alive in America? I don’t recall Daley caring one way or the other whether the corpses were white or black.
The modern racist Republican Party/Southern Confederate Dixiecrat Party merger, front and center.
Peaceful judicial decisions are not adequate punishment for the attempted theft of the voting franchise.
Do these Republican filth have any clue how lucky they are bullets are not ballots in this country. Or do their arsenals of weaponry give them a false sense of security about not being killed in their beds?
NOTHING in America is more corrupt than this fucking shit:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/circuit-court-north-carolina-law-targeted-african-americans-surgical-precision
At least in Chicago, the franchise was expanded by chauffeuring the dead to the polls. And why shouldn’t dead black American citizens be permitted to vote since they weren’t allowed to vote when they were alive in America? I don’t recall Daley caring one way or the other whether the corpses were white or black.
The modern racist Republican Party/Southern Confederate Dixiecrat Party merger, front and center.
Peaceful judicial decisions are not adequate punishment for the attempted theft of the voting franchise.
Do these Republican filth have any clue how lucky they are bullets are not ballots in this country. Or do their arsenals of weaponry give them a false sense of security about not being killed in their beds?
NOTHING in America is more corrupt than this fucking shit:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/circuit-court-north-carolina-law-targeted-african-americans-surgical-precision
At least in Chicago, the franchise was expanded by chauffeuring the dead to the polls. And why shouldn’t dead black American citizens be permitted to vote since they weren’t allowed to vote when they were alive in America? I don’t recall Daley caring one way or the other whether the corpses were white or black.
The modern racist Republican Party/Southern Confederate Dixiecrat Party merger, front and center.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/07/31/the-creative-class-is-underestimating-donald-trump-again/
Excerpt:
“Moreover, Republican voters aren’t about to move en masse to Clinton, as the latest Public Policy Polling data suggests. Clinton leads Trump, but only by five points after the Democratic Convention. Republican voters simply despise Clinton too much, with supermajorities saying that Clinton should be in jail and that she presents a greater threat to the United States than Russia does. Over a third think she may be in league with Satan himself. Not a lot of crossover potential there.”
The “creative class” has its collective head up its ass, and the 45% will not be able to be dealt with in the conventional, civilized manner we’re accustomed to on this country, except maybe in 1861.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/07/31/the-creative-class-is-underestimating-donald-trump-again/
Excerpt:
“Moreover, Republican voters aren’t about to move en masse to Clinton, as the latest Public Policy Polling data suggests. Clinton leads Trump, but only by five points after the Democratic Convention. Republican voters simply despise Clinton too much, with supermajorities saying that Clinton should be in jail and that she presents a greater threat to the United States than Russia does. Over a third think she may be in league with Satan himself. Not a lot of crossover potential there.”
The “creative class” has its collective head up its ass, and the 45% will not be able to be dealt with in the conventional, civilized manner we’re accustomed to on this country, except maybe in 1861.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/07/31/the-creative-class-is-underestimating-donald-trump-again/
Excerpt:
“Moreover, Republican voters aren’t about to move en masse to Clinton, as the latest Public Policy Polling data suggests. Clinton leads Trump, but only by five points after the Democratic Convention. Republican voters simply despise Clinton too much, with supermajorities saying that Clinton should be in jail and that she presents a greater threat to the United States than Russia does. Over a third think she may be in league with Satan himself. Not a lot of crossover potential there.”
The “creative class” has its collective head up its ass, and the 45% will not be able to be dealt with in the conventional, civilized manner we’re accustomed to on this country, except maybe in 1861.
I keep thinking about wj’s theory some while back that Trump is working for Bill and Hillary Clinton in the most elaborate ratf*cking operation ever attempted, and much of what comes out of his mouth is performance art designed to throw the election to her.
If I were writing a political thriller and agreed with the notion held by f*cking 30% of f*cked up, f*cking insane, sociopathic Republican voters that Hillary is indeed the Great Satan and when she doffs her high heels in the hotel room after a tough day of campaigning she puts both hoofed feet up on the bed and the odor of sulphur permeates the room, I would opt for two endings.
#1
She wins. The 30% then attempt to kill all of us with another 30% joining in when the ratf*ckery is revealed after the Clintons are blackmailed by Trump and company and refuse to pay him the full 20 billion he THOUGHT he made a deal for from the Clinton Foundation’s joint accounts with Putin and Romney in Barbados.
#2
Thinks don’t go as planned. The more Trump plays the asshole the better he looks to the wannabe, fence-sitting assholes in the electorate and he takes office as President of the United States in January 2017.
As chaos ensues, the kind you might see on the ground in Syria, Trump immediately fires Mike Pence as Vice President and nominates Hillary Clinton for the Office, which he successfully navigates through Congress, being the deal maker he is and having utilized the sexual dossiers on two thirds of our Congress-critters compiled by Putin’s agents in his campaign.
He then abdicates the Presidency, claiming medical necessity (an acute sense of boredom and a case of raging narcolepsy, the kind a man has who just got done screwing 300 million people in one night and then immediately loses interest in; not even a post-coital cuddle) and Hillary ascends to the Presidency.
Then, these guys start killing everyone:
http://harddawn.com/what-if-obama-doesnt-step-down-in-2016/
I love this nugget:
“A new president is elected but Obama simply refuses to leave the White House:
Any urban landlord will tell you that this situation happens far too often.”
…. because a good 30% of the American electorate is insanely racist and believes that very thing.
Even fake surgeon Ben Carson.
I keep thinking about wj’s theory some while back that Trump is working for Bill and Hillary Clinton in the most elaborate ratf*cking operation ever attempted, and much of what comes out of his mouth is performance art designed to throw the election to her.
If I were writing a political thriller and agreed with the notion held by f*cking 30% of f*cked up, f*cking insane, sociopathic Republican voters that Hillary is indeed the Great Satan and when she doffs her high heels in the hotel room after a tough day of campaigning she puts both hoofed feet up on the bed and the odor of sulphur permeates the room, I would opt for two endings.
#1
She wins. The 30% then attempt to kill all of us with another 30% joining in when the ratf*ckery is revealed after the Clintons are blackmailed by Trump and company and refuse to pay him the full 20 billion he THOUGHT he made a deal for from the Clinton Foundation’s joint accounts with Putin and Romney in Barbados.
#2
Thinks don’t go as planned. The more Trump plays the asshole the better he looks to the wannabe, fence-sitting assholes in the electorate and he takes office as President of the United States in January 2017.
As chaos ensues, the kind you might see on the ground in Syria, Trump immediately fires Mike Pence as Vice President and nominates Hillary Clinton for the Office, which he successfully navigates through Congress, being the deal maker he is and having utilized the sexual dossiers on two thirds of our Congress-critters compiled by Putin’s agents in his campaign.
He then abdicates the Presidency, claiming medical necessity (an acute sense of boredom and a case of raging narcolepsy, the kind a man has who just got done screwing 300 million people in one night and then immediately loses interest in; not even a post-coital cuddle) and Hillary ascends to the Presidency.
Then, these guys start killing everyone:
http://harddawn.com/what-if-obama-doesnt-step-down-in-2016/
I love this nugget:
“A new president is elected but Obama simply refuses to leave the White House:
Any urban landlord will tell you that this situation happens far too often.”
…. because a good 30% of the American electorate is insanely racist and believes that very thing.
Even fake surgeon Ben Carson.
I keep thinking about wj’s theory some while back that Trump is working for Bill and Hillary Clinton in the most elaborate ratf*cking operation ever attempted, and much of what comes out of his mouth is performance art designed to throw the election to her.
If I were writing a political thriller and agreed with the notion held by f*cking 30% of f*cked up, f*cking insane, sociopathic Republican voters that Hillary is indeed the Great Satan and when she doffs her high heels in the hotel room after a tough day of campaigning she puts both hoofed feet up on the bed and the odor of sulphur permeates the room, I would opt for two endings.
#1
She wins. The 30% then attempt to kill all of us with another 30% joining in when the ratf*ckery is revealed after the Clintons are blackmailed by Trump and company and refuse to pay him the full 20 billion he THOUGHT he made a deal for from the Clinton Foundation’s joint accounts with Putin and Romney in Barbados.
#2
Thinks don’t go as planned. The more Trump plays the asshole the better he looks to the wannabe, fence-sitting assholes in the electorate and he takes office as President of the United States in January 2017.
As chaos ensues, the kind you might see on the ground in Syria, Trump immediately fires Mike Pence as Vice President and nominates Hillary Clinton for the Office, which he successfully navigates through Congress, being the deal maker he is and having utilized the sexual dossiers on two thirds of our Congress-critters compiled by Putin’s agents in his campaign.
He then abdicates the Presidency, claiming medical necessity (an acute sense of boredom and a case of raging narcolepsy, the kind a man has who just got done screwing 300 million people in one night and then immediately loses interest in; not even a post-coital cuddle) and Hillary ascends to the Presidency.
Then, these guys start killing everyone:
http://harddawn.com/what-if-obama-doesnt-step-down-in-2016/
I love this nugget:
“A new president is elected but Obama simply refuses to leave the White House:
Any urban landlord will tell you that this situation happens far too often.”
…. because a good 30% of the American electorate is insanely racist and believes that very thing.
Even fake surgeon Ben Carson.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-fascinating-story-of-racist-meme.html
I repeat: no more conventional, civilized politically correct patience with these millions of pseudo-American freaks.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-fascinating-story-of-racist-meme.html
I repeat: no more conventional, civilized politically correct patience with these millions of pseudo-American freaks.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-fascinating-story-of-racist-meme.html
I repeat: no more conventional, civilized politically correct patience with these millions of pseudo-American freaks.
the “harddawn” site you linked to, in addition to being palpably insane, has an ad for a website apparently devoted to stopping masturbation, now.
does this mean the whole thing about preserving precious bodily fluids wasn’t a joke?
and, really, “hard dawn”?
real life or the onion – it’s impossible to say nowadays. poe’s law rules the world. parody is dead, or at least beside the point.
i just dont know what to say anymore. nothing is so weird that it can’t be true.
the “harddawn” site you linked to, in addition to being palpably insane, has an ad for a website apparently devoted to stopping masturbation, now.
does this mean the whole thing about preserving precious bodily fluids wasn’t a joke?
and, really, “hard dawn”?
real life or the onion – it’s impossible to say nowadays. poe’s law rules the world. parody is dead, or at least beside the point.
i just dont know what to say anymore. nothing is so weird that it can’t be true.
the “harddawn” site you linked to, in addition to being palpably insane, has an ad for a website apparently devoted to stopping masturbation, now.
does this mean the whole thing about preserving precious bodily fluids wasn’t a joke?
and, really, “hard dawn”?
real life or the onion – it’s impossible to say nowadays. poe’s law rules the world. parody is dead, or at least beside the point.
i just dont know what to say anymore. nothing is so weird that it can’t be true.
D’ya know what’s so fun about being an ideological majoritarian?
i sure do! it’s not having to pretend that getting 0% of what i want is better than getting 80% of what i want.
fun!
enjoy your self-pity.
Ideological purity isn’t “purity”, it’s “practicality” and “pragmatism”.
lucky Bellemore isn’t here, cause you’re doing some serious violence to the language.
D’ya know what’s so fun about being an ideological majoritarian?
i sure do! it’s not having to pretend that getting 0% of what i want is better than getting 80% of what i want.
fun!
enjoy your self-pity.
Ideological purity isn’t “purity”, it’s “practicality” and “pragmatism”.
lucky Bellemore isn’t here, cause you’re doing some serious violence to the language.
D’ya know what’s so fun about being an ideological majoritarian?
i sure do! it’s not having to pretend that getting 0% of what i want is better than getting 80% of what i want.
fun!
enjoy your self-pity.
Ideological purity isn’t “purity”, it’s “practicality” and “pragmatism”.
lucky Bellemore isn’t here, cause you’re doing some serious violence to the language.
Oh, cleek, did you think that comment was about you? You seem like a boilerplate, run-of-the-mill middle-of-the-road liberal, not an ideological purist. That’s a whole different set of virtues and flaws.
—
russell, I’m voting extremely straight-faced satire. The tipping point for me was buried in the terms of service:
Oh, cleek, did you think that comment was about you? You seem like a boilerplate, run-of-the-mill middle-of-the-road liberal, not an ideological purist. That’s a whole different set of virtues and flaws.
—
russell, I’m voting extremely straight-faced satire. The tipping point for me was buried in the terms of service:
Oh, cleek, did you think that comment was about you? You seem like a boilerplate, run-of-the-mill middle-of-the-road liberal, not an ideological purist. That’s a whole different set of virtues and flaws.
—
russell, I’m voting extremely straight-faced satire. The tipping point for me was buried in the terms of service:
NV, thanks for digging that out.
It seemed too over the top to be real . . . except that so much this year looks like it has to be satire, but the author/speaker is serious. “Beyond parody” almost seems like a major, and deliberate, campaign theme.
NV, thanks for digging that out.
It seemed too over the top to be real . . . except that so much this year looks like it has to be satire, but the author/speaker is serious. “Beyond parody” almost seems like a major, and deliberate, campaign theme.
NV, thanks for digging that out.
It seemed too over the top to be real . . . except that so much this year looks like it has to be satire, but the author/speaker is serious. “Beyond parody” almost seems like a major, and deliberate, campaign theme.
I agree with NV about the purity meme. I accept the argument that we should vote for the Democrats over the Republicans, but many of the people making the moral purity accusation never admit ( except sometimes in cursory fashion) any criticism of the Democrats has any validity. So in effect they think the Democrats are pure or only guilty of sins so minor they shouldn’t be mentioned. And I’m not being cute–that is the implication. Sometimes we are told this is not the time to raise the criticisms, but there is never a time, as I think NV said before.
Along similar lines there is the need to infantilize or stereotype Sanders supporters, as though they are all sexist Bernie bros or members of a cult of personality, though one could say the same with equal or greater justification about the Clinton crowd. And this isn’t confined to the Bernie or bust crowd–for many Democrats the original sin was running and criticizing Clinton on substantive grounds even though that was supposed to be what lefties were urged to do ever since Nader. Sanders did what he was supposed to do and he is still criticized by some as an egomaniac. As for those threatening to vote third party, they are exerting the most powerful leverage ( leaving aside the big donor class) a voter can exert. Ever since Nader Democrats seem to have developed this notion that voters owe fealty to the Party so long as Republicans are worse. But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters? If all lefties automatically vote for the lesser evil, the incentive would be to drift right for both votes and large donor money. And fealty isn’t limited to votes, Nobody is supposed to get really angry at Democratic leaders or criticize them when it could harm their chances.
I agree with NV about the purity meme. I accept the argument that we should vote for the Democrats over the Republicans, but many of the people making the moral purity accusation never admit ( except sometimes in cursory fashion) any criticism of the Democrats has any validity. So in effect they think the Democrats are pure or only guilty of sins so minor they shouldn’t be mentioned. And I’m not being cute–that is the implication. Sometimes we are told this is not the time to raise the criticisms, but there is never a time, as I think NV said before.
Along similar lines there is the need to infantilize or stereotype Sanders supporters, as though they are all sexist Bernie bros or members of a cult of personality, though one could say the same with equal or greater justification about the Clinton crowd. And this isn’t confined to the Bernie or bust crowd–for many Democrats the original sin was running and criticizing Clinton on substantive grounds even though that was supposed to be what lefties were urged to do ever since Nader. Sanders did what he was supposed to do and he is still criticized by some as an egomaniac. As for those threatening to vote third party, they are exerting the most powerful leverage ( leaving aside the big donor class) a voter can exert. Ever since Nader Democrats seem to have developed this notion that voters owe fealty to the Party so long as Republicans are worse. But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters? If all lefties automatically vote for the lesser evil, the incentive would be to drift right for both votes and large donor money. And fealty isn’t limited to votes, Nobody is supposed to get really angry at Democratic leaders or criticize them when it could harm their chances.
I agree with NV about the purity meme. I accept the argument that we should vote for the Democrats over the Republicans, but many of the people making the moral purity accusation never admit ( except sometimes in cursory fashion) any criticism of the Democrats has any validity. So in effect they think the Democrats are pure or only guilty of sins so minor they shouldn’t be mentioned. And I’m not being cute–that is the implication. Sometimes we are told this is not the time to raise the criticisms, but there is never a time, as I think NV said before.
Along similar lines there is the need to infantilize or stereotype Sanders supporters, as though they are all sexist Bernie bros or members of a cult of personality, though one could say the same with equal or greater justification about the Clinton crowd. And this isn’t confined to the Bernie or bust crowd–for many Democrats the original sin was running and criticizing Clinton on substantive grounds even though that was supposed to be what lefties were urged to do ever since Nader. Sanders did what he was supposed to do and he is still criticized by some as an egomaniac. As for those threatening to vote third party, they are exerting the most powerful leverage ( leaving aside the big donor class) a voter can exert. Ever since Nader Democrats seem to have developed this notion that voters owe fealty to the Party so long as Republicans are worse. But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters? If all lefties automatically vote for the lesser evil, the incentive would be to drift right for both votes and large donor money. And fealty isn’t limited to votes, Nobody is supposed to get really angry at Democratic leaders or criticize them when it could harm their chances.
Instead of ranting about “switching their positions on the TPP” could you talk about the TPP? That would be refreshing.
Instead of ranting about “switching their positions on the TPP” could you talk about the TPP? That would be refreshing.
Instead of ranting about “switching their positions on the TPP” could you talk about the TPP? That would be refreshing.
One other thing about “purity”. That is also used to dismiss people who are passionate about the wrong issues. But issues are always pushed forward at first by single minded people. Okay, I don’t know about “always”, but often.
So Trump’s pandering to hatred of Muslims should be disqualifying all by itself. Presumably most or all of us agree. His reaction to the Muslim couple that spoke at the convention was beneath contempt. Is this moral purity? What if he was good on other issues? It’s easy to be outraged at Trump because he is horrible in so many ways.
Now take Clinton and her dog whistling to bigots who think Palestinian rights aren’t worth a bucket of spit unless Israelis choose to grant them. There are some people who get so angry over this that they won’t vote for her. There are other reasons as well. I don’t agree. But trivializing this issue is what the moral purity phrase does. Some people are prematurely anti racist on the Palestinian issue.
One other thing about “purity”. That is also used to dismiss people who are passionate about the wrong issues. But issues are always pushed forward at first by single minded people. Okay, I don’t know about “always”, but often.
So Trump’s pandering to hatred of Muslims should be disqualifying all by itself. Presumably most or all of us agree. His reaction to the Muslim couple that spoke at the convention was beneath contempt. Is this moral purity? What if he was good on other issues? It’s easy to be outraged at Trump because he is horrible in so many ways.
Now take Clinton and her dog whistling to bigots who think Palestinian rights aren’t worth a bucket of spit unless Israelis choose to grant them. There are some people who get so angry over this that they won’t vote for her. There are other reasons as well. I don’t agree. But trivializing this issue is what the moral purity phrase does. Some people are prematurely anti racist on the Palestinian issue.
One other thing about “purity”. That is also used to dismiss people who are passionate about the wrong issues. But issues are always pushed forward at first by single minded people. Okay, I don’t know about “always”, but often.
So Trump’s pandering to hatred of Muslims should be disqualifying all by itself. Presumably most or all of us agree. His reaction to the Muslim couple that spoke at the convention was beneath contempt. Is this moral purity? What if he was good on other issues? It’s easy to be outraged at Trump because he is horrible in so many ways.
Now take Clinton and her dog whistling to bigots who think Palestinian rights aren’t worth a bucket of spit unless Israelis choose to grant them. There are some people who get so angry over this that they won’t vote for her. There are other reasons as well. I don’t agree. But trivializing this issue is what the moral purity phrase does. Some people are prematurely anti racist on the Palestinian issue.
If you’re talking about Clinton’s AIPAC speech, my guess is that it was an AIPAC speech. Next?
Would you mind actually talking about the issues, like the TPP? Talk about the TPP, please.
If you’re talking about Clinton’s AIPAC speech, my guess is that it was an AIPAC speech. Next?
Would you mind actually talking about the issues, like the TPP? Talk about the TPP, please.
If you’re talking about Clinton’s AIPAC speech, my guess is that it was an AIPAC speech. Next?
Would you mind actually talking about the issues, like the TPP? Talk about the TPP, please.
If I were a college professor, Donald, I would ask you, as an exercise, why Tim Kaine fails your moral purity tests (since you love criticisms so dearly). I’d be thrilled for you to respond to that with whatever moral failings you’ve no doubt come up with.
If I were a college professor, Donald, I would ask you, as an exercise, why Tim Kaine fails your moral purity tests (since you love criticisms so dearly). I’d be thrilled for you to respond to that with whatever moral failings you’ve no doubt come up with.
If I were a college professor, Donald, I would ask you, as an exercise, why Tim Kaine fails your moral purity tests (since you love criticisms so dearly). I’d be thrilled for you to respond to that with whatever moral failings you’ve no doubt come up with.
I’m not your trained seal, sapient. I like fish, but you haven’t give me any, so you can hardly expect me to react so eagerly to your barking orders.
On TPP, bobbyp spoke on that and I agree, but Dean Baker is who I usually use as my source. If I wrote on that i would have talked about how free trade agreements these days are often more about giving corporations what they want than about free trade. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance will benefit at the expense of patients. But you could google that for yourself if you want and write your own piece after you find some way to make sure Clinton comes out right. Let me know which version of her is right, the one that is for it or the one that is against it. Kaine, I gather, changed his mind last week. Maybe he should be the one to explain his reasoning.
I know the I-P issue better, but your mastery of tautology has me flummoxed. Yes, a speed to AIPAC is indeed a speech to AIPAC. The only new info in your post is that her position on Palestinian human rights and her pandering to Netanyahu and his supporters isn’t an issue. Thanks for making my point.
Clinton panders to bigots on the I-P conflict and frankly, that is the generous interpretation. I suspect she may see nothing wrong with the blockade of Gaza and has no serious objection to Israel’s tactics in Gaza in 2014, so her defense might not be pandering, but reflect her own belief that Palestinian civilians can be made to suffer or killed without guilt so long as one uses the magic escape clause and blame it all on Hamas. Americans often think that way when they are the ones whose policies target civilians, so it would make sense to extend this generosity on tactics to the Israelis. But this is speculation, based only on what she says. She may only be pandering, knowing that her supporters will leap to her defense.
I am going to bed now.
I’m not your trained seal, sapient. I like fish, but you haven’t give me any, so you can hardly expect me to react so eagerly to your barking orders.
On TPP, bobbyp spoke on that and I agree, but Dean Baker is who I usually use as my source. If I wrote on that i would have talked about how free trade agreements these days are often more about giving corporations what they want than about free trade. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance will benefit at the expense of patients. But you could google that for yourself if you want and write your own piece after you find some way to make sure Clinton comes out right. Let me know which version of her is right, the one that is for it or the one that is against it. Kaine, I gather, changed his mind last week. Maybe he should be the one to explain his reasoning.
I know the I-P issue better, but your mastery of tautology has me flummoxed. Yes, a speed to AIPAC is indeed a speech to AIPAC. The only new info in your post is that her position on Palestinian human rights and her pandering to Netanyahu and his supporters isn’t an issue. Thanks for making my point.
Clinton panders to bigots on the I-P conflict and frankly, that is the generous interpretation. I suspect she may see nothing wrong with the blockade of Gaza and has no serious objection to Israel’s tactics in Gaza in 2014, so her defense might not be pandering, but reflect her own belief that Palestinian civilians can be made to suffer or killed without guilt so long as one uses the magic escape clause and blame it all on Hamas. Americans often think that way when they are the ones whose policies target civilians, so it would make sense to extend this generosity on tactics to the Israelis. But this is speculation, based only on what she says. She may only be pandering, knowing that her supporters will leap to her defense.
I am going to bed now.
I’m not your trained seal, sapient. I like fish, but you haven’t give me any, so you can hardly expect me to react so eagerly to your barking orders.
On TPP, bobbyp spoke on that and I agree, but Dean Baker is who I usually use as my source. If I wrote on that i would have talked about how free trade agreements these days are often more about giving corporations what they want than about free trade. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance will benefit at the expense of patients. But you could google that for yourself if you want and write your own piece after you find some way to make sure Clinton comes out right. Let me know which version of her is right, the one that is for it or the one that is against it. Kaine, I gather, changed his mind last week. Maybe he should be the one to explain his reasoning.
I know the I-P issue better, but your mastery of tautology has me flummoxed. Yes, a speed to AIPAC is indeed a speech to AIPAC. The only new info in your post is that her position on Palestinian human rights and her pandering to Netanyahu and his supporters isn’t an issue. Thanks for making my point.
Clinton panders to bigots on the I-P conflict and frankly, that is the generous interpretation. I suspect she may see nothing wrong with the blockade of Gaza and has no serious objection to Israel’s tactics in Gaza in 2014, so her defense might not be pandering, but reflect her own belief that Palestinian civilians can be made to suffer or killed without guilt so long as one uses the magic escape clause and blame it all on Hamas. Americans often think that way when they are the ones whose policies target civilians, so it would make sense to extend this generosity on tactics to the Israelis. But this is speculation, based only on what she says. She may only be pandering, knowing that her supporters will leap to her defense.
I am going to bed now.
Donald, sweet dreams.
but Dean Baker is who I usually use as my source
So, we all have a source, but very few of us actually work it out for ourselves. That’s a good thing! But, honestly, accusing people of being “corporate scum” based on 2nd hand knowledge? Kind of sketchy.
Yeah, also, have you ever had a policy job, Donald? I’ve waxed nostalgic on this blog over a couple of the jobs I’ve had (one of which was actually shipped abroad!), but what do you do, exactly, for a living, other than cast aspersions on people? Or are you a trust fund hippie? Thought so.
Donald, sweet dreams.
but Dean Baker is who I usually use as my source
So, we all have a source, but very few of us actually work it out for ourselves. That’s a good thing! But, honestly, accusing people of being “corporate scum” based on 2nd hand knowledge? Kind of sketchy.
Yeah, also, have you ever had a policy job, Donald? I’ve waxed nostalgic on this blog over a couple of the jobs I’ve had (one of which was actually shipped abroad!), but what do you do, exactly, for a living, other than cast aspersions on people? Or are you a trust fund hippie? Thought so.
Donald, sweet dreams.
but Dean Baker is who I usually use as my source
So, we all have a source, but very few of us actually work it out for ourselves. That’s a good thing! But, honestly, accusing people of being “corporate scum” based on 2nd hand knowledge? Kind of sketchy.
Yeah, also, have you ever had a policy job, Donald? I’ve waxed nostalgic on this blog over a couple of the jobs I’ve had (one of which was actually shipped abroad!), but what do you do, exactly, for a living, other than cast aspersions on people? Or are you a trust fund hippie? Thought so.
Oops, the “corporate scum” thing was NV’s. My apologies for accusing you of your friend’s unkind words.
Oops, the “corporate scum” thing was NV’s. My apologies for accusing you of your friend’s unkind words.
Oops, the “corporate scum” thing was NV’s. My apologies for accusing you of your friend’s unkind words.
Sapient, you don’t need to personally know a politician to judge their policy positions. It’s droll that you’d suggest it, though.
Oh, and if you’re going to cast aspersions on people while avoiding discussions of substance (your favorite diversionary tactic remains “go do more research for me!”, I see), at least be accurate. The phrase in question was “center-right corporate elitist scum”; corporate modified elitist, not scum. Syntax matters. Admittedly, I probably should have gone with corporatist, as that might have been clearer.
Sapient, you don’t need to personally know a politician to judge their policy positions. It’s droll that you’d suggest it, though.
Oh, and if you’re going to cast aspersions on people while avoiding discussions of substance (your favorite diversionary tactic remains “go do more research for me!”, I see), at least be accurate. The phrase in question was “center-right corporate elitist scum”; corporate modified elitist, not scum. Syntax matters. Admittedly, I probably should have gone with corporatist, as that might have been clearer.
Sapient, you don’t need to personally know a politician to judge their policy positions. It’s droll that you’d suggest it, though.
Oh, and if you’re going to cast aspersions on people while avoiding discussions of substance (your favorite diversionary tactic remains “go do more research for me!”, I see), at least be accurate. The phrase in question was “center-right corporate elitist scum”; corporate modified elitist, not scum. Syntax matters. Admittedly, I probably should have gone with corporatist, as that might have been clearer.
(I do understand why you’d want to remove the concept of elitism from the conversation, though. I don’t approve, but it makes perfect sense.)
(I do understand why you’d want to remove the concept of elitism from the conversation, though. I don’t approve, but it makes perfect sense.)
(I do understand why you’d want to remove the concept of elitism from the conversation, though. I don’t approve, but it makes perfect sense.)
First of all, demands of people to reveal personal information will be treated as bullying. (why? because I say so) And if you aren’t going to bother to read links, but continue to demand a conversation, it’s also going to be treated as trolling (why? see above) Or. if the term trolling is too harsh, try ‘derailing the conversation’.
sapient, why don’t you practice your spiel for when you are canvassing and you run into someone who is an unregenerate Bernie or Jill Stein or Trump backer? If you need me to give you a break from the blog for a week or two to do so, just say the word.
First of all, demands of people to reveal personal information will be treated as bullying. (why? because I say so) And if you aren’t going to bother to read links, but continue to demand a conversation, it’s also going to be treated as trolling (why? see above) Or. if the term trolling is too harsh, try ‘derailing the conversation’.
sapient, why don’t you practice your spiel for when you are canvassing and you run into someone who is an unregenerate Bernie or Jill Stein or Trump backer? If you need me to give you a break from the blog for a week or two to do so, just say the word.
First of all, demands of people to reveal personal information will be treated as bullying. (why? because I say so) And if you aren’t going to bother to read links, but continue to demand a conversation, it’s also going to be treated as trolling (why? see above) Or. if the term trolling is too harsh, try ‘derailing the conversation’.
sapient, why don’t you practice your spiel for when you are canvassing and you run into someone who is an unregenerate Bernie or Jill Stein or Trump backer? If you need me to give you a break from the blog for a week or two to do so, just say the word.
sapient – I agree with LJ that your 10:40pm comment is over the line. Please refrain.
sapient – I agree with LJ that your 10:40pm comment is over the line. Please refrain.
sapient – I agree with LJ that your 10:40pm comment is over the line. Please refrain.
But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters?
World’s Shortest Rant
But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters?
World’s Shortest Rant
But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters?
World’s Shortest Rant
I went back and read more of the hard dawn link and besides reality and satire competing now for truest truthiness, I’d also like to warn all that being tickled to death is almost as deadly as being shot by ignoramuses.
I went back and read more of the hard dawn link and besides reality and satire competing now for truest truthiness, I’d also like to warn all that being tickled to death is almost as deadly as being shot by ignoramuses.
I went back and read more of the hard dawn link and besides reality and satire competing now for truest truthiness, I’d also like to warn all that being tickled to death is almost as deadly as being shot by ignoramuses.
http://www.ibtimes.com/corey-lewandowski-hypocrite-former-trump-manager-snaps-cnn-commentator-dont-touch-me-2396508
More satire, I guess.
Touch him or Trump?
Punch their lights out.
http://www.ibtimes.com/corey-lewandowski-hypocrite-former-trump-manager-snaps-cnn-commentator-dont-touch-me-2396508
More satire, I guess.
Touch him or Trump?
Punch their lights out.
http://www.ibtimes.com/corey-lewandowski-hypocrite-former-trump-manager-snaps-cnn-commentator-dont-touch-me-2396508
More satire, I guess.
Touch him or Trump?
Punch their lights out.
But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters?
Do you know, with certainty, that they are “pretending”?
I’m sure that “fear of voters” is in the mix, as is “peer pressure” and “new information” and “re-evaluating old information”.
I personally have flip-flopped opinions on a number of issues, not even from new information, but simply because I had not put much thought into the information I already had. Only so much time in the day, and priorities must be set, you know. (In some cases, the triggering event was being in agreement with a RWer that was advancing some bogus arguments on the issue. That made me take a closer look)
But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters?
Do you know, with certainty, that they are “pretending”?
I’m sure that “fear of voters” is in the mix, as is “peer pressure” and “new information” and “re-evaluating old information”.
I personally have flip-flopped opinions on a number of issues, not even from new information, but simply because I had not put much thought into the information I already had. Only so much time in the day, and priorities must be set, you know. (In some cases, the triggering event was being in agreement with a RWer that was advancing some bogus arguments on the issue. That made me take a closer look)
But why should Clinton and Kaine pretend to switch their positions on TPP if not for fear of voters?
Do you know, with certainty, that they are “pretending”?
I’m sure that “fear of voters” is in the mix, as is “peer pressure” and “new information” and “re-evaluating old information”.
I personally have flip-flopped opinions on a number of issues, not even from new information, but simply because I had not put much thought into the information I already had. Only so much time in the day, and priorities must be set, you know. (In some cases, the triggering event was being in agreement with a RWer that was advancing some bogus arguments on the issue. That made me take a closer look)
I can only assume you are now trolling for the fun of it (most unusual for you, I must say). This is an astonishing comment; by all accounts she graduated well from Yale Law School, which I have always understood to be one of the top if not the top law school in America. It seems that entry to the best US law schools is extremely competitive, and that graduates of the best US law schools are often the brightest and best, because unlike in the UK, the law is seen as being a passport to the best paid and most prestigious jobs. And of course, not all law graduates aspire to well-paid jobs in the private sector.
So why, since she is by common consent (even among many of her enemies or political opponents) considered unusually clever and capable, would you think that she could not have got into the Senate under her own steam?
GFTNC–trolling, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder, so I’ll leave that up to you and others. I will agree that, in an infinite universe, anything is possible and HRC (named after Sir Edmund Hilary–another fun fact) could have found her way to the senate without 8 years as First Lady.
As for having Yale on her resume, that is a plus for a lot of things, but mainly for getting your first job out of law school. Thereafter, it’s pretty much what a given person does with their degree. She was at the largest firm in Little Rock AK. She made partner. Worthy accomplishments, but not the US Senate.
There are thousands of Yale law grads. Throw in Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford and a few others and you are in the low hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these are not senators and not even particularly well known.
Is HRC “unusually clever and capable”, I’m half in agreement. With the *clever* part. *Capable*? Can’t agree.
So, my statement stands.
It sounds like she’s riding on Bill’s coattails while he’s riding on hers. Hillary wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton!
Disagree, although on further reflection, HRC was probably unintentionally more integral to BC’s election as POTUS than I’d previously considered. It is an exceedingly rare and either accommodating or calculating–or both, who knows?–woman who would tolerate BC’s serial womanizing *and* masquerade as a feminist while simultaneously dismissing as liars etc the many women who have come forward.
Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on. Because he is constitutionally incapable of self-restraint, he would have had to remain single or find another HRC to allow him to masquerade as a devoted father and husband. None of that happened. He married a woman willing to compromise first time around. Lucky for him and for her too.
But it wasn’t her coat tails. She didn’t bring in any votes. She just kept quiet. Until she had no choice.
I can only assume you are now trolling for the fun of it (most unusual for you, I must say). This is an astonishing comment; by all accounts she graduated well from Yale Law School, which I have always understood to be one of the top if not the top law school in America. It seems that entry to the best US law schools is extremely competitive, and that graduates of the best US law schools are often the brightest and best, because unlike in the UK, the law is seen as being a passport to the best paid and most prestigious jobs. And of course, not all law graduates aspire to well-paid jobs in the private sector.
So why, since she is by common consent (even among many of her enemies or political opponents) considered unusually clever and capable, would you think that she could not have got into the Senate under her own steam?
GFTNC–trolling, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder, so I’ll leave that up to you and others. I will agree that, in an infinite universe, anything is possible and HRC (named after Sir Edmund Hilary–another fun fact) could have found her way to the senate without 8 years as First Lady.
As for having Yale on her resume, that is a plus for a lot of things, but mainly for getting your first job out of law school. Thereafter, it’s pretty much what a given person does with their degree. She was at the largest firm in Little Rock AK. She made partner. Worthy accomplishments, but not the US Senate.
There are thousands of Yale law grads. Throw in Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford and a few others and you are in the low hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these are not senators and not even particularly well known.
Is HRC “unusually clever and capable”, I’m half in agreement. With the *clever* part. *Capable*? Can’t agree.
So, my statement stands.
It sounds like she’s riding on Bill’s coattails while he’s riding on hers. Hillary wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton!
Disagree, although on further reflection, HRC was probably unintentionally more integral to BC’s election as POTUS than I’d previously considered. It is an exceedingly rare and either accommodating or calculating–or both, who knows?–woman who would tolerate BC’s serial womanizing *and* masquerade as a feminist while simultaneously dismissing as liars etc the many women who have come forward.
Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on. Because he is constitutionally incapable of self-restraint, he would have had to remain single or find another HRC to allow him to masquerade as a devoted father and husband. None of that happened. He married a woman willing to compromise first time around. Lucky for him and for her too.
But it wasn’t her coat tails. She didn’t bring in any votes. She just kept quiet. Until she had no choice.
I can only assume you are now trolling for the fun of it (most unusual for you, I must say). This is an astonishing comment; by all accounts she graduated well from Yale Law School, which I have always understood to be one of the top if not the top law school in America. It seems that entry to the best US law schools is extremely competitive, and that graduates of the best US law schools are often the brightest and best, because unlike in the UK, the law is seen as being a passport to the best paid and most prestigious jobs. And of course, not all law graduates aspire to well-paid jobs in the private sector.
So why, since she is by common consent (even among many of her enemies or political opponents) considered unusually clever and capable, would you think that she could not have got into the Senate under her own steam?
GFTNC–trolling, like many other things, is in the eye of the beholder, so I’ll leave that up to you and others. I will agree that, in an infinite universe, anything is possible and HRC (named after Sir Edmund Hilary–another fun fact) could have found her way to the senate without 8 years as First Lady.
As for having Yale on her resume, that is a plus for a lot of things, but mainly for getting your first job out of law school. Thereafter, it’s pretty much what a given person does with their degree. She was at the largest firm in Little Rock AK. She made partner. Worthy accomplishments, but not the US Senate.
There are thousands of Yale law grads. Throw in Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford and a few others and you are in the low hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these are not senators and not even particularly well known.
Is HRC “unusually clever and capable”, I’m half in agreement. With the *clever* part. *Capable*? Can’t agree.
So, my statement stands.
It sounds like she’s riding on Bill’s coattails while he’s riding on hers. Hillary wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton!
Disagree, although on further reflection, HRC was probably unintentionally more integral to BC’s election as POTUS than I’d previously considered. It is an exceedingly rare and either accommodating or calculating–or both, who knows?–woman who would tolerate BC’s serial womanizing *and* masquerade as a feminist while simultaneously dismissing as liars etc the many women who have come forward.
Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on. Because he is constitutionally incapable of self-restraint, he would have had to remain single or find another HRC to allow him to masquerade as a devoted father and husband. None of that happened. He married a woman willing to compromise first time around. Lucky for him and for her too.
But it wasn’t her coat tails. She didn’t bring in any votes. She just kept quiet. Until she had no choice.
So you don’t like my use of Hillary’s “coattails.” Otherwise, it sounds like you agree that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton.
I can’t say whether or not she would have been able to get into the senate without having been first lady. Either way, she still had to be elected, which she was twice. And there’s this to keep in mind (quoted from Wikipedia): She was sworn in as U.S. senator on January 3, 2001, making her the first (and so far only) woman to have held an elected office either while (for a brief period) or after serving as first lady.
She then had to be nominated and confirmed to become Secretary of State. Her confirmation was near unanimous. And (again, from Wikipedia): She became the first former first lady to serve in the United States Cabinet.
Now she’s the first woman to become nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate. That Bill sure has some stellar coattails – history-making coattails, even.
So you don’t like my use of Hillary’s “coattails.” Otherwise, it sounds like you agree that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton.
I can’t say whether or not she would have been able to get into the senate without having been first lady. Either way, she still had to be elected, which she was twice. And there’s this to keep in mind (quoted from Wikipedia): She was sworn in as U.S. senator on January 3, 2001, making her the first (and so far only) woman to have held an elected office either while (for a brief period) or after serving as first lady.
She then had to be nominated and confirmed to become Secretary of State. Her confirmation was near unanimous. And (again, from Wikipedia): She became the first former first lady to serve in the United States Cabinet.
Now she’s the first woman to become nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate. That Bill sure has some stellar coattails – history-making coattails, even.
So you don’t like my use of Hillary’s “coattails.” Otherwise, it sounds like you agree that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Hillary Clinton.
I can’t say whether or not she would have been able to get into the senate without having been first lady. Either way, she still had to be elected, which she was twice. And there’s this to keep in mind (quoted from Wikipedia): She was sworn in as U.S. senator on January 3, 2001, making her the first (and so far only) woman to have held an elected office either while (for a brief period) or after serving as first lady.
She then had to be nominated and confirmed to become Secretary of State. Her confirmation was near unanimous. And (again, from Wikipedia): She became the first former first lady to serve in the United States Cabinet.
Now she’s the first woman to become nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate. That Bill sure has some stellar coattails – history-making coattails, even.
Now she’s the first woman to become nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate. That Bill sure has some stellar coattails – history-making coattails, even.
In NY and in the DNC, he has enormous pull and so does she. I’ve addressed the “history making” elsewhere.
Definitely, HRC needed HRC to be where HRC is today. And, with a high degree of confidence, that is likely to hold true for the foreseeable future. Although if she reinvents herself enough, I may have to rethink that as well.
Now she’s the first woman to become nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate. That Bill sure has some stellar coattails – history-making coattails, even.
In NY and in the DNC, he has enormous pull and so does she. I’ve addressed the “history making” elsewhere.
Definitely, HRC needed HRC to be where HRC is today. And, with a high degree of confidence, that is likely to hold true for the foreseeable future. Although if she reinvents herself enough, I may have to rethink that as well.
Now she’s the first woman to become nominated as a major party’s presidential candidate. That Bill sure has some stellar coattails – history-making coattails, even.
In NY and in the DNC, he has enormous pull and so does she. I’ve addressed the “history making” elsewhere.
Definitely, HRC needed HRC to be where HRC is today. And, with a high degree of confidence, that is likely to hold true for the foreseeable future. Although if she reinvents herself enough, I may have to rethink that as well.
McTX: Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on.
It’s good that McKinney approves of divorce, for the party he favors features a huge roster of once- and even twice-divorced champions of family values.
–TP
McTX: Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on.
It’s good that McKinney approves of divorce, for the party he favors features a huge roster of once- and even twice-divorced champions of family values.
–TP
McTX: Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on.
It’s good that McKinney approves of divorce, for the party he favors features a huge roster of once- and even twice-divorced champions of family values.
–TP
Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on.
I’m not at all sure of that. A surprising (to me, anyway) number of folks stay married in spite of serial adultery. Not to mention battery and other felonies. Inexplicible to us, but apparently some people have other priorities.
OK, maybe those who just grit their teeth and soldier on are enough of a minority that “most” is technically accurate. But there are enough of them that the implication (that there is something very exceptional about her tolerance) is at least over-blown. (No pun intended!)
Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on.
I’m not at all sure of that. A surprising (to me, anyway) number of folks stay married in spite of serial adultery. Not to mention battery and other felonies. Inexplicible to us, but apparently some people have other priorities.
OK, maybe those who just grit their teeth and soldier on are enough of a minority that “most” is technically accurate. But there are enough of them that the implication (that there is something very exceptional about her tolerance) is at least over-blown. (No pun intended!)
Most women, feminists or otherwise, would have divorced BC early on.
I’m not at all sure of that. A surprising (to me, anyway) number of folks stay married in spite of serial adultery. Not to mention battery and other felonies. Inexplicible to us, but apparently some people have other priorities.
OK, maybe those who just grit their teeth and soldier on are enough of a minority that “most” is technically accurate. But there are enough of them that the implication (that there is something very exceptional about her tolerance) is at least over-blown. (No pun intended!)
need advice about your marriage from someone you’ve never met before? ask a ‘conservative’.
Worthy accomplishments, but not the US Senate.
don’t keep us in suspense! tell us what qualifies a person for Senate! because from what i see in the Constitution, Clinton meets all the relevant criteria.
need advice about your marriage from someone you’ve never met before? ask a ‘conservative’.
Worthy accomplishments, but not the US Senate.
don’t keep us in suspense! tell us what qualifies a person for Senate! because from what i see in the Constitution, Clinton meets all the relevant criteria.
need advice about your marriage from someone you’ve never met before? ask a ‘conservative’.
Worthy accomplishments, but not the US Senate.
don’t keep us in suspense! tell us what qualifies a person for Senate! because from what i see in the Constitution, Clinton meets all the relevant criteria.
Count, re your post on the Hugo thread:
Does anyone (outside the conservative echo chamber anyway) really believe that porn has ever been a liberal monopoly?
My sense is that, in quite a number of cases, those denouncing these kinds of sins with the greatest vigor are doing so precisely because they have so much first hand experience with it. And not merely from a “know your enemy” effort either.
Count, re your post on the Hugo thread:
Does anyone (outside the conservative echo chamber anyway) really believe that porn has ever been a liberal monopoly?
My sense is that, in quite a number of cases, those denouncing these kinds of sins with the greatest vigor are doing so precisely because they have so much first hand experience with it. And not merely from a “know your enemy” effort either.
Count, re your post on the Hugo thread:
Does anyone (outside the conservative echo chamber anyway) really believe that porn has ever been a liberal monopoly?
My sense is that, in quite a number of cases, those denouncing these kinds of sins with the greatest vigor are doing so precisely because they have so much first hand experience with it. And not merely from a “know your enemy” effort either.
Yeah but has she ever castrated a pig? –TP
Yeah but has she ever castrated a pig? –TP
Yeah but has she ever castrated a pig? –TP
The state of the Clinton marriage is really none of our business, but that does not appear to be the “conservative” position on such matters.
The state of the Clinton marriage is really none of our business, but that does not appear to be the “conservative” position on such matters.
The state of the Clinton marriage is really none of our business, but that does not appear to be the “conservative” position on such matters.
Yeah but has she ever castrated a pig?
All we can say for sure is there has yet to be any public squealing.
Yeah but has she ever castrated a pig?
All we can say for sure is there has yet to be any public squealing.
Yeah but has she ever castrated a pig?
All we can say for sure is there has yet to be any public squealing.
wj, Shakespeare agrees with you
There are thousands of Yale law grads. Throw in Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford and a few others and you are in the low hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these are not senators and not even particularly well known.
McKinney, it is absurd to imply I meant that being a Yale Law grad was her only or defining qualification; what I meant was that it was the foundational qualification, signifying brains, drive, analytical ability etc. Rather than mentioning how many Ivy League Law grads are not senators, perhaps you’d like to comment on how many Senators are Ivy League, or other good school, Law grads. And if you think that HRC’s career subsequent to law school was corrupt in various ways, do you contend that many or even most senators are cleaner than Caesar’s wife, and not beholden to wealthy interests and backers?
wj, Shakespeare agrees with you
There are thousands of Yale law grads. Throw in Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford and a few others and you are in the low hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these are not senators and not even particularly well known.
McKinney, it is absurd to imply I meant that being a Yale Law grad was her only or defining qualification; what I meant was that it was the foundational qualification, signifying brains, drive, analytical ability etc. Rather than mentioning how many Ivy League Law grads are not senators, perhaps you’d like to comment on how many Senators are Ivy League, or other good school, Law grads. And if you think that HRC’s career subsequent to law school was corrupt in various ways, do you contend that many or even most senators are cleaner than Caesar’s wife, and not beholden to wealthy interests and backers?
wj, Shakespeare agrees with you
There are thousands of Yale law grads. Throw in Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, Stanford and a few others and you are in the low hundreds of thousands. The vast majority of these are not senators and not even particularly well known.
McKinney, it is absurd to imply I meant that being a Yale Law grad was her only or defining qualification; what I meant was that it was the foundational qualification, signifying brains, drive, analytical ability etc. Rather than mentioning how many Ivy League Law grads are not senators, perhaps you’d like to comment on how many Senators are Ivy League, or other good school, Law grads. And if you think that HRC’s career subsequent to law school was corrupt in various ways, do you contend that many or even most senators are cleaner than Caesar’s wife, and not beholden to wealthy interests and backers?
Or consider how common it is for former first ladies to become senators, cabinet members, and major-party presidential candidates. Having been first lady must be a fairly common way for otherwise ill-suited people to sneak into those positions.
Or consider how common it is for former first ladies to become senators, cabinet members, and major-party presidential candidates. Having been first lady must be a fairly common way for otherwise ill-suited people to sneak into those positions.
Or consider how common it is for former first ladies to become senators, cabinet members, and major-party presidential candidates. Having been first lady must be a fairly common way for otherwise ill-suited people to sneak into those positions.
The state of the Clinton marriage is really none of our business, but that does not appear to be the “conservative” position on such matters.
I suspect, if any Republican male, married candidate, had the number of women crying foul that BC does and if that candidate’s wife stayed with him out of political expediency, we’d be hearing plenty about it. In fact, on the left, if a woman says she’s been raped, she is presumptively entitled to belief. Ditto harassed at the office. And if a conservative’s politically expedient wife tore after those accusers, I’m quite confident we’d hear all about that. However, those rules–and many others–do not apply to the Clinton’s. Many of the comments here inferentially concede as much.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple. Behind the scenes, she was complicit in hiding, misleading, denying and enabling his womanizing. He was and is a true sexist pig yet the party who once loved to claim a Republican War on Women has had terminal lockjaw since the late 90’s.
They lie not only about their marriage but about any and everything that needs lying about and in their case, that appears to be quite a bit.
Why not demand the text of her speeches and full financial disclosure on all Clinton-related financial entities? How hard is that? If there is nothing there, a lot of air would be cleared. For those who say it wouldn’t matter what she said, it would be used against her anyway, then I refer you to the definition of codependency.
Rather than mentioning how many Ivy League Law grads are not senators, perhaps you’d like to comment on how many Senators are Ivy League, or other good school, Law grads. And if you think that HRC’s career subsequent to law school was corrupt in various ways, do you contend that many or even most senators are cleaner than Caesar’s wife, and not beholden to wealthy interests and backers?M
Well, in my defense, I mentioned that in support of my claim that but for her husband, HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere. You countered with three qualifications: Yale Law School, Clever and Capable. I gave you two out of three and attempted to point out that, regardless, those alone don’t get one much farther than a good first job, much less famous, and even much, much less, in the US Senate.
As for her corruption and her corruption relative to other politicians, I think she’s more corrupt that most in the senate, but she may not be the most corrupt, and I would not be a bit surprised if it turned out the single most corrupt serving senator is a republican.
HRC is a hugely flawed person, married to an even more flawed person. You may dig their policy positions, or his incredible capacity for politics, and you may think her plumbing adds some historic dimension to this race. Fine. Her best arguments are that (1) she’s not irrational, (2) pig ignorant or (3) Donald Trump. Just know that many who cannot stomach Trump cannot stomach HRC either. Does that make us insightful with regard to DT and idiots/sexists with respect to HRC? I think not. Your candidate should be beyond the pale. She isn’t for three reasons: a shitload of built up capital with the DNC and its subsidiaries and partisans, her plumbing and Donald Trump.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them. Despite gallons of establishment conservative antipathy, a very favorable media and Trump’s own words, he is ahead and she is behind. *That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
The state of the Clinton marriage is really none of our business, but that does not appear to be the “conservative” position on such matters.
I suspect, if any Republican male, married candidate, had the number of women crying foul that BC does and if that candidate’s wife stayed with him out of political expediency, we’d be hearing plenty about it. In fact, on the left, if a woman says she’s been raped, she is presumptively entitled to belief. Ditto harassed at the office. And if a conservative’s politically expedient wife tore after those accusers, I’m quite confident we’d hear all about that. However, those rules–and many others–do not apply to the Clinton’s. Many of the comments here inferentially concede as much.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple. Behind the scenes, she was complicit in hiding, misleading, denying and enabling his womanizing. He was and is a true sexist pig yet the party who once loved to claim a Republican War on Women has had terminal lockjaw since the late 90’s.
They lie not only about their marriage but about any and everything that needs lying about and in their case, that appears to be quite a bit.
Why not demand the text of her speeches and full financial disclosure on all Clinton-related financial entities? How hard is that? If there is nothing there, a lot of air would be cleared. For those who say it wouldn’t matter what she said, it would be used against her anyway, then I refer you to the definition of codependency.
Rather than mentioning how many Ivy League Law grads are not senators, perhaps you’d like to comment on how many Senators are Ivy League, or other good school, Law grads. And if you think that HRC’s career subsequent to law school was corrupt in various ways, do you contend that many or even most senators are cleaner than Caesar’s wife, and not beholden to wealthy interests and backers?M
Well, in my defense, I mentioned that in support of my claim that but for her husband, HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere. You countered with three qualifications: Yale Law School, Clever and Capable. I gave you two out of three and attempted to point out that, regardless, those alone don’t get one much farther than a good first job, much less famous, and even much, much less, in the US Senate.
As for her corruption and her corruption relative to other politicians, I think she’s more corrupt that most in the senate, but she may not be the most corrupt, and I would not be a bit surprised if it turned out the single most corrupt serving senator is a republican.
HRC is a hugely flawed person, married to an even more flawed person. You may dig their policy positions, or his incredible capacity for politics, and you may think her plumbing adds some historic dimension to this race. Fine. Her best arguments are that (1) she’s not irrational, (2) pig ignorant or (3) Donald Trump. Just know that many who cannot stomach Trump cannot stomach HRC either. Does that make us insightful with regard to DT and idiots/sexists with respect to HRC? I think not. Your candidate should be beyond the pale. She isn’t for three reasons: a shitload of built up capital with the DNC and its subsidiaries and partisans, her plumbing and Donald Trump.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them. Despite gallons of establishment conservative antipathy, a very favorable media and Trump’s own words, he is ahead and she is behind. *That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
The state of the Clinton marriage is really none of our business, but that does not appear to be the “conservative” position on such matters.
I suspect, if any Republican male, married candidate, had the number of women crying foul that BC does and if that candidate’s wife stayed with him out of political expediency, we’d be hearing plenty about it. In fact, on the left, if a woman says she’s been raped, she is presumptively entitled to belief. Ditto harassed at the office. And if a conservative’s politically expedient wife tore after those accusers, I’m quite confident we’d hear all about that. However, those rules–and many others–do not apply to the Clinton’s. Many of the comments here inferentially concede as much.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple. Behind the scenes, she was complicit in hiding, misleading, denying and enabling his womanizing. He was and is a true sexist pig yet the party who once loved to claim a Republican War on Women has had terminal lockjaw since the late 90’s.
They lie not only about their marriage but about any and everything that needs lying about and in their case, that appears to be quite a bit.
Why not demand the text of her speeches and full financial disclosure on all Clinton-related financial entities? How hard is that? If there is nothing there, a lot of air would be cleared. For those who say it wouldn’t matter what she said, it would be used against her anyway, then I refer you to the definition of codependency.
Rather than mentioning how many Ivy League Law grads are not senators, perhaps you’d like to comment on how many Senators are Ivy League, or other good school, Law grads. And if you think that HRC’s career subsequent to law school was corrupt in various ways, do you contend that many or even most senators are cleaner than Caesar’s wife, and not beholden to wealthy interests and backers?M
Well, in my defense, I mentioned that in support of my claim that but for her husband, HRC would be an unknown lawyer somewhere. You countered with three qualifications: Yale Law School, Clever and Capable. I gave you two out of three and attempted to point out that, regardless, those alone don’t get one much farther than a good first job, much less famous, and even much, much less, in the US Senate.
As for her corruption and her corruption relative to other politicians, I think she’s more corrupt that most in the senate, but she may not be the most corrupt, and I would not be a bit surprised if it turned out the single most corrupt serving senator is a republican.
HRC is a hugely flawed person, married to an even more flawed person. You may dig their policy positions, or his incredible capacity for politics, and you may think her plumbing adds some historic dimension to this race. Fine. Her best arguments are that (1) she’s not irrational, (2) pig ignorant or (3) Donald Trump. Just know that many who cannot stomach Trump cannot stomach HRC either. Does that make us insightful with regard to DT and idiots/sexists with respect to HRC? I think not. Your candidate should be beyond the pale. She isn’t for three reasons: a shitload of built up capital with the DNC and its subsidiaries and partisans, her plumbing and Donald Trump.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them. Despite gallons of establishment conservative antipathy, a very favorable media and Trump’s own words, he is ahead and she is behind. *That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
i’ll take an imperfect marriage over a guy who continuously sexualizes his daughter and who is on the receiving end of a lawsuit alleging statutory rape.
i’ll take an imperfect marriage over a guy who continuously sexualizes his daughter and who is on the receiving end of a lawsuit alleging statutory rape.
i’ll take an imperfect marriage over a guy who continuously sexualizes his daughter and who is on the receiving end of a lawsuit alleging statutory rape.
hsh, it gave her name recognition and a strong association with a popular sitting president. To throw in anecdota, one significant reason my parents cited in supporting Clinton in the primary was that it’d get WJC back in the Whitehouse with her in at least an advisory role. Whether or not others have done it doesn’t say whether it was important to her rise. I’m not saying as McT did that it was both necessary and sufficient, but it was probably necessary IOT rise as fast as she did. The US Senate is not typically the first elected office held by a Senator.
This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
hsh, it gave her name recognition and a strong association with a popular sitting president. To throw in anecdota, one significant reason my parents cited in supporting Clinton in the primary was that it’d get WJC back in the Whitehouse with her in at least an advisory role. Whether or not others have done it doesn’t say whether it was important to her rise. I’m not saying as McT did that it was both necessary and sufficient, but it was probably necessary IOT rise as fast as she did. The US Senate is not typically the first elected office held by a Senator.
This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
hsh, it gave her name recognition and a strong association with a popular sitting president. To throw in anecdota, one significant reason my parents cited in supporting Clinton in the primary was that it’d get WJC back in the Whitehouse with her in at least an advisory role. Whether or not others have done it doesn’t say whether it was important to her rise. I’m not saying as McT did that it was both necessary and sufficient, but it was probably necessary IOT rise as fast as she did. The US Senate is not typically the first elected office held by a Senator.
This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them.
not any more.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them.
not any more.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them.
not any more.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
McTx: Dave Vitter.
Game. Set. Match.
McTx: Dave Vitter.
Game. Set. Match.
McTx: Dave Vitter.
Game. Set. Match.
Not so much on Trump leading in the polls. (I guess if she wins the election, her fan base can assume there really wasn’t an issue.)
Not so much on Trump leading in the polls. (I guess if she wins the election, her fan base can assume there really wasn’t an issue.)
Not so much on Trump leading in the polls. (I guess if she wins the election, her fan base can assume there really wasn’t an issue.)
Trump is leading in the polls
Absolutely false.
Trump is leading in the polls
Absolutely false.
Trump is leading in the polls
Absolutely false.
hsh, it gave her name recognition and a strong association with a popular sitting president.
I’m not denying that. But that falls far short of what McKinney wrote. It’s a counterfactual like all counterfactuals. We can’t say with any degree of certainty that HRC would have lived in obscurity but for being married to Bill Clinton (who wouldn’t have gotten where he did without her, supposedly). Like her or not, she’s an exceptional person in both drive and intellect.
This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
I actually had the same thought. Being born white and not poor doesn’t ensure great success, but it does increase your chances.
hsh, it gave her name recognition and a strong association with a popular sitting president.
I’m not denying that. But that falls far short of what McKinney wrote. It’s a counterfactual like all counterfactuals. We can’t say with any degree of certainty that HRC would have lived in obscurity but for being married to Bill Clinton (who wouldn’t have gotten where he did without her, supposedly). Like her or not, she’s an exceptional person in both drive and intellect.
This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
I actually had the same thought. Being born white and not poor doesn’t ensure great success, but it does increase your chances.
hsh, it gave her name recognition and a strong association with a popular sitting president.
I’m not denying that. But that falls far short of what McKinney wrote. It’s a counterfactual like all counterfactuals. We can’t say with any degree of certainty that HRC would have lived in obscurity but for being married to Bill Clinton (who wouldn’t have gotten where he did without her, supposedly). Like her or not, she’s an exceptional person in both drive and intellect.
This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
I actually had the same thought. Being born white and not poor doesn’t ensure great success, but it does increase your chances.
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them. Despite gallons of establishment conservative antipathy, a very favorable media and Trump’s own words, he is ahead and she is behind. *That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
Don’t worry; if he wins it won’t be because of Republicans or independents supporting him or disliking Clinton. It’ll be because of Sanders and Bernie-or-busters splitting the Democratic vote. Or so we will be told at top volume…
Clinton is widely untrusted and unpopular outside of Democratic loyalist circles. This really isn’t controversial unless you live in an echo chamber, which is of course unfortunately fairly common these days. Her partisans can argue ’til they’re breathless that it’s for unfair reasons, but that’s somewhat irrelevant; you go into the general with the candidates you have, not the ones you want. Clinton is lucky a traditional Republican didn’t win their primary. As it stands, if she can’t overcome Trump in November, the only ones to blame will be the partisans who nominated a politician that they love but most of the country quite pointedly does not… all while lecturing everyone in earshot about the importance – nay, primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects when it comes to primary politics…
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them. Despite gallons of establishment conservative antipathy, a very favorable media and Trump’s own words, he is ahead and she is behind. *That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
Don’t worry; if he wins it won’t be because of Republicans or independents supporting him or disliking Clinton. It’ll be because of Sanders and Bernie-or-busters splitting the Democratic vote. Or so we will be told at top volume…
Clinton is widely untrusted and unpopular outside of Democratic loyalist circles. This really isn’t controversial unless you live in an echo chamber, which is of course unfortunately fairly common these days. Her partisans can argue ’til they’re breathless that it’s for unfair reasons, but that’s somewhat irrelevant; you go into the general with the candidates you have, not the ones you want. Clinton is lucky a traditional Republican didn’t win their primary. As it stands, if she can’t overcome Trump in November, the only ones to blame will be the partisans who nominated a politician that they love but most of the country quite pointedly does not… all while lecturing everyone in earshot about the importance – nay, primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects when it comes to primary politics…
Trump is leading in the polls, if anyone can believe them. Despite gallons of establishment conservative antipathy, a very favorable media and Trump’s own words, he is ahead and she is behind. *That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
Don’t worry; if he wins it won’t be because of Republicans or independents supporting him or disliking Clinton. It’ll be because of Sanders and Bernie-or-busters splitting the Democratic vote. Or so we will be told at top volume…
Clinton is widely untrusted and unpopular outside of Democratic loyalist circles. This really isn’t controversial unless you live in an echo chamber, which is of course unfortunately fairly common these days. Her partisans can argue ’til they’re breathless that it’s for unfair reasons, but that’s somewhat irrelevant; you go into the general with the candidates you have, not the ones you want. Clinton is lucky a traditional Republican didn’t win their primary. As it stands, if she can’t overcome Trump in November, the only ones to blame will be the partisans who nominated a politician that they love but most of the country quite pointedly does not… all while lecturing everyone in earshot about the importance – nay, primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects when it comes to primary politics…
As a matter of fact, according to Real Clear Politics (which I am told by Republican friends is a good source of info, and Ed Miliband used it for US political info as well, so I think they are cancelling each other out), in the RCP Poll Average HRC is now ahead by 2.2%.
*That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
On the whole, you are not here talking to “her fan base”. Nobody here is saying there really isn’t an issue. I give you flawed, and that BC is even more flawed. I even give you that he is a true sexist pig (and possibly even a rapist), except that unlike so many true sexist pigs he is supporting a woman for President.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple.
I think this is incredibly lame, for the reasons already discussed, possibly ad nauseam. When argument descends to speculating about whether other people’s marriages are “true” marriages, you know (or ought to) that you are (or your argument is) in trouble. Also, what cleek said.
As a matter of fact, according to Real Clear Politics (which I am told by Republican friends is a good source of info, and Ed Miliband used it for US political info as well, so I think they are cancelling each other out), in the RCP Poll Average HRC is now ahead by 2.2%.
*That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
On the whole, you are not here talking to “her fan base”. Nobody here is saying there really isn’t an issue. I give you flawed, and that BC is even more flawed. I even give you that he is a true sexist pig (and possibly even a rapist), except that unlike so many true sexist pigs he is supporting a woman for President.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple.
I think this is incredibly lame, for the reasons already discussed, possibly ad nauseam. When argument descends to speculating about whether other people’s marriages are “true” marriages, you know (or ought to) that you are (or your argument is) in trouble. Also, what cleek said.
As a matter of fact, according to Real Clear Politics (which I am told by Republican friends is a good source of info, and Ed Miliband used it for US political info as well, so I think they are cancelling each other out), in the RCP Poll Average HRC is now ahead by 2.2%.
*That* should tell her fan base that there really is an issue.
On the whole, you are not here talking to “her fan base”. Nobody here is saying there really isn’t an issue. I give you flawed, and that BC is even more flawed. I even give you that he is a true sexist pig (and possibly even a rapist), except that unlike so many true sexist pigs he is supporting a woman for President.
BC and HRC lived a lie for years, holding themselves out as a traditional married couple.
I think this is incredibly lame, for the reasons already discussed, possibly ad nauseam. When argument descends to speculating about whether other people’s marriages are “true” marriages, you know (or ought to) that you are (or your argument is) in trouble. Also, what cleek said.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
This is nothing new – Republicans have always been obsessed with the Clintons’ sex life to the tune of 39.2 million taxpayer dollars.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
This is nothing new – Republicans have always been obsessed with the Clintons’ sex life to the tune of 39.2 million taxpayer dollars.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
This is nothing new – Republicans have always been obsessed with the Clintons’ sex life to the tune of 39.2 million taxpayer dollars.
In fact, on the left, if a woman says she’s been raped, she is presumptively entitled to belief.
“9-1-1, what is the emergency?”
“This is First National Bank, we’ve been robbed!”
“Any injuries?”
“Thank God, no.”
“That is terrible. Is this the first time?”
“What?! No, of course not. What kind of question is that?”
“Just ascertaining the facts. Don’t be so touchy. Now, was this consensual?”
“Are you mad? We’ve been robbed. They waved a gun in my face!”
“Please calm down. You said you weren’t hurt. What were you wearing?”
(click)
In fact, on the left, if a woman says she’s been raped, she is presumptively entitled to belief.
“9-1-1, what is the emergency?”
“This is First National Bank, we’ve been robbed!”
“Any injuries?”
“Thank God, no.”
“That is terrible. Is this the first time?”
“What?! No, of course not. What kind of question is that?”
“Just ascertaining the facts. Don’t be so touchy. Now, was this consensual?”
“Are you mad? We’ve been robbed. They waved a gun in my face!”
“Please calm down. You said you weren’t hurt. What were you wearing?”
(click)
In fact, on the left, if a woman says she’s been raped, she is presumptively entitled to belief.
“9-1-1, what is the emergency?”
“This is First National Bank, we’ve been robbed!”
“Any injuries?”
“Thank God, no.”
“That is terrible. Is this the first time?”
“What?! No, of course not. What kind of question is that?”
“Just ascertaining the facts. Don’t be so touchy. Now, was this consensual?”
“Are you mad? We’ve been robbed. They waved a gun in my face!”
“Please calm down. You said you weren’t hurt. What were you wearing?”
(click)
I think this is incredibly lame, for the reasons already discussed, possibly ad nauseam. When argument descends to speculating about whether other people’s marriages are “true” marriages, you know (or ought to) that you are (or your argument is) in trouble. Also, what cleek said.
I never once used or intimated the concept of a “true marriage”. That is a straw person. Furthermore, you–and cleek–are being rather selective in how you spin my comments. It isn’t that their marriage was loveless, or without intimacy or thatlike a good friend of mine recently confided to me about his marriage, “we are more like brother and sister”, all of that is part of the human condition. Many marriages have an incident or two of infidelity and survive. FWIW, we’ve been married 40 years and there were some very rough spots along the way. That’s not even within shouting distance of my point.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
The hypocrisy of letting BC and HRC get away with it is truly astonishing. Almost as astonishing as the modified, limited hang-out: “I agree she’s flawed but . . . “. I’m sorry, but principled conservatives have had to call out their share of idiots: Palin, Trump, Cruz, and many others. I’m not seeing much of that on the left, with some notable exceptions, with the Blue Ribbon for intellectual integrity going to NV.
For the record, I don’t quarrel with HRC supporters who say “yes, she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump.” It’s defending the indefensible that gets me.
I think this is incredibly lame, for the reasons already discussed, possibly ad nauseam. When argument descends to speculating about whether other people’s marriages are “true” marriages, you know (or ought to) that you are (or your argument is) in trouble. Also, what cleek said.
I never once used or intimated the concept of a “true marriage”. That is a straw person. Furthermore, you–and cleek–are being rather selective in how you spin my comments. It isn’t that their marriage was loveless, or without intimacy or thatlike a good friend of mine recently confided to me about his marriage, “we are more like brother and sister”, all of that is part of the human condition. Many marriages have an incident or two of infidelity and survive. FWIW, we’ve been married 40 years and there were some very rough spots along the way. That’s not even within shouting distance of my point.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
The hypocrisy of letting BC and HRC get away with it is truly astonishing. Almost as astonishing as the modified, limited hang-out: “I agree she’s flawed but . . . “. I’m sorry, but principled conservatives have had to call out their share of idiots: Palin, Trump, Cruz, and many others. I’m not seeing much of that on the left, with some notable exceptions, with the Blue Ribbon for intellectual integrity going to NV.
For the record, I don’t quarrel with HRC supporters who say “yes, she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump.” It’s defending the indefensible that gets me.
I think this is incredibly lame, for the reasons already discussed, possibly ad nauseam. When argument descends to speculating about whether other people’s marriages are “true” marriages, you know (or ought to) that you are (or your argument is) in trouble. Also, what cleek said.
I never once used or intimated the concept of a “true marriage”. That is a straw person. Furthermore, you–and cleek–are being rather selective in how you spin my comments. It isn’t that their marriage was loveless, or without intimacy or thatlike a good friend of mine recently confided to me about his marriage, “we are more like brother and sister”, all of that is part of the human condition. Many marriages have an incident or two of infidelity and survive. FWIW, we’ve been married 40 years and there were some very rough spots along the way. That’s not even within shouting distance of my point.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
The hypocrisy of letting BC and HRC get away with it is truly astonishing. Almost as astonishing as the modified, limited hang-out: “I agree she’s flawed but . . . “. I’m sorry, but principled conservatives have had to call out their share of idiots: Palin, Trump, Cruz, and many others. I’m not seeing much of that on the left, with some notable exceptions, with the Blue Ribbon for intellectual integrity going to NV.
For the record, I don’t quarrel with HRC supporters who say “yes, she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump.” It’s defending the indefensible that gets me.
I never once used or intimated the concept of a “true marriage”.
here’s you, yesterday:
I never once used or intimated the concept of a “true marriage”.
here’s you, yesterday:
I never once used or intimated the concept of a “true marriage”.
here’s you, yesterday:
It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
Lots of people leverage celebrity totaly unrelated to governing into political office. See, locally, Arnold Schwartzeneger. Who was actually a pretty good governor, in spite of having zero relevant experience before he took the job.
Should we fault Clinton for using her particular kind of celebrity in order to win political office? Why is that kind of celebrity bad, where other kinds are not? (Of course, you can argue that all kinds of non-governmental celebrity shouldn’t be used in politics. Sorry, this is the real world.)
It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
Lots of people leverage celebrity totaly unrelated to governing into political office. See, locally, Arnold Schwartzeneger. Who was actually a pretty good governor, in spite of having zero relevant experience before he took the job.
Should we fault Clinton for using her particular kind of celebrity in order to win political office? Why is that kind of celebrity bad, where other kinds are not? (Of course, you can argue that all kinds of non-governmental celebrity shouldn’t be used in politics. Sorry, this is the real world.)
It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
Lots of people leverage celebrity totaly unrelated to governing into political office. See, locally, Arnold Schwartzeneger. Who was actually a pretty good governor, in spite of having zero relevant experience before he took the job.
Should we fault Clinton for using her particular kind of celebrity in order to win political office? Why is that kind of celebrity bad, where other kinds are not? (Of course, you can argue that all kinds of non-governmental celebrity shouldn’t be used in politics. Sorry, this is the real world.)
Election Betting Odds
Election Betting Odds
Election Betting Odds
It’s a sham marriage by any normal standard which is its own kind of lie.
It took me so long to scroll back and find this that cleek got there first! A “true marriage” seemed a reasonable antonym to “a sham marriage” to me.
It’s a sham marriage by any normal standard which is its own kind of lie.
It took me so long to scroll back and find this that cleek got there first! A “true marriage” seemed a reasonable antonym to “a sham marriage” to me.
It’s a sham marriage by any normal standard which is its own kind of lie.
It took me so long to scroll back and find this that cleek got there first! A “true marriage” seemed a reasonable antonym to “a sham marriage” to me.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
Cleek, when you engage, you usually engage well. This isn’t engagement. Aside from implying an alternate reality in which what I said about BC and HRC would be untrue, it is low rent name-calling. It is also highly selective editing of my comment. You are the first to insist that your tribe be quoted and addressed in context. I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
McTx: Dave Vitter.
Game. Set. Match.
Seriously? That’s it? Vitter admitted using an escort service, no one on the conservative side tried to enable his behavior and he’s out of politics. This folks, is how lame it gets when defending the Clinton’s. Completely in-opposite fact patterns are offered in tuo quoque fashion, with rhetorical flourishes that should be embarrassing.
Plenty of Republicans have been caught out of bounds for sexual misbehavior. AFAIK, they are all out of office. None of them had a powerful blog site formed for their defense. None of them are ritually defended by conservatives. Only one of them–Gingrich (another asshole I’m happy to call out)–spoke at the RNC and he is in no way comparable to BC’s role in the Dem party.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
Cleek, when you engage, you usually engage well. This isn’t engagement. Aside from implying an alternate reality in which what I said about BC and HRC would be untrue, it is low rent name-calling. It is also highly selective editing of my comment. You are the first to insist that your tribe be quoted and addressed in context. I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
McTx: Dave Vitter.
Game. Set. Match.
Seriously? That’s it? Vitter admitted using an escort service, no one on the conservative side tried to enable his behavior and he’s out of politics. This folks, is how lame it gets when defending the Clinton’s. Completely in-opposite fact patterns are offered in tuo quoque fashion, with rhetorical flourishes that should be embarrassing.
Plenty of Republicans have been caught out of bounds for sexual misbehavior. AFAIK, they are all out of office. None of them had a powerful blog site formed for their defense. None of them are ritually defended by conservatives. Only one of them–Gingrich (another asshole I’m happy to call out)–spoke at the RNC and he is in no way comparable to BC’s role in the Dem party.
you’re coming across like a gossip-obsessed celebrity stalker.
Cleek, when you engage, you usually engage well. This isn’t engagement. Aside from implying an alternate reality in which what I said about BC and HRC would be untrue, it is low rent name-calling. It is also highly selective editing of my comment. You are the first to insist that your tribe be quoted and addressed in context. I’d appreciate the same courtesy.
McTx: Dave Vitter.
Game. Set. Match.
Seriously? That’s it? Vitter admitted using an escort service, no one on the conservative side tried to enable his behavior and he’s out of politics. This folks, is how lame it gets when defending the Clinton’s. Completely in-opposite fact patterns are offered in tuo quoque fashion, with rhetorical flourishes that should be embarrassing.
Plenty of Republicans have been caught out of bounds for sexual misbehavior. AFAIK, they are all out of office. None of them had a powerful blog site formed for their defense. None of them are ritually defended by conservatives. Only one of them–Gingrich (another asshole I’m happy to call out)–spoke at the RNC and he is in no way comparable to BC’s role in the Dem party.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
Or maybe she really loves him. YMMV.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
Or maybe she really loves him. YMMV.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
Or maybe she really loves him. YMMV.
Clinton is lucky a traditional Republican didn’t win their primary
This is, given Clinton’s negatives, quite true. On the other hand, while Trump looks like being an electoral disaster of the first water, the portion of “traditional Republicans” on offer in the primaries wasn’t particularly large. Were any of them even as moderate as Romney or McCain? Or even, say, Huntsman? Not that I recall.
Personally, I think that Cruz, had he won the nomination, would be doing nearly as badly as Trump. (Of course, in order to be able to win, he would have had to be someone other than who he is.) And Cruz was, by quite a margin, the next most successful of the Republicans.
Clinton is lucky a traditional Republican didn’t win their primary
This is, given Clinton’s negatives, quite true. On the other hand, while Trump looks like being an electoral disaster of the first water, the portion of “traditional Republicans” on offer in the primaries wasn’t particularly large. Were any of them even as moderate as Romney or McCain? Or even, say, Huntsman? Not that I recall.
Personally, I think that Cruz, had he won the nomination, would be doing nearly as badly as Trump. (Of course, in order to be able to win, he would have had to be someone other than who he is.) And Cruz was, by quite a margin, the next most successful of the Republicans.
Clinton is lucky a traditional Republican didn’t win their primary
This is, given Clinton’s negatives, quite true. On the other hand, while Trump looks like being an electoral disaster of the first water, the portion of “traditional Republicans” on offer in the primaries wasn’t particularly large. Were any of them even as moderate as Romney or McCain? Or even, say, Huntsman? Not that I recall.
Personally, I think that Cruz, had he won the nomination, would be doing nearly as badly as Trump. (Of course, in order to be able to win, he would have had to be someone other than who he is.) And Cruz was, by quite a margin, the next most successful of the Republicans.
Vitter admitted using an escort service, no one on the conservative side tried to enable his behavior and he’s out of politics.
Senator Vitter is out of politics?
Vitter admitted using an escort service, no one on the conservative side tried to enable his behavior and he’s out of politics.
Senator Vitter is out of politics?
Vitter admitted using an escort service, no one on the conservative side tried to enable his behavior and he’s out of politics.
Senator Vitter is out of politics?
It is okay for presidents to cheat but not be cheated on?
It is okay for presidents to cheat but not be cheated on?
It is okay for presidents to cheat but not be cheated on?
McTx:
i don’t know how else to say it: the Clinton’s marriage is none of your business. you are not part of their family. you are not a marriage counselor. butt out.
McTx:
i don’t know how else to say it: the Clinton’s marriage is none of your business. you are not part of their family. you are not a marriage counselor. butt out.
McTx:
i don’t know how else to say it: the Clinton’s marriage is none of your business. you are not part of their family. you are not a marriage counselor. butt out.
Or maybe she really loves him. YMMV.
Ok, one more time, here is what I said:
“traditional married feminist”
“who capitalized on feminism”
“while simultaneusly enabling, hiding, excusing covering for a serial pig”
“attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited”
The foregoing is almost universally believed to be true. If HRC loses, it will be in no small part because her defenders make ridiculously inane points in her defense while consistently avoiding the fundamental and gross nature of what she did and continues to do in order to stay married to her husband who, in turn, is in the process of attempting to put her in the presidency.
Or maybe she really loves him. YMMV.
Ok, one more time, here is what I said:
“traditional married feminist”
“who capitalized on feminism”
“while simultaneusly enabling, hiding, excusing covering for a serial pig”
“attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited”
The foregoing is almost universally believed to be true. If HRC loses, it will be in no small part because her defenders make ridiculously inane points in her defense while consistently avoiding the fundamental and gross nature of what she did and continues to do in order to stay married to her husband who, in turn, is in the process of attempting to put her in the presidency.
Or maybe she really loves him. YMMV.
Ok, one more time, here is what I said:
“traditional married feminist”
“who capitalized on feminism”
“while simultaneusly enabling, hiding, excusing covering for a serial pig”
“attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited”
The foregoing is almost universally believed to be true. If HRC loses, it will be in no small part because her defenders make ridiculously inane points in her defense while consistently avoiding the fundamental and gross nature of what she did and continues to do in order to stay married to her husband who, in turn, is in the process of attempting to put her in the presidency.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
I think the first part of this (up to AND) shows almost no understanding of the complicated dynamics of marriage, and why people do what they do in what look from the outside like awful circumstances, which in this case may or may not be to do with HRC’s ambition, none of us really knows. However, for what it’s worth, I agree that HRC’s behaviour in “attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited” is awful, and one of the main reasons I see her as morally questionable. You know, McKinney, many of us here (not Sapient) are not so far from your “yes she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump”.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
I think the first part of this (up to AND) shows almost no understanding of the complicated dynamics of marriage, and why people do what they do in what look from the outside like awful circumstances, which in this case may or may not be to do with HRC’s ambition, none of us really knows. However, for what it’s worth, I agree that HRC’s behaviour in “attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited” is awful, and one of the main reasons I see her as morally questionable. You know, McKinney, many of us here (not Sapient) are not so far from your “yes she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump”.
Pretending to be a traditionally married feminist–capitalizing on feminism in every conceivable way–while simultaneously enabling, hiding, excusing, cover up for a serial pig AND attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited is living a huge, huge lie.
I think the first part of this (up to AND) shows almost no understanding of the complicated dynamics of marriage, and why people do what they do in what look from the outside like awful circumstances, which in this case may or may not be to do with HRC’s ambition, none of us really knows. However, for what it’s worth, I agree that HRC’s behaviour in “attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited” is awful, and one of the main reasons I see her as morally questionable. You know, McKinney, many of us here (not Sapient) are not so far from your “yes she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump”.
While not accepting, however, that she is unqualified to be POTUS.
While not accepting, however, that she is unqualified to be POTUS.
While not accepting, however, that she is unqualified to be POTUS.
AFAIK, they are all out of office
Vitter was reelected!
AFAIK, they are all out of office
Vitter was reelected!
AFAIK, they are all out of office
Vitter was reelected!
“attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited”
Please expound. She privately said something about Monica Lewinsky being a narcissistic looney toon. Is that really so surprising? And how much of an “attack” was that?
“attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited”
Please expound. She privately said something about Monica Lewinsky being a narcissistic looney toon. Is that really so surprising? And how much of an “attack” was that?
“attacking the mostly lower tier women her husband exploited”
Please expound. She privately said something about Monica Lewinsky being a narcissistic looney toon. Is that really so surprising? And how much of an “attack” was that?
Stand By Your Man ain’t what it used to be I guess.
Stand By Your Man ain’t what it used to be I guess.
Stand By Your Man ain’t what it used to be I guess.
Senator Vitter is out of politics?
From Wikipedia, “After conceding defeat to Edwards, Vitter announced that he would not seek reelection to his Senate seat in 2016 and would retire from the Senate at the completion of his term.[3]”
i don’t know how else to say it: the Clinton’s marriage is none of your business. you are not part of their family. you are not a marriage counselor. butt out.
I refer you to my 4:34.
You know, McKinney, many of us here (not Sapient) are not so far from your “yes she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump”.
Perhaps. I would agree with your discussion re marriage dynamics prior to AND but for the fact that all that I described was and is a consciously chosen public persona. It is leading with one’s chin to assume the role of a feminist public figure and enable a serial pig who–I should have added this earlier–did a good deal of his womanizing in the work place. That is a big fat feminist no-no. It’s actually a big fat no-no outside of the traditional feminist orbit.
And Cleek thinks it’s only their business. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Cleek, you make my point. And, you use another popular device one sees at the extremes–you declare positions you disagree with to be out of bounds, beyond the pale, the debate is over, there can be no debate, blah, blah, blah.
I like being in arguments where the other side won’t engage on the merits. For reasons that should be obvious.
Senator Vitter is out of politics?
From Wikipedia, “After conceding defeat to Edwards, Vitter announced that he would not seek reelection to his Senate seat in 2016 and would retire from the Senate at the completion of his term.[3]”
i don’t know how else to say it: the Clinton’s marriage is none of your business. you are not part of their family. you are not a marriage counselor. butt out.
I refer you to my 4:34.
You know, McKinney, many of us here (not Sapient) are not so far from your “yes she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump”.
Perhaps. I would agree with your discussion re marriage dynamics prior to AND but for the fact that all that I described was and is a consciously chosen public persona. It is leading with one’s chin to assume the role of a feminist public figure and enable a serial pig who–I should have added this earlier–did a good deal of his womanizing in the work place. That is a big fat feminist no-no. It’s actually a big fat no-no outside of the traditional feminist orbit.
And Cleek thinks it’s only their business. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Cleek, you make my point. And, you use another popular device one sees at the extremes–you declare positions you disagree with to be out of bounds, beyond the pale, the debate is over, there can be no debate, blah, blah, blah.
I like being in arguments where the other side won’t engage on the merits. For reasons that should be obvious.
Senator Vitter is out of politics?
From Wikipedia, “After conceding defeat to Edwards, Vitter announced that he would not seek reelection to his Senate seat in 2016 and would retire from the Senate at the completion of his term.[3]”
i don’t know how else to say it: the Clinton’s marriage is none of your business. you are not part of their family. you are not a marriage counselor. butt out.
I refer you to my 4:34.
You know, McKinney, many of us here (not Sapient) are not so far from your “yes she’s awful, but much less awful than Trump”.
Perhaps. I would agree with your discussion re marriage dynamics prior to AND but for the fact that all that I described was and is a consciously chosen public persona. It is leading with one’s chin to assume the role of a feminist public figure and enable a serial pig who–I should have added this earlier–did a good deal of his womanizing in the work place. That is a big fat feminist no-no. It’s actually a big fat no-no outside of the traditional feminist orbit.
And Cleek thinks it’s only their business. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
Cleek, you make my point. And, you use another popular device one sees at the extremes–you declare positions you disagree with to be out of bounds, beyond the pale, the debate is over, there can be no debate, blah, blah, blah.
I like being in arguments where the other side won’t engage on the merits. For reasons that should be obvious.
That is a big fat feminist no-no.
I’m pretty sure you’re not qualified to speak for feminists. You certainly don’t speak for me.
That is a big fat feminist no-no.
I’m pretty sure you’re not qualified to speak for feminists. You certainly don’t speak for me.
That is a big fat feminist no-no.
I’m pretty sure you’re not qualified to speak for feminists. You certainly don’t speak for me.
Please expound. She privately said something about Monica Lewinsky being a narcissistic looney toon. Is that really so surprising? And how much of an “attack” was that?
No. Not going to get in that game with you, Sapient. If you, after all of these years, remain so willfully ignorant of the names of BC’s many accusers (“drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park . . .”.”) and the nature of the charges they’ve made, nothing I might find in five minutes and link to is going to make any difference to you.
I will just remind you, however, that BC denied every single one of those until ML’s blue dress percolated to the top. He bluffed nationally, and enlisted hundreds to repeat his lies, right up until the very last minute. With as straight a face as one might want. And she did too.
Please expound. She privately said something about Monica Lewinsky being a narcissistic looney toon. Is that really so surprising? And how much of an “attack” was that?
No. Not going to get in that game with you, Sapient. If you, after all of these years, remain so willfully ignorant of the names of BC’s many accusers (“drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park . . .”.”) and the nature of the charges they’ve made, nothing I might find in five minutes and link to is going to make any difference to you.
I will just remind you, however, that BC denied every single one of those until ML’s blue dress percolated to the top. He bluffed nationally, and enlisted hundreds to repeat his lies, right up until the very last minute. With as straight a face as one might want. And she did too.
Please expound. She privately said something about Monica Lewinsky being a narcissistic looney toon. Is that really so surprising? And how much of an “attack” was that?
No. Not going to get in that game with you, Sapient. If you, after all of these years, remain so willfully ignorant of the names of BC’s many accusers (“drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park . . .”.”) and the nature of the charges they’ve made, nothing I might find in five minutes and link to is going to make any difference to you.
I will just remind you, however, that BC denied every single one of those until ML’s blue dress percolated to the top. He bluffed nationally, and enlisted hundreds to repeat his lies, right up until the very last minute. With as straight a face as one might want. And she did too.
I wonder how many feminists out there trust Trump more than they do HRC on women’s issues.
I wonder how many feminists out there trust Trump more than they do HRC on women’s issues.
I wonder how many feminists out there trust Trump more than they do HRC on women’s issues.
The hundred dollar bill comment is attributed to James Carville. Next?
The hundred dollar bill comment is attributed to James Carville. Next?
The hundred dollar bill comment is attributed to James Carville. Next?
Hmm. In reply to sapient’s request, I have been trying to find instances of Hillary’s attacking Bill’s exploitees, and apart from finding the Carville quote on Paula Jones which I half-misremembered as being HRC’s “”If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find”, I haven’t found anything reliable. Mind you, the Monica Lewinsky quote was bad enough, after all ML was a 21 year old intern who effectively worked for him, or should have been considered as doing so.
As I’ve said before, she has many negatives (though having a “sham marriage” probably isn’t one of them, btw I noticed you never came back on your straw person claim). But she has plenty of positives too (e.g. the Count has referred to her positive reviews from Republican Senators) and is certainly a million times better than Trump.
Now I should have been packing to go back up to the North Country tomorrow, and have been derailed by my current ObWi addiction, so over and out, at least until Wednesday.
Hmm. In reply to sapient’s request, I have been trying to find instances of Hillary’s attacking Bill’s exploitees, and apart from finding the Carville quote on Paula Jones which I half-misremembered as being HRC’s “”If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find”, I haven’t found anything reliable. Mind you, the Monica Lewinsky quote was bad enough, after all ML was a 21 year old intern who effectively worked for him, or should have been considered as doing so.
As I’ve said before, she has many negatives (though having a “sham marriage” probably isn’t one of them, btw I noticed you never came back on your straw person claim). But she has plenty of positives too (e.g. the Count has referred to her positive reviews from Republican Senators) and is certainly a million times better than Trump.
Now I should have been packing to go back up to the North Country tomorrow, and have been derailed by my current ObWi addiction, so over and out, at least until Wednesday.
Hmm. In reply to sapient’s request, I have been trying to find instances of Hillary’s attacking Bill’s exploitees, and apart from finding the Carville quote on Paula Jones which I half-misremembered as being HRC’s “”If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find”, I haven’t found anything reliable. Mind you, the Monica Lewinsky quote was bad enough, after all ML was a 21 year old intern who effectively worked for him, or should have been considered as doing so.
As I’ve said before, she has many negatives (though having a “sham marriage” probably isn’t one of them, btw I noticed you never came back on your straw person claim). But she has plenty of positives too (e.g. the Count has referred to her positive reviews from Republican Senators) and is certainly a million times better than Trump.
Now I should have been packing to go back up to the North Country tomorrow, and have been derailed by my current ObWi addiction, so over and out, at least until Wednesday.
Mind you, the Monica Lewinsky quote was bad enough,
Maybe not nice, but forgivable, IMO, and said privately, which isn’t an “attack”.
Mind you, the Monica Lewinsky quote was bad enough,
Maybe not nice, but forgivable, IMO, and said privately, which isn’t an “attack”.
Mind you, the Monica Lewinsky quote was bad enough,
Maybe not nice, but forgivable, IMO, and said privately, which isn’t an “attack”.
I wonder how many feminists out there trust Trump more than they do HRC on women’s issues.
This would be called ‘changing the subject’. HRC is completely reliable on traditional ‘women’s issues’ (I’m generally not a fan of limiting issues to one gender, sex, ethnicity, but that’s a different and much less important discussion). That’s got nothing to do with the points I’ve made. I would expect most women to find Trump repellent on many levels.
We could discuss Trump’s unworthiness. We could also sing Kumbaya and If I Had a Hammer.
I wonder how many feminists out there trust Trump more than they do HRC on women’s issues.
This would be called ‘changing the subject’. HRC is completely reliable on traditional ‘women’s issues’ (I’m generally not a fan of limiting issues to one gender, sex, ethnicity, but that’s a different and much less important discussion). That’s got nothing to do with the points I’ve made. I would expect most women to find Trump repellent on many levels.
We could discuss Trump’s unworthiness. We could also sing Kumbaya and If I Had a Hammer.
I wonder how many feminists out there trust Trump more than they do HRC on women’s issues.
This would be called ‘changing the subject’. HRC is completely reliable on traditional ‘women’s issues’ (I’m generally not a fan of limiting issues to one gender, sex, ethnicity, but that’s a different and much less important discussion). That’s got nothing to do with the points I’ve made. I would expect most women to find Trump repellent on many levels.
We could discuss Trump’s unworthiness. We could also sing Kumbaya and If I Had a Hammer.
That’s got nothing to do with the points I’ve made.
Let’s be clear that you haven’t made any points.
That’s got nothing to do with the points I’ve made.
Let’s be clear that you haven’t made any points.
That’s got nothing to do with the points I’ve made.
Let’s be clear that you haven’t made any points.
It didn’t take long for me to find this 1998 HRC quote:
I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”
HRC’s enablers will spin this as being ambiguous as to whom the veiled threats are being leveled. For those outside the echo chamber, it is established fact that the Clinton’s are leaders in oppo research and masters at using others as surrogates and cat’s paws in planting stories about their enemies.
I’m not going to spend hours running down everything HRC said back in the day, e.g. vast right wing conspiracy. Or what her water carriers said and which I impute to HRC given that even as of this moment she has yet to renounce.
Now I should have been packing to go back up to the North Country tomorrow, and have been derailed by my current ObWi addiction, so over and out, at least until Wednesday.
Yeah, no kidding. I’ll be here late, getting to the crap I let slide. Adios.
It didn’t take long for me to find this 1998 HRC quote:
I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”
HRC’s enablers will spin this as being ambiguous as to whom the veiled threats are being leveled. For those outside the echo chamber, it is established fact that the Clinton’s are leaders in oppo research and masters at using others as surrogates and cat’s paws in planting stories about their enemies.
I’m not going to spend hours running down everything HRC said back in the day, e.g. vast right wing conspiracy. Or what her water carriers said and which I impute to HRC given that even as of this moment she has yet to renounce.
Now I should have been packing to go back up to the North Country tomorrow, and have been derailed by my current ObWi addiction, so over and out, at least until Wednesday.
Yeah, no kidding. I’ll be here late, getting to the crap I let slide. Adios.
It didn’t take long for me to find this 1998 HRC quote:
I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”
HRC’s enablers will spin this as being ambiguous as to whom the veiled threats are being leveled. For those outside the echo chamber, it is established fact that the Clinton’s are leaders in oppo research and masters at using others as surrogates and cat’s paws in planting stories about their enemies.
I’m not going to spend hours running down everything HRC said back in the day, e.g. vast right wing conspiracy. Or what her water carriers said and which I impute to HRC given that even as of this moment she has yet to renounce.
Now I should have been packing to go back up to the North Country tomorrow, and have been derailed by my current ObWi addiction, so over and out, at least until Wednesday.
Yeah, no kidding. I’ll be here late, getting to the crap I let slide. Adios.
This would be called ‘changing the subject’.
No, it isn’t. You brought up feminists, and women’s issues are definitionally what feminism is about. It’s directly in response to your “feminist no-no” line, in which you implied that you had some insight into feminist opinion on HRC, or at least what that opinion should be.
This would be called ‘changing the subject’.
No, it isn’t. You brought up feminists, and women’s issues are definitionally what feminism is about. It’s directly in response to your “feminist no-no” line, in which you implied that you had some insight into feminist opinion on HRC, or at least what that opinion should be.
This would be called ‘changing the subject’.
No, it isn’t. You brought up feminists, and women’s issues are definitionally what feminism is about. It’s directly in response to your “feminist no-no” line, in which you implied that you had some insight into feminist opinion on HRC, or at least what that opinion should be.
but for the fact that all that I described was and is a consciously chosen public persona.
So just to be clear, you would have an identical opinion of any politician who goes on about, and asks for support based on, his Christianity, while:
– Having adulterous affairs,
– Showing no sign of charity (monetary or otherwise) towards the poor and otherwise less fortunate,
– Attacking his opponents for their lack of proper faith and piety (e.g. for supporting something like gay marriage).
If so, fine. You are consistent. If not, then you need to look at your double standards.
but for the fact that all that I described was and is a consciously chosen public persona.
So just to be clear, you would have an identical opinion of any politician who goes on about, and asks for support based on, his Christianity, while:
– Having adulterous affairs,
– Showing no sign of charity (monetary or otherwise) towards the poor and otherwise less fortunate,
– Attacking his opponents for their lack of proper faith and piety (e.g. for supporting something like gay marriage).
If so, fine. You are consistent. If not, then you need to look at your double standards.
but for the fact that all that I described was and is a consciously chosen public persona.
So just to be clear, you would have an identical opinion of any politician who goes on about, and asks for support based on, his Christianity, while:
– Having adulterous affairs,
– Showing no sign of charity (monetary or otherwise) towards the poor and otherwise less fortunate,
– Attacking his opponents for their lack of proper faith and piety (e.g. for supporting something like gay marriage).
If so, fine. You are consistent. If not, then you need to look at your double standards.
So just to be clear, you would have an identical opinion of any politician who goes on about, and asks for support based on, his Christianity, while:
– Having adulterous affairs,
– Showing no sign of charity (monetary or otherwise) towards the poor and otherwise less fortunate,
– Attacking his opponents for their lack of proper faith and piety (e.g. for supporting something like gay marriage).
If so, fine. You are consistent. If not, then you need to look at your double standards.
Thanks for the lecture and my apologies for my lack of clarity over the last ten years or so. I would have major issues with any one of the above items, as I’m pretty sure I’ve indicated at one time or another here at OBWI. Running as a Christian is like running as a *Patriot* or any other buzzword, left or right, that is self-referential and self-aggrandizing.
So just to be clear, you would have an identical opinion of any politician who goes on about, and asks for support based on, his Christianity, while:
– Having adulterous affairs,
– Showing no sign of charity (monetary or otherwise) towards the poor and otherwise less fortunate,
– Attacking his opponents for their lack of proper faith and piety (e.g. for supporting something like gay marriage).
If so, fine. You are consistent. If not, then you need to look at your double standards.
Thanks for the lecture and my apologies for my lack of clarity over the last ten years or so. I would have major issues with any one of the above items, as I’m pretty sure I’ve indicated at one time or another here at OBWI. Running as a Christian is like running as a *Patriot* or any other buzzword, left or right, that is self-referential and self-aggrandizing.
So just to be clear, you would have an identical opinion of any politician who goes on about, and asks for support based on, his Christianity, while:
– Having adulterous affairs,
– Showing no sign of charity (monetary or otherwise) towards the poor and otherwise less fortunate,
– Attacking his opponents for their lack of proper faith and piety (e.g. for supporting something like gay marriage).
If so, fine. You are consistent. If not, then you need to look at your double standards.
Thanks for the lecture and my apologies for my lack of clarity over the last ten years or so. I would have major issues with any one of the above items, as I’m pretty sure I’ve indicated at one time or another here at OBWI. Running as a Christian is like running as a *Patriot* or any other buzzword, left or right, that is self-referential and self-aggrandizing.
I wonder who Monica Lewinsky is voting for in 2016?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-stone-khizr-khan-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy
I wonder who Monica Lewinsky is voting for in 2016?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-stone-khizr-khan-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy
I wonder who Monica Lewinsky is voting for in 2016?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/roger-stone-khizr-khan-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy
By the way, I admire Monica Lewinsky for braving the ordeal she went through, and also for her recent Ted Talk, etc. I also think that Hillary’s very understated animosity was a very human response to a world of hurt.
By the way, I admire Monica Lewinsky for braving the ordeal she went through, and also for her recent Ted Talk, etc. I also think that Hillary’s very understated animosity was a very human response to a world of hurt.
By the way, I admire Monica Lewinsky for braving the ordeal she went through, and also for her recent Ted Talk, etc. I also think that Hillary’s very understated animosity was a very human response to a world of hurt.
I don’t want to pile on here, but there seems to be opposing notions here about, for lack of a better word, destiny. I can’t speak for Russell, who actually is a musician, but being a wannabe in that regard, one thing I realize is that no matter how much talent and ability you have, I understand that there is an element of luck. That luck might just be being in the right place and the right time and people can improve their luck by being plugged in.
I’m not sure precisely how many New York senators there have been, but 240/6×2 give you 160, so it seems to be big element of that involved. Sure, if the Clintons had gotten a divorce, there would be no senator HRC, if Obama had spent a few more late poker nights with his Illinois State Senate counterparts, maybe Michelle would have cited irreconcilable differences and there would be no Osama presidency.
I do wonder if it is a marker of conservative thought that one basically makes their own future and, in an ideal world, one deserves what they get. I tend to think that luck has a lot more to do with where you are, which maybe puts me in a different place than McT.
I don’t want to pile on here, but there seems to be opposing notions here about, for lack of a better word, destiny. I can’t speak for Russell, who actually is a musician, but being a wannabe in that regard, one thing I realize is that no matter how much talent and ability you have, I understand that there is an element of luck. That luck might just be being in the right place and the right time and people can improve their luck by being plugged in.
I’m not sure precisely how many New York senators there have been, but 240/6×2 give you 160, so it seems to be big element of that involved. Sure, if the Clintons had gotten a divorce, there would be no senator HRC, if Obama had spent a few more late poker nights with his Illinois State Senate counterparts, maybe Michelle would have cited irreconcilable differences and there would be no Osama presidency.
I do wonder if it is a marker of conservative thought that one basically makes their own future and, in an ideal world, one deserves what they get. I tend to think that luck has a lot more to do with where you are, which maybe puts me in a different place than McT.
I don’t want to pile on here, but there seems to be opposing notions here about, for lack of a better word, destiny. I can’t speak for Russell, who actually is a musician, but being a wannabe in that regard, one thing I realize is that no matter how much talent and ability you have, I understand that there is an element of luck. That luck might just be being in the right place and the right time and people can improve their luck by being plugged in.
I’m not sure precisely how many New York senators there have been, but 240/6×2 give you 160, so it seems to be big element of that involved. Sure, if the Clintons had gotten a divorce, there would be no senator HRC, if Obama had spent a few more late poker nights with his Illinois State Senate counterparts, maybe Michelle would have cited irreconcilable differences and there would be no Osama presidency.
I do wonder if it is a marker of conservative thought that one basically makes their own future and, in an ideal world, one deserves what they get. I tend to think that luck has a lot more to do with where you are, which maybe puts me in a different place than McT.
Osama>Obama. sheesh…
Osama>Obama. sheesh…
Osama>Obama. sheesh…
Much of the recent kerfuffle about McKT’s comments on the Clintons and their “sham marriage” – which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is something he knows nothing about nor has any particular right to preach about – has already passed before I got here, so I’ll make only one completely irrelevant point.
Hillary Clinton (b.1947) was NOT named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who was not known to the world until he climbed Mt. Everest in 1953.
Unless her parents were magical seers. Which might help explain her otherwise inexplicable (to McKT) climb to political office.
Much of the recent kerfuffle about McKT’s comments on the Clintons and their “sham marriage” – which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is something he knows nothing about nor has any particular right to preach about – has already passed before I got here, so I’ll make only one completely irrelevant point.
Hillary Clinton (b.1947) was NOT named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who was not known to the world until he climbed Mt. Everest in 1953.
Unless her parents were magical seers. Which might help explain her otherwise inexplicable (to McKT) climb to political office.
Much of the recent kerfuffle about McKT’s comments on the Clintons and their “sham marriage” – which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is something he knows nothing about nor has any particular right to preach about – has already passed before I got here, so I’ll make only one completely irrelevant point.
Hillary Clinton (b.1947) was NOT named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who was not known to the world until he climbed Mt. Everest in 1953.
Unless her parents were magical seers. Which might help explain her otherwise inexplicable (to McKT) climb to political office.
As political lying goes, America is a font, as in a productive source, of liars.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/hillary-clinton-one-americas-most-honest-politicians.
There must be something about all of us, we citizens, these folks must think requires great muck holes of falsehood.
I remember when Walter Mondale told the truth that he was going to raise taxes if elected, because they needed raising and look what happened to him.
Then the guy Mondale lost to who lied out of his ass about the absolute evil of taxes, raised taxes, what, three times.
See how it works, suckers?
If Bill AND Hillary Clinton had forced me to suck Bill’s dick, given the choices for the country right this minute, I’d still vote for Hillary.
“maybe Michelle would have cited irreconcilable differences and there would be no Osama presidency.”
Whoops. Let’s hope the Donald and his handlers, who he manhandles, don’t catch that one. 😉
As political lying goes, America is a font, as in a productive source, of liars.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/hillary-clinton-one-americas-most-honest-politicians.
There must be something about all of us, we citizens, these folks must think requires great muck holes of falsehood.
I remember when Walter Mondale told the truth that he was going to raise taxes if elected, because they needed raising and look what happened to him.
Then the guy Mondale lost to who lied out of his ass about the absolute evil of taxes, raised taxes, what, three times.
See how it works, suckers?
If Bill AND Hillary Clinton had forced me to suck Bill’s dick, given the choices for the country right this minute, I’d still vote for Hillary.
“maybe Michelle would have cited irreconcilable differences and there would be no Osama presidency.”
Whoops. Let’s hope the Donald and his handlers, who he manhandles, don’t catch that one. 😉
As political lying goes, America is a font, as in a productive source, of liars.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/hillary-clinton-one-americas-most-honest-politicians.
There must be something about all of us, we citizens, these folks must think requires great muck holes of falsehood.
I remember when Walter Mondale told the truth that he was going to raise taxes if elected, because they needed raising and look what happened to him.
Then the guy Mondale lost to who lied out of his ass about the absolute evil of taxes, raised taxes, what, three times.
See how it works, suckers?
If Bill AND Hillary Clinton had forced me to suck Bill’s dick, given the choices for the country right this minute, I’d still vote for Hillary.
“maybe Michelle would have cited irreconcilable differences and there would be no Osama presidency.”
Whoops. Let’s hope the Donald and his handlers, who he manhandles, don’t catch that one. 😉
You’ll have to scroll down to the third post at Drum’s site for the proper link.
There you go again, dr ngo, making a molehill out of a mountain.
You’ll have to scroll down to the third post at Drum’s site for the proper link.
There you go again, dr ngo, making a molehill out of a mountain.
You’ll have to scroll down to the third post at Drum’s site for the proper link.
There you go again, dr ngo, making a molehill out of a mountain.
How reprehensible of Monica Lewinsky to be using her notoriety from this unsavory incident to get to give a Ted talk. Without Bill Clinton she would be working in total obscurity somewhere.
AmIRight?
How reprehensible of Monica Lewinsky to be using her notoriety from this unsavory incident to get to give a Ted talk. Without Bill Clinton she would be working in total obscurity somewhere.
AmIRight?
How reprehensible of Monica Lewinsky to be using her notoriety from this unsavory incident to get to give a Ted talk. Without Bill Clinton she would be working in total obscurity somewhere.
AmIRight?
AmIRight?
Thanks, Obama.
AmIRight?
Thanks, Obama.
AmIRight?
Thanks, Obama.
God I hate that graph. Politifact is owned by the most liberal newspaper in Florida and has been shown to what? pick facts to review based on what party the candidate is in.
So they slant the fact checking and then use the biased checking to create a graph that has NO statistical value whatsoever.
See I hate it when the press conspires to lie. So I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC, and I don’t read the Tampa Bay Times or Politifact.
God I hate that graph. Politifact is owned by the most liberal newspaper in Florida and has been shown to what? pick facts to review based on what party the candidate is in.
So they slant the fact checking and then use the biased checking to create a graph that has NO statistical value whatsoever.
See I hate it when the press conspires to lie. So I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC, and I don’t read the Tampa Bay Times or Politifact.
God I hate that graph. Politifact is owned by the most liberal newspaper in Florida and has been shown to what? pick facts to review based on what party the candidate is in.
So they slant the fact checking and then use the biased checking to create a graph that has NO statistical value whatsoever.
See I hate it when the press conspires to lie. So I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC, and I don’t read the Tampa Bay Times or Politifact.
So, I owe Donald an apology for asking/assuming things about his personal biography. I was out of line. Sorry.
So, I owe Donald an apology for asking/assuming things about his personal biography. I was out of line. Sorry.
So, I owe Donald an apology for asking/assuming things about his personal biography. I was out of line. Sorry.
Marty,
I ask in all sincerity: what news sources do you read or watch?
–TP
Marty,
I ask in all sincerity: what news sources do you read or watch?
–TP
Marty,
I ask in all sincerity: what news sources do you read or watch?
–TP
I’ve never read the Houston Chronicle, (maybe in college) but I might start:
http://juanitajean.com/well-butter-my-butt-and-call-me-biscuit/
I’ve never read the Houston Chronicle, (maybe in college) but I might start:
http://juanitajean.com/well-butter-my-butt-and-call-me-biscuit/
I’ve never read the Houston Chronicle, (maybe in college) but I might start:
http://juanitajean.com/well-butter-my-butt-and-call-me-biscuit/
I have no problem with McK finding the Clintons to be, personally, despicable people. They don’t really bug me all that much, mostly because I have no investment whatsoever in their personal lives. They are politicians. My interest in them is in how effective they are as agents of public governance, and how closely the goals they are trying to achieve align with my own interests and preferences.
The number of politicians at the national level who have personal lives somewhere between sketchy and plainly sordid is pretty large. It’s not a good thing, but it’s a fact. Many (not all, for sure, but many) professional politicians are charismatic people. Even the ones with the personality and charm of a turnip are still more-than-average powerful people. That’s an aphrodisiac for some folks, and so the temptation is pretty much always there for them to take advantage of that.
Likewise, people taking advantage of family or other personal connections to advance their own careers is so common as to be dead ordinary. Spouses, children, and siblings of people holding public office commonly use their connection to that person to begin or advance their own political careers.
There’s a term called “widow’s succession”. The only thing notable in HRC’s case is that WJC isn’t dead. And even that’s not particularly notable.
You are more than entitled to your personal opinion about the Clintons, as people. Frankly, they aren’t my favorite people, either, but it’s just not something I spend any mental energy on. Not because they are (D)’s, but because their personal foibles don’t appear to interfere with their ability to be effective politicians. Which is to say, effective at executing the public offices they have held.
I’m simply not interested in the state of their marriage, their reasons for staying together, whether they sleep together, whether they have other romantic interests, or any romantic interests at all. I don’t care if Hilary has simply stuck it out with Bill specifically to ease her own path to public office.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It’s not my business. It’s not any of our business, other than perhaps as a topic of salacious gossip. I don’t see the relevance to HRC’s pursuit of the presidency.
I actually think it’s harmful when stuff like this becomes part of the bar for holding public office. There are lots of really capable people who would do great things in public life, but who have less-than-sparkly personal histories. If it’s not relevant to the office, it really shouldn’t be anybody’s business but theirs. Trying to squeeze folks into some kind of Perfect American Family thing just leads to endless amounts of bullsh*t.
IMVHO.
It does seem like this is occupying an unusual amount of your mental energy. Which is fine, we all have our bugbears. I just find it kind of puzzling.
I have no problem with McK finding the Clintons to be, personally, despicable people. They don’t really bug me all that much, mostly because I have no investment whatsoever in their personal lives. They are politicians. My interest in them is in how effective they are as agents of public governance, and how closely the goals they are trying to achieve align with my own interests and preferences.
The number of politicians at the national level who have personal lives somewhere between sketchy and plainly sordid is pretty large. It’s not a good thing, but it’s a fact. Many (not all, for sure, but many) professional politicians are charismatic people. Even the ones with the personality and charm of a turnip are still more-than-average powerful people. That’s an aphrodisiac for some folks, and so the temptation is pretty much always there for them to take advantage of that.
Likewise, people taking advantage of family or other personal connections to advance their own careers is so common as to be dead ordinary. Spouses, children, and siblings of people holding public office commonly use their connection to that person to begin or advance their own political careers.
There’s a term called “widow’s succession”. The only thing notable in HRC’s case is that WJC isn’t dead. And even that’s not particularly notable.
You are more than entitled to your personal opinion about the Clintons, as people. Frankly, they aren’t my favorite people, either, but it’s just not something I spend any mental energy on. Not because they are (D)’s, but because their personal foibles don’t appear to interfere with their ability to be effective politicians. Which is to say, effective at executing the public offices they have held.
I’m simply not interested in the state of their marriage, their reasons for staying together, whether they sleep together, whether they have other romantic interests, or any romantic interests at all. I don’t care if Hilary has simply stuck it out with Bill specifically to ease her own path to public office.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It’s not my business. It’s not any of our business, other than perhaps as a topic of salacious gossip. I don’t see the relevance to HRC’s pursuit of the presidency.
I actually think it’s harmful when stuff like this becomes part of the bar for holding public office. There are lots of really capable people who would do great things in public life, but who have less-than-sparkly personal histories. If it’s not relevant to the office, it really shouldn’t be anybody’s business but theirs. Trying to squeeze folks into some kind of Perfect American Family thing just leads to endless amounts of bullsh*t.
IMVHO.
It does seem like this is occupying an unusual amount of your mental energy. Which is fine, we all have our bugbears. I just find it kind of puzzling.
I have no problem with McK finding the Clintons to be, personally, despicable people. They don’t really bug me all that much, mostly because I have no investment whatsoever in their personal lives. They are politicians. My interest in them is in how effective they are as agents of public governance, and how closely the goals they are trying to achieve align with my own interests and preferences.
The number of politicians at the national level who have personal lives somewhere between sketchy and plainly sordid is pretty large. It’s not a good thing, but it’s a fact. Many (not all, for sure, but many) professional politicians are charismatic people. Even the ones with the personality and charm of a turnip are still more-than-average powerful people. That’s an aphrodisiac for some folks, and so the temptation is pretty much always there for them to take advantage of that.
Likewise, people taking advantage of family or other personal connections to advance their own careers is so common as to be dead ordinary. Spouses, children, and siblings of people holding public office commonly use their connection to that person to begin or advance their own political careers.
There’s a term called “widow’s succession”. The only thing notable in HRC’s case is that WJC isn’t dead. And even that’s not particularly notable.
You are more than entitled to your personal opinion about the Clintons, as people. Frankly, they aren’t my favorite people, either, but it’s just not something I spend any mental energy on. Not because they are (D)’s, but because their personal foibles don’t appear to interfere with their ability to be effective politicians. Which is to say, effective at executing the public offices they have held.
I’m simply not interested in the state of their marriage, their reasons for staying together, whether they sleep together, whether they have other romantic interests, or any romantic interests at all. I don’t care if Hilary has simply stuck it out with Bill specifically to ease her own path to public office.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It’s not my business. It’s not any of our business, other than perhaps as a topic of salacious gossip. I don’t see the relevance to HRC’s pursuit of the presidency.
I actually think it’s harmful when stuff like this becomes part of the bar for holding public office. There are lots of really capable people who would do great things in public life, but who have less-than-sparkly personal histories. If it’s not relevant to the office, it really shouldn’t be anybody’s business but theirs. Trying to squeeze folks into some kind of Perfect American Family thing just leads to endless amounts of bullsh*t.
IMVHO.
It does seem like this is occupying an unusual amount of your mental energy. Which is fine, we all have our bugbears. I just find it kind of puzzling.
I guess another question I have is why it’s odd or in any way inappropriate for Clinton and Kaine to change their position on the TPP (or any other issue) because of pressure from voters.
Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
I guess another question I have is why it’s odd or in any way inappropriate for Clinton and Kaine to change their position on the TPP (or any other issue) because of pressure from voters.
Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
I guess another question I have is why it’s odd or in any way inappropriate for Clinton and Kaine to change their position on the TPP (or any other issue) because of pressure from voters.
Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
Don’t worry about it sapient. For future reference, I am the crown prince of Ruritania. Or the love child of a Sardaukar commander and a Bene Gesserit witch and a failed Kwisatch Haderach to boot. All these answers are as close to the truth as your guess.
I started typing a response to Snarki’s question above, but it can wait.
Don’t worry about it sapient. For future reference, I am the crown prince of Ruritania. Or the love child of a Sardaukar commander and a Bene Gesserit witch and a failed Kwisatch Haderach to boot. All these answers are as close to the truth as your guess.
I started typing a response to Snarki’s question above, but it can wait.
Don’t worry about it sapient. For future reference, I am the crown prince of Ruritania. Or the love child of a Sardaukar commander and a Bene Gesserit witch and a failed Kwisatch Haderach to boot. All these answers are as close to the truth as your guess.
I started typing a response to Snarki’s question above, but it can wait.
Sure, if the Clintons had gotten a divorce, there would be no senator HRC
Conversely, she might have won by even larger margins.
Of course, then she would have been playing the victim card.
Sure, if the Clintons had gotten a divorce, there would be no senator HRC
Conversely, she might have won by even larger margins.
Of course, then she would have been playing the victim card.
Sure, if the Clintons had gotten a divorce, there would be no senator HRC
Conversely, she might have won by even larger margins.
Of course, then she would have been playing the victim card.
So I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC, and I don’t read the Tampa Bay Times or Politifact.
I like Reuters and the AP. The Christian Science Monitor is pretty good, also, if kind of light.
When I want slant, I go for the GuardianUK and McClatchy. Maybe Mother Jones.
But I know it’s slanted.
So I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC, and I don’t read the Tampa Bay Times or Politifact.
I like Reuters and the AP. The Christian Science Monitor is pretty good, also, if kind of light.
When I want slant, I go for the GuardianUK and McClatchy. Maybe Mother Jones.
But I know it’s slanted.
So I don’t watch Fox News or MSNBC, and I don’t read the Tampa Bay Times or Politifact.
I like Reuters and the AP. The Christian Science Monitor is pretty good, also, if kind of light.
When I want slant, I go for the GuardianUK and McClatchy. Maybe Mother Jones.
But I know it’s slanted.
Exactly what I thought, Donald. Thanks for being gracious.
Exactly what I thought, Donald. Thanks for being gracious.
Exactly what I thought, Donald. Thanks for being gracious.
I gave a bit more thought to this exchange:
NV: This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
Me: I actually had the same thought. Being born white and not poor doesn’t ensure great success, but it does increase your chances.
What came to mind is that neither Bill nor Hillary came from people of great means, particularly as compared to the sort of people who usually run for or manage to become president, and especially in Bill’s case. I don’t mention this to dispute the comparison, because there is an aspect of the comparison that is valid. But there’s also an irony in it, given the sorts of advantages most people who rise this far have as a matter of birth relative to what the Clintons had.
They essentially came from nothing as it concerns particular wealth or influence. Even if they helped each other along the way, they did it with their own smarts and effort, moreso than most.
I gave a bit more thought to this exchange:
NV: This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
Me: I actually had the same thought. Being born white and not poor doesn’t ensure great success, but it does increase your chances.
What came to mind is that neither Bill nor Hillary came from people of great means, particularly as compared to the sort of people who usually run for or manage to become president, and especially in Bill’s case. I don’t mention this to dispute the comparison, because there is an aspect of the comparison that is valid. But there’s also an irony in it, given the sorts of advantages most people who rise this far have as a matter of birth relative to what the Clintons had.
They essentially came from nothing as it concerns particular wealth or influence. Even if they helped each other along the way, they did it with their own smarts and effort, moreso than most.
I gave a bit more thought to this exchange:
NV: This somewhat reminds me of a discussion of privilege. It’s not that there was no work involved in her rise – far from it – but her circumstances allowed her to rise faster, further, and more surely than someone without her assorted advantages would have risen.
Me: I actually had the same thought. Being born white and not poor doesn’t ensure great success, but it does increase your chances.
What came to mind is that neither Bill nor Hillary came from people of great means, particularly as compared to the sort of people who usually run for or manage to become president, and especially in Bill’s case. I don’t mention this to dispute the comparison, because there is an aspect of the comparison that is valid. But there’s also an irony in it, given the sorts of advantages most people who rise this far have as a matter of birth relative to what the Clintons had.
They essentially came from nothing as it concerns particular wealth or influence. Even if they helped each other along the way, they did it with their own smarts and effort, moreso than most.
I try to find stuff on the Internet that stick mostly to the facts. Individual stories can be covered OK by the cnn’s or yahoo’s but mostly when they quote wire services etc. Then I go to Facebook to get the real story.
I try to find stuff on the Internet that stick mostly to the facts. Individual stories can be covered OK by the cnn’s or yahoo’s but mostly when they quote wire services etc. Then I go to Facebook to get the real story.
I try to find stuff on the Internet that stick mostly to the facts. Individual stories can be covered OK by the cnn’s or yahoo’s but mostly when they quote wire services etc. Then I go to Facebook to get the real story.
I read after he reads his sources.
I read after he reads his sources.
I read after he reads his sources.
This, for example, is true metaphorically, except that the Donald rides side saddle on account of his piles are acting up from all that stuff he pulls out of there.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brokedickmountain.jpg
This, for example, is true metaphorically, except that the Donald rides side saddle on account of his piles are acting up from all that stuff he pulls out of there.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brokedickmountain.jpg
This, for example, is true metaphorically, except that the Donald rides side saddle on account of his piles are acting up from all that stuff he pulls out of there.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brokedickmountain.jpg
That should read: “I read Marty after he reads his sources.”
That should read: “I read Marty after he reads his sources.”
That should read: “I read Marty after he reads his sources.”
Cleek, you make my point. And, you use another popular device one sees at the extremes–you declare positions you disagree with to be out of bounds, beyond the pale, the debate is over, there can be no debate, blah, blah, blah.
McTx,
i’ll be happy to listen to your lectures on proper rhetoric as soon as you stop pretending to be a marriage counselor.
Cleek, you make my point. And, you use another popular device one sees at the extremes–you declare positions you disagree with to be out of bounds, beyond the pale, the debate is over, there can be no debate, blah, blah, blah.
McTx,
i’ll be happy to listen to your lectures on proper rhetoric as soon as you stop pretending to be a marriage counselor.
Cleek, you make my point. And, you use another popular device one sees at the extremes–you declare positions you disagree with to be out of bounds, beyond the pale, the debate is over, there can be no debate, blah, blah, blah.
McTx,
i’ll be happy to listen to your lectures on proper rhetoric as soon as you stop pretending to be a marriage counselor.
“Then I go to Facebook to get the real story.”
lol
“Then I go to Facebook to get the real story.”
lol
“Then I go to Facebook to get the real story.”
lol
all while lecturing everyone in earshot about the importance – nay, primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects when it comes to primary politics
i’ll let Jonathan Chait say it for me:
all while lecturing everyone in earshot about the importance – nay, primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects when it comes to primary politics
i’ll let Jonathan Chait say it for me:
all while lecturing everyone in earshot about the importance – nay, primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects when it comes to primary politics
i’ll let Jonathan Chait say it for me:
Ah, yes, that lovely centerist assumption that because you only agree with the leftists on some issues, the reason that they object to your nice, centerist candidates is because they don’t agree with the leftists on all issues, not because they find your nice, centerist candidates morally repugnant because of the policy positions they advocate… because political viewpoints are not, in fact, a nice, neat one-dimensional spectrum, and you’re not in fact sensibly and maturely staking out a middle ground precisely between two polar extremes.
However, having said that, you’re changing the subject, cleek. What I said, and you responded to, had not one damned thing to do with “ideological purity”. It had everything to do with Democrats believing their own propaganda and spin about Clinton’s broader popularity (“Decades of digging, and nothing stuck! No real faults, just Faux News hatemongering! So much experience! Such practicality, very pragmatism, wow!”) even as they lectured the children to their left – much as you do here – about the critical necessity of being realistic and taking off the ideological blinders.
You make my case for me.
Ah, yes, that lovely centerist assumption that because you only agree with the leftists on some issues, the reason that they object to your nice, centerist candidates is because they don’t agree with the leftists on all issues, not because they find your nice, centerist candidates morally repugnant because of the policy positions they advocate… because political viewpoints are not, in fact, a nice, neat one-dimensional spectrum, and you’re not in fact sensibly and maturely staking out a middle ground precisely between two polar extremes.
However, having said that, you’re changing the subject, cleek. What I said, and you responded to, had not one damned thing to do with “ideological purity”. It had everything to do with Democrats believing their own propaganda and spin about Clinton’s broader popularity (“Decades of digging, and nothing stuck! No real faults, just Faux News hatemongering! So much experience! Such practicality, very pragmatism, wow!”) even as they lectured the children to their left – much as you do here – about the critical necessity of being realistic and taking off the ideological blinders.
You make my case for me.
Ah, yes, that lovely centerist assumption that because you only agree with the leftists on some issues, the reason that they object to your nice, centerist candidates is because they don’t agree with the leftists on all issues, not because they find your nice, centerist candidates morally repugnant because of the policy positions they advocate… because political viewpoints are not, in fact, a nice, neat one-dimensional spectrum, and you’re not in fact sensibly and maturely staking out a middle ground precisely between two polar extremes.
However, having said that, you’re changing the subject, cleek. What I said, and you responded to, had not one damned thing to do with “ideological purity”. It had everything to do with Democrats believing their own propaganda and spin about Clinton’s broader popularity (“Decades of digging, and nothing stuck! No real faults, just Faux News hatemongering! So much experience! Such practicality, very pragmatism, wow!”) even as they lectured the children to their left – much as you do here – about the critical necessity of being realistic and taking off the ideological blinders.
You make my case for me.
Back to Tim Kaine. For her first big decision as the decider, she did good.
Back to Tim Kaine. For her first big decision as the decider, she did good.
Back to Tim Kaine. For her first big decision as the decider, she did good.
“centrist”!
what’s funny about the way you use “centrist” over and over and over, as an epithet of course, is that doing so highlights how very concerned you are about your own relative position on the left/right axis.
and then we get this…
What I said, and you responded to, had not one damned thing to do with “ideological purity”
we’ve been talking about purity for three days now. remember when you said “ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power” ?
here’s you now:
primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects
here’s the title of Chait’s piece: The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters
see that word, ‘pragmatism’ ? it’s generally the flip side of ‘purity’. see how it all these things relate to one another? it’s the circle of life, ya’ll.
It had everything to do with Democrats believing their own propaganda and spin about Clinton’s broader popularity
yeah. talk about believing your own spin.
Clinton’s popularity manifested itself in the millions and millions of votes she got. she kicked Sanders’ ass in votes. and, except for a brief RNC bump, she’s consistently polling above Trump.
but OK. you just stay up there on your pretty perch, shitting on whoever comes by. the rest of us will do the hard work of defeating Trump. no need to thank us.
“centrist”!
what’s funny about the way you use “centrist” over and over and over, as an epithet of course, is that doing so highlights how very concerned you are about your own relative position on the left/right axis.
and then we get this…
What I said, and you responded to, had not one damned thing to do with “ideological purity”
we’ve been talking about purity for three days now. remember when you said “ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power” ?
here’s you now:
primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects
here’s the title of Chait’s piece: The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters
see that word, ‘pragmatism’ ? it’s generally the flip side of ‘purity’. see how it all these things relate to one another? it’s the circle of life, ya’ll.
It had everything to do with Democrats believing their own propaganda and spin about Clinton’s broader popularity
yeah. talk about believing your own spin.
Clinton’s popularity manifested itself in the millions and millions of votes she got. she kicked Sanders’ ass in votes. and, except for a brief RNC bump, she’s consistently polling above Trump.
but OK. you just stay up there on your pretty perch, shitting on whoever comes by. the rest of us will do the hard work of defeating Trump. no need to thank us.
“centrist”!
what’s funny about the way you use “centrist” over and over and over, as an epithet of course, is that doing so highlights how very concerned you are about your own relative position on the left/right axis.
and then we get this…
What I said, and you responded to, had not one damned thing to do with “ideological purity”
we’ve been talking about purity for three days now. remember when you said “ideological purists like you would move heaven and earth to keep your own kind in power” ?
here’s you now:
primacy! – of pragmatism and realistic assessment of electoral prospects
here’s the title of Chait’s piece: The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters
see that word, ‘pragmatism’ ? it’s generally the flip side of ‘purity’. see how it all these things relate to one another? it’s the circle of life, ya’ll.
It had everything to do with Democrats believing their own propaganda and spin about Clinton’s broader popularity
yeah. talk about believing your own spin.
Clinton’s popularity manifested itself in the millions and millions of votes she got. she kicked Sanders’ ass in votes. and, except for a brief RNC bump, she’s consistently polling above Trump.
but OK. you just stay up there on your pretty perch, shitting on whoever comes by. the rest of us will do the hard work of defeating Trump. no need to thank us.
As I mentioned earlier, I liked both Clinton and Sanders, but preferred Clinton, and the biggest reason for that preference is that she has a serious interest in knowing what she’s talking about, and being able to back up her wish list with policy proposals. She seems to recognize other peoples’ talent, and then she listens to them.
Rather than talking about her marriage or her inherent evil, it would be interesting for folks to discuss what she really plans to do.
As I mentioned earlier, I liked both Clinton and Sanders, but preferred Clinton, and the biggest reason for that preference is that she has a serious interest in knowing what she’s talking about, and being able to back up her wish list with policy proposals. She seems to recognize other peoples’ talent, and then she listens to them.
Rather than talking about her marriage or her inherent evil, it would be interesting for folks to discuss what she really plans to do.
As I mentioned earlier, I liked both Clinton and Sanders, but preferred Clinton, and the biggest reason for that preference is that she has a serious interest in knowing what she’s talking about, and being able to back up her wish list with policy proposals. She seems to recognize other peoples’ talent, and then she listens to them.
Rather than talking about her marriage or her inherent evil, it would be interesting for folks to discuss what she really plans to do.
I don’t want to repeat my earlier rants, so I will change it slightly.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18813/the-five-lamest-excuses-for-hillary-clintons-vote-to-invade-iraq
This is a stereotypical debate that’s been going on in some fashion for 14 years and on the centrist pragmatist side the performative virtue signaling is displayed by using words and phrases like pragmatist, practical, hard work, getting your hands dirty, not being morally pure, not treating your vote as a precious expression of one’s personality, not being childish, getting over ones self, etc…
When you strip away all the bs, the actual content of the argument is strong enough to get me to vote for the lesser evil. And that’s the argument. There are two candidates who can win and one is less bad. Third party voting won’t do any good. That last part is somewhat self-fulfilling. One reason it doesn’t do any good is because there is now the dogma established that people have a duty to vote for one of the two and if someone tries to exert pressure by voting third party, it’s because they are childish people only concerned with their own personal virtue.
I posted the link above because during the Bush years we constantly heard Democrat saying that the Iraq War was the worst blunder in American foreign policy history, catastrophic in its consequences and easily foreseen as such by numerous foreign policy experts and even ordinary bloggers who could see the manipulation of the evidence by the Bush Administration. And 14 years later,the Democrats push forward Clinton as a person whose strengths include her vast foreign policy experience. I will link to another piece rationalizing her decision and people interested can compare them, but to me it is obvious the rationalizing is dishonest and leaves out everything that makes Clinton look bad. And I think people do this because it really is flatly,inconsistent to condemn Bush for making this horrific totally inexcusable blunder and then tout Clinton’s strength as a foreign policy expert. So to cover this up they have to rewrite the history.
We are stuck with Clinton vs Trump and I am voting Clinton, but there is something really wrong with the Democratic Party if it’s best candidates supported the Iraq War.
I don’t want to repeat my earlier rants, so I will change it slightly.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18813/the-five-lamest-excuses-for-hillary-clintons-vote-to-invade-iraq
This is a stereotypical debate that’s been going on in some fashion for 14 years and on the centrist pragmatist side the performative virtue signaling is displayed by using words and phrases like pragmatist, practical, hard work, getting your hands dirty, not being morally pure, not treating your vote as a precious expression of one’s personality, not being childish, getting over ones self, etc…
When you strip away all the bs, the actual content of the argument is strong enough to get me to vote for the lesser evil. And that’s the argument. There are two candidates who can win and one is less bad. Third party voting won’t do any good. That last part is somewhat self-fulfilling. One reason it doesn’t do any good is because there is now the dogma established that people have a duty to vote for one of the two and if someone tries to exert pressure by voting third party, it’s because they are childish people only concerned with their own personal virtue.
I posted the link above because during the Bush years we constantly heard Democrat saying that the Iraq War was the worst blunder in American foreign policy history, catastrophic in its consequences and easily foreseen as such by numerous foreign policy experts and even ordinary bloggers who could see the manipulation of the evidence by the Bush Administration. And 14 years later,the Democrats push forward Clinton as a person whose strengths include her vast foreign policy experience. I will link to another piece rationalizing her decision and people interested can compare them, but to me it is obvious the rationalizing is dishonest and leaves out everything that makes Clinton look bad. And I think people do this because it really is flatly,inconsistent to condemn Bush for making this horrific totally inexcusable blunder and then tout Clinton’s strength as a foreign policy expert. So to cover this up they have to rewrite the history.
We are stuck with Clinton vs Trump and I am voting Clinton, but there is something really wrong with the Democratic Party if it’s best candidates supported the Iraq War.
I don’t want to repeat my earlier rants, so I will change it slightly.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18813/the-five-lamest-excuses-for-hillary-clintons-vote-to-invade-iraq
This is a stereotypical debate that’s been going on in some fashion for 14 years and on the centrist pragmatist side the performative virtue signaling is displayed by using words and phrases like pragmatist, practical, hard work, getting your hands dirty, not being morally pure, not treating your vote as a precious expression of one’s personality, not being childish, getting over ones self, etc…
When you strip away all the bs, the actual content of the argument is strong enough to get me to vote for the lesser evil. And that’s the argument. There are two candidates who can win and one is less bad. Third party voting won’t do any good. That last part is somewhat self-fulfilling. One reason it doesn’t do any good is because there is now the dogma established that people have a duty to vote for one of the two and if someone tries to exert pressure by voting third party, it’s because they are childish people only concerned with their own personal virtue.
I posted the link above because during the Bush years we constantly heard Democrat saying that the Iraq War was the worst blunder in American foreign policy history, catastrophic in its consequences and easily foreseen as such by numerous foreign policy experts and even ordinary bloggers who could see the manipulation of the evidence by the Bush Administration. And 14 years later,the Democrats push forward Clinton as a person whose strengths include her vast foreign policy experience. I will link to another piece rationalizing her decision and people interested can compare them, but to me it is obvious the rationalizing is dishonest and leaves out everything that makes Clinton look bad. And I think people do this because it really is flatly,inconsistent to condemn Bush for making this horrific totally inexcusable blunder and then tout Clinton’s strength as a foreign policy expert. So to cover this up they have to rewrite the history.
We are stuck with Clinton vs Trump and I am voting Clinton, but there is something really wrong with the Democratic Party if it’s best candidates supported the Iraq War.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
That’s a Clinton supporting link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
That’s a Clinton supporting link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html
That’s a Clinton supporting link.
A classic example of purity v pragmatism is the history of the voting patterns of black americans. Post civil war they voted overwhelmingly for the GOP. Then in the 20th century they switched to the Democratic Party, even though it was still a coalition with a large and powerful component of southern segregationists.
I wonder why?
You will also note they did not (though some advocated it) form a 3rd party or denounce the two dominant parties as “not a dime’s worth of difference.”
They appear to clearly know their interests, and in a winner-take-all past the post system, they vote accordingly.
Would that some of my lefty allies could view politics as pragmatically.
A classic example of purity v pragmatism is the history of the voting patterns of black americans. Post civil war they voted overwhelmingly for the GOP. Then in the 20th century they switched to the Democratic Party, even though it was still a coalition with a large and powerful component of southern segregationists.
I wonder why?
You will also note they did not (though some advocated it) form a 3rd party or denounce the two dominant parties as “not a dime’s worth of difference.”
They appear to clearly know their interests, and in a winner-take-all past the post system, they vote accordingly.
Would that some of my lefty allies could view politics as pragmatically.
A classic example of purity v pragmatism is the history of the voting patterns of black americans. Post civil war they voted overwhelmingly for the GOP. Then in the 20th century they switched to the Democratic Party, even though it was still a coalition with a large and powerful component of southern segregationists.
I wonder why?
You will also note they did not (though some advocated it) form a 3rd party or denounce the two dominant parties as “not a dime’s worth of difference.”
They appear to clearly know their interests, and in a winner-take-all past the post system, they vote accordingly.
Would that some of my lefty allies could view politics as pragmatically.
Oops. I see Chait* beat me to it….another lesson about reading those links!
*Note. Even in this article he found a way to get in some hippie punching! Par for the course for him.
Oops. I see Chait* beat me to it….another lesson about reading those links!
*Note. Even in this article he found a way to get in some hippie punching! Par for the course for him.
Oops. I see Chait* beat me to it….another lesson about reading those links!
*Note. Even in this article he found a way to get in some hippie punching! Par for the course for him.
Who are urban Fire Marshalls going to vote for?
The Republican f*ck who wants to deregulate burning flesh, because there is nothing that says freedom to Paul Ryan like a burn victim without health insurance, or the woman wearing the fireproof suit and who wants all the exits labeled because she’s been through the heat before?
Trump just went after a Fire Marshall a second straight time for doing his f*cking job.
He’d better make friends with them because he’s going to need them if he wins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI
Who are urban Fire Marshalls going to vote for?
The Republican f*ck who wants to deregulate burning flesh, because there is nothing that says freedom to Paul Ryan like a burn victim without health insurance, or the woman wearing the fireproof suit and who wants all the exits labeled because she’s been through the heat before?
Trump just went after a Fire Marshall a second straight time for doing his f*cking job.
He’d better make friends with them because he’s going to need them if he wins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI
Who are urban Fire Marshalls going to vote for?
The Republican f*ck who wants to deregulate burning flesh, because there is nothing that says freedom to Paul Ryan like a burn victim without health insurance, or the woman wearing the fireproof suit and who wants all the exits labeled because she’s been through the heat before?
Trump just went after a Fire Marshall a second straight time for doing his f*cking job.
He’d better make friends with them because he’s going to need them if he wins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI
the Iraq War was the worst blunder in American foreign policy history
Though it’s hard to separate the war from all the mismanagement
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/04/donald-rumsfeld-iraq-war
I’m mindreading here, but I don’t think Donald (our Donald, not Rumsfeld) wants to re-argue the Iraq war, (and I sure don’t either) but a lot of the complaining about the Bush years was the ineptitude with which things were done.
In refreshing, I see Donald has posted a Clinton supporting link that makes similar points. It is a shame that we don’t have more Dems who are less militaristic, and I don’t want to claim that they are all pacifists in their heart of hearts, but the electoral system makes it really hard to go the other direction and tends to reward Dems who are going to go more for a strong national defense. This doesn’t mean that it is good or I have to like it, but I’m not sure how it can be overcome when the US self-image is so wrapped up in military projection.
the Iraq War was the worst blunder in American foreign policy history
Though it’s hard to separate the war from all the mismanagement
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/04/donald-rumsfeld-iraq-war
I’m mindreading here, but I don’t think Donald (our Donald, not Rumsfeld) wants to re-argue the Iraq war, (and I sure don’t either) but a lot of the complaining about the Bush years was the ineptitude with which things were done.
In refreshing, I see Donald has posted a Clinton supporting link that makes similar points. It is a shame that we don’t have more Dems who are less militaristic, and I don’t want to claim that they are all pacifists in their heart of hearts, but the electoral system makes it really hard to go the other direction and tends to reward Dems who are going to go more for a strong national defense. This doesn’t mean that it is good or I have to like it, but I’m not sure how it can be overcome when the US self-image is so wrapped up in military projection.
the Iraq War was the worst blunder in American foreign policy history
Though it’s hard to separate the war from all the mismanagement
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/04/donald-rumsfeld-iraq-war
I’m mindreading here, but I don’t think Donald (our Donald, not Rumsfeld) wants to re-argue the Iraq war, (and I sure don’t either) but a lot of the complaining about the Bush years was the ineptitude with which things were done.
In refreshing, I see Donald has posted a Clinton supporting link that makes similar points. It is a shame that we don’t have more Dems who are less militaristic, and I don’t want to claim that they are all pacifists in their heart of hearts, but the electoral system makes it really hard to go the other direction and tends to reward Dems who are going to go more for a strong national defense. This doesn’t mean that it is good or I have to like it, but I’m not sure how it can be overcome when the US self-image is so wrapped up in military projection.
After Abbie Hoffman levitated the Pentagon and it fell on Jimmy Carter, Democrats have been haunted by the ghost of Scoop Jackson.
After Abbie Hoffman levitated the Pentagon and it fell on Jimmy Carter, Democrats have been haunted by the ghost of Scoop Jackson.
After Abbie Hoffman levitated the Pentagon and it fell on Jimmy Carter, Democrats have been haunted by the ghost of Scoop Jackson.
what’s funny about the way you use “centrist” over and over and over, as an epithet of course, is that doing so highlights how very concerned you are about your own relative position on the left/right axis.
…or… wait for it… or… I’m conversing with people absolutely wedded to to the existence of said axis, so my usage is meant to point to their exaggerated concern about their relative position thereupon.
Empathy is a wonderful thing, cleek. You should sometime try to see things from a different perspective than from the (eminently practical) ivory perch upon which you sit dispensing knowledge bombs…
what’s funny about the way you use “centrist” over and over and over, as an epithet of course, is that doing so highlights how very concerned you are about your own relative position on the left/right axis.
…or… wait for it… or… I’m conversing with people absolutely wedded to to the existence of said axis, so my usage is meant to point to their exaggerated concern about their relative position thereupon.
Empathy is a wonderful thing, cleek. You should sometime try to see things from a different perspective than from the (eminently practical) ivory perch upon which you sit dispensing knowledge bombs…
what’s funny about the way you use “centrist” over and over and over, as an epithet of course, is that doing so highlights how very concerned you are about your own relative position on the left/right axis.
…or… wait for it… or… I’m conversing with people absolutely wedded to to the existence of said axis, so my usage is meant to point to their exaggerated concern about their relative position thereupon.
Empathy is a wonderful thing, cleek. You should sometime try to see things from a different perspective than from the (eminently practical) ivory perch upon which you sit dispensing knowledge bombs…
Clinton’s popularity manifested itself in the millions and millions of votes she got.
…in the Democratic primary. And she performed noticeably worse in open primaries. Your sage rebuttal very carefully turns 180 degrees from my point and then declares there’s nothing to see. My point was not that Clinton is unpopular with Democrats, and I’m somewhat bemused how you could possibly believe that it was in anything resembling good faith. You’re preening on your perch because you’ve rebutted arguments no one is making. Congratulations?
Clinton’s popularity manifested itself in the millions and millions of votes she got.
…in the Democratic primary. And she performed noticeably worse in open primaries. Your sage rebuttal very carefully turns 180 degrees from my point and then declares there’s nothing to see. My point was not that Clinton is unpopular with Democrats, and I’m somewhat bemused how you could possibly believe that it was in anything resembling good faith. You’re preening on your perch because you’ve rebutted arguments no one is making. Congratulations?
Clinton’s popularity manifested itself in the millions and millions of votes she got.
…in the Democratic primary. And she performed noticeably worse in open primaries. Your sage rebuttal very carefully turns 180 degrees from my point and then declares there’s nothing to see. My point was not that Clinton is unpopular with Democrats, and I’m somewhat bemused how you could possibly believe that it was in anything resembling good faith. You’re preening on your perch because you’ve rebutted arguments no one is making. Congratulations?
You’re preening on your perch because you’ve rebutted arguments no one is making.
Honestly, I find it hard to decipher what argument you are making. That Clinton is too unpopular to win? I guess we’ll have to see. That Sanders was actually more popular than Clinton? Didn’t seem that way.
You’re preening on your perch because you’ve rebutted arguments no one is making.
Honestly, I find it hard to decipher what argument you are making. That Clinton is too unpopular to win? I guess we’ll have to see. That Sanders was actually more popular than Clinton? Didn’t seem that way.
You’re preening on your perch because you’ve rebutted arguments no one is making.
Honestly, I find it hard to decipher what argument you are making. That Clinton is too unpopular to win? I guess we’ll have to see. That Sanders was actually more popular than Clinton? Didn’t seem that way.
It’s quite simple, sapient. It’s that Clinton is a polarizing candidate not widely beloved outside partisan Democratic circles. As I have said more than once in so many words.
This isn’t about Clinton vs. Sanders. This is about the Democratic party offering up a party apparatchik and presenting it as a strategically shrewd maneuver rather than party politics. You’re facing Trump in November, and that may be enough for your candidate to lesser-evil into office. What will you do in four years when she’s no more popular but the Republicans offer up a traditional Republican to counter her traditional-Republican-lite?
There’s also the matter of how strong a GOTV motivation a Clinton on the ballot will end up being down-ticket. Again, you’re lucky it’s counter-weighted with Trump’s GOTV gravity. What about in two years, though?
A common establishment tactic is to try to make everything about tomorrow, and to make today 1938 in Munich, always and forever. But it’s not 1938, and there’s a tomorrow after tomorrow. So, yeah. November isn’t the end, and it isn’t everything. Stop pretending that it is, or at least stop pretending that I’m suggesting that it is.
It’s quite simple, sapient. It’s that Clinton is a polarizing candidate not widely beloved outside partisan Democratic circles. As I have said more than once in so many words.
This isn’t about Clinton vs. Sanders. This is about the Democratic party offering up a party apparatchik and presenting it as a strategically shrewd maneuver rather than party politics. You’re facing Trump in November, and that may be enough for your candidate to lesser-evil into office. What will you do in four years when she’s no more popular but the Republicans offer up a traditional Republican to counter her traditional-Republican-lite?
There’s also the matter of how strong a GOTV motivation a Clinton on the ballot will end up being down-ticket. Again, you’re lucky it’s counter-weighted with Trump’s GOTV gravity. What about in two years, though?
A common establishment tactic is to try to make everything about tomorrow, and to make today 1938 in Munich, always and forever. But it’s not 1938, and there’s a tomorrow after tomorrow. So, yeah. November isn’t the end, and it isn’t everything. Stop pretending that it is, or at least stop pretending that I’m suggesting that it is.
It’s quite simple, sapient. It’s that Clinton is a polarizing candidate not widely beloved outside partisan Democratic circles. As I have said more than once in so many words.
This isn’t about Clinton vs. Sanders. This is about the Democratic party offering up a party apparatchik and presenting it as a strategically shrewd maneuver rather than party politics. You’re facing Trump in November, and that may be enough for your candidate to lesser-evil into office. What will you do in four years when she’s no more popular but the Republicans offer up a traditional Republican to counter her traditional-Republican-lite?
There’s also the matter of how strong a GOTV motivation a Clinton on the ballot will end up being down-ticket. Again, you’re lucky it’s counter-weighted with Trump’s GOTV gravity. What about in two years, though?
A common establishment tactic is to try to make everything about tomorrow, and to make today 1938 in Munich, always and forever. But it’s not 1938, and there’s a tomorrow after tomorrow. So, yeah. November isn’t the end, and it isn’t everything. Stop pretending that it is, or at least stop pretending that I’m suggesting that it is.
the … ivory perch upon which you sit dispensing knowledge bombs
heh. irony.
And she performed noticeably worse in open primaries.
party-crossing spoilers are a real thing. for example, polls say that ~40% of Sanders primary voters in WV said they had no intention of voting for Sanders in the general. those people were always going to vote GOP, no matter what. they just took the opportunity to sow discord on the left.
did Sanders attract a bunch of people with no party affiliation? yes. were they overwhelmingly young people? yes. do young people consistently turn out at far lower rates than everyone else? yes.
but that’s exactly what an open primary gets you: lots of crossover spoiler voters and a lot of unaffiliated young people who can’t be counted on to turn out.
somehow, i’m sure that means Clinton will lose. will you be happy if she does?
the … ivory perch upon which you sit dispensing knowledge bombs
heh. irony.
And she performed noticeably worse in open primaries.
party-crossing spoilers are a real thing. for example, polls say that ~40% of Sanders primary voters in WV said they had no intention of voting for Sanders in the general. those people were always going to vote GOP, no matter what. they just took the opportunity to sow discord on the left.
did Sanders attract a bunch of people with no party affiliation? yes. were they overwhelmingly young people? yes. do young people consistently turn out at far lower rates than everyone else? yes.
but that’s exactly what an open primary gets you: lots of crossover spoiler voters and a lot of unaffiliated young people who can’t be counted on to turn out.
somehow, i’m sure that means Clinton will lose. will you be happy if she does?
the … ivory perch upon which you sit dispensing knowledge bombs
heh. irony.
And she performed noticeably worse in open primaries.
party-crossing spoilers are a real thing. for example, polls say that ~40% of Sanders primary voters in WV said they had no intention of voting for Sanders in the general. those people were always going to vote GOP, no matter what. they just took the opportunity to sow discord on the left.
did Sanders attract a bunch of people with no party affiliation? yes. were they overwhelmingly young people? yes. do young people consistently turn out at far lower rates than everyone else? yes.
but that’s exactly what an open primary gets you: lots of crossover spoiler voters and a lot of unaffiliated young people who can’t be counted on to turn out.
somehow, i’m sure that means Clinton will lose. will you be happy if she does?
What will you do in four years when she’s no more popular but the Republicans offer up a traditional Republican to counter her traditional-Republican-lite?
This sounds like concern trolling to me.
What has transpired is that Hillary Clinton was nominated. For a lot of reasons, including her narrow defeat in 2008, and her subsequent close working relationship with Obama, a lot of people wanted her to represent the Democratic party in 2016. You’re right that a lot of people didn’t. But here we are.
As cleek has noted, the contest is always a “lesser-evil” contest, because no candidate will ever line up precisely with anyone’s views, and even if they’re very close, people are human and have flaws. So this time, we’ve got Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. We don’t know what will happen in 2020.
If you there are issues that you feel strongly that the Democratic Party isn’t properly tackling, maybe you should describe them, and get involved in shaping the party more to your liking. But that, admittedly, is hard and frustrating. That’s one of the reasons people who do it for years and years – people who have shaped “the establishment” – don’t feel uncomfortable supporting the establishment.
What will you do in four years when she’s no more popular but the Republicans offer up a traditional Republican to counter her traditional-Republican-lite?
This sounds like concern trolling to me.
What has transpired is that Hillary Clinton was nominated. For a lot of reasons, including her narrow defeat in 2008, and her subsequent close working relationship with Obama, a lot of people wanted her to represent the Democratic party in 2016. You’re right that a lot of people didn’t. But here we are.
As cleek has noted, the contest is always a “lesser-evil” contest, because no candidate will ever line up precisely with anyone’s views, and even if they’re very close, people are human and have flaws. So this time, we’ve got Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. We don’t know what will happen in 2020.
If you there are issues that you feel strongly that the Democratic Party isn’t properly tackling, maybe you should describe them, and get involved in shaping the party more to your liking. But that, admittedly, is hard and frustrating. That’s one of the reasons people who do it for years and years – people who have shaped “the establishment” – don’t feel uncomfortable supporting the establishment.
What will you do in four years when she’s no more popular but the Republicans offer up a traditional Republican to counter her traditional-Republican-lite?
This sounds like concern trolling to me.
What has transpired is that Hillary Clinton was nominated. For a lot of reasons, including her narrow defeat in 2008, and her subsequent close working relationship with Obama, a lot of people wanted her to represent the Democratic party in 2016. You’re right that a lot of people didn’t. But here we are.
As cleek has noted, the contest is always a “lesser-evil” contest, because no candidate will ever line up precisely with anyone’s views, and even if they’re very close, people are human and have flaws. So this time, we’ve got Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. We don’t know what will happen in 2020.
If you there are issues that you feel strongly that the Democratic Party isn’t properly tackling, maybe you should describe them, and get involved in shaping the party more to your liking. But that, admittedly, is hard and frustrating. That’s one of the reasons people who do it for years and years – people who have shaped “the establishment” – don’t feel uncomfortable supporting the establishment.
Clinton is too hawkish and too much of a corporatist for my taste. But I do think she’s competent and smart. She’s not the first person I would choose out of the small universe of reasonably viable candidates, but I’m certainly voting for her over Trump.
I can see that there’s a longer view to be taken, but I don’t know how it should inform my vote in about 3 months from now.
I guess I’m also confused about what the argument is here. It’s like one team is playing baseball and the other team is playing basketball. WTF are we talking about?
Clinton is too hawkish and too much of a corporatist for my taste. But I do think she’s competent and smart. She’s not the first person I would choose out of the small universe of reasonably viable candidates, but I’m certainly voting for her over Trump.
I can see that there’s a longer view to be taken, but I don’t know how it should inform my vote in about 3 months from now.
I guess I’m also confused about what the argument is here. It’s like one team is playing baseball and the other team is playing basketball. WTF are we talking about?
Clinton is too hawkish and too much of a corporatist for my taste. But I do think she’s competent and smart. She’s not the first person I would choose out of the small universe of reasonably viable candidates, but I’m certainly voting for her over Trump.
I can see that there’s a longer view to be taken, but I don’t know how it should inform my vote in about 3 months from now.
I guess I’m also confused about what the argument is here. It’s like one team is playing baseball and the other team is playing basketball. WTF are we talking about?
…more to the point, though, they don’t feel uncomfortable supporting the establishment because they’ve bought into and become the establishment. Sorry, but what you describe is neither common sense nor altruism.
…more to the point, though, they don’t feel uncomfortable supporting the establishment because they’ve bought into and become the establishment. Sorry, but what you describe is neither common sense nor altruism.
…more to the point, though, they don’t feel uncomfortable supporting the establishment because they’ve bought into and become the establishment. Sorry, but what you describe is neither common sense nor altruism.
hsh, my main point is that despite the “unique evil” of Trump we heard only slightly less hyperbolic versions of the same arguments fielded against the viability of progressive politicians in the run-up to every recent election. And also very much to the point, as Donald pointed out yesterday, we also heard it when elections were years off but we had the unremitting effrontery to criticize a sitting Democratic president. And that’s a point worth bringing up, because I’m pretty damned sure we’ll see the likes of that again.
hsh, my main point is that despite the “unique evil” of Trump we heard only slightly less hyperbolic versions of the same arguments fielded against the viability of progressive politicians in the run-up to every recent election. And also very much to the point, as Donald pointed out yesterday, we also heard it when elections were years off but we had the unremitting effrontery to criticize a sitting Democratic president. And that’s a point worth bringing up, because I’m pretty damned sure we’ll see the likes of that again.
hsh, my main point is that despite the “unique evil” of Trump we heard only slightly less hyperbolic versions of the same arguments fielded against the viability of progressive politicians in the run-up to every recent election. And also very much to the point, as Donald pointed out yesterday, we also heard it when elections were years off but we had the unremitting effrontery to criticize a sitting Democratic president. And that’s a point worth bringing up, because I’m pretty damned sure we’ll see the likes of that again.
(I’m also, I suppose, expressing a certain amount of skepticism towards the loud claims of some parties to have been doing “everything that they can” to prevent a Trump presidency when that has primarily consisted of vitriolically supporting a deeply flawed and highly polarizing candidate. This smacks of the Iron Law of Institutions, not benevolent defense of the Republic.)
(I’m also, I suppose, expressing a certain amount of skepticism towards the loud claims of some parties to have been doing “everything that they can” to prevent a Trump presidency when that has primarily consisted of vitriolically supporting a deeply flawed and highly polarizing candidate. This smacks of the Iron Law of Institutions, not benevolent defense of the Republic.)
(I’m also, I suppose, expressing a certain amount of skepticism towards the loud claims of some parties to have been doing “everything that they can” to prevent a Trump presidency when that has primarily consisted of vitriolically supporting a deeply flawed and highly polarizing candidate. This smacks of the Iron Law of Institutions, not benevolent defense of the Republic.)
another piece rationalizing her decision and people interested can compare them, but to me it is obvious the rationalizing is dishonest and leaves out everything that makes Clinton look bad. And I think people do this because it really is flatly,inconsistent to condemn Bush for making this horrific totally inexcusable blunder and then tout Clinton’s strength as a foreign policy expert.
I seem to recall a fairly large number of folks who initially supported the Iraq war (in my personal case, because I believed the evidence put forward, which later proved to be falsified). But, in the light of further data, regretted doing so. To change one’s mind is not necessarily evidence of lack of vitrue. To allow others to do so is not dishonest rationalization.
Further, I don’t see why it is inconsistent to fault Bush (who did have the information that the evidence for Iraq’s WMDs was false) while allowing Clinton to have been as misinformed as everybody else. Bush made in inexcusable blunder, precisely because he knew better. Others did not.
That said, I do have significant concerns about how willing Clinton might be to get us into another war. The world if full of places where there can be a temptation to yield to frustration, or to the desire to help others, and resort to military measures. And I am nervous about how Clinton would react.
Of course, I have far greater concerns about Trump getting us into a mess. Not for either of those reasons, but just because he has a snit over some perceived slight.
another piece rationalizing her decision and people interested can compare them, but to me it is obvious the rationalizing is dishonest and leaves out everything that makes Clinton look bad. And I think people do this because it really is flatly,inconsistent to condemn Bush for making this horrific totally inexcusable blunder and then tout Clinton’s strength as a foreign policy expert.
I seem to recall a fairly large number of folks who initially supported the Iraq war (in my personal case, because I believed the evidence put forward, which later proved to be falsified). But, in the light of further data, regretted doing so. To change one’s mind is not necessarily evidence of lack of vitrue. To allow others to do so is not dishonest rationalization.
Further, I don’t see why it is inconsistent to fault Bush (who did have the information that the evidence for Iraq’s WMDs was false) while allowing Clinton to have been as misinformed as everybody else. Bush made in inexcusable blunder, precisely because he knew better. Others did not.
That said, I do have significant concerns about how willing Clinton might be to get us into another war. The world if full of places where there can be a temptation to yield to frustration, or to the desire to help others, and resort to military measures. And I am nervous about how Clinton would react.
Of course, I have far greater concerns about Trump getting us into a mess. Not for either of those reasons, but just because he has a snit over some perceived slight.
another piece rationalizing her decision and people interested can compare them, but to me it is obvious the rationalizing is dishonest and leaves out everything that makes Clinton look bad. And I think people do this because it really is flatly,inconsistent to condemn Bush for making this horrific totally inexcusable blunder and then tout Clinton’s strength as a foreign policy expert.
I seem to recall a fairly large number of folks who initially supported the Iraq war (in my personal case, because I believed the evidence put forward, which later proved to be falsified). But, in the light of further data, regretted doing so. To change one’s mind is not necessarily evidence of lack of vitrue. To allow others to do so is not dishonest rationalization.
Further, I don’t see why it is inconsistent to fault Bush (who did have the information that the evidence for Iraq’s WMDs was false) while allowing Clinton to have been as misinformed as everybody else. Bush made in inexcusable blunder, precisely because he knew better. Others did not.
That said, I do have significant concerns about how willing Clinton might be to get us into another war. The world if full of places where there can be a temptation to yield to frustration, or to the desire to help others, and resort to military measures. And I am nervous about how Clinton would react.
Of course, I have far greater concerns about Trump getting us into a mess. Not for either of those reasons, but just because he has a snit over some perceived slight.
It’s that Clinton is a polarizing candidate not widely beloved outside partisan Democratic circles. As I have said more than once in so many words.
And Sanders wasn’t polarizing? An avowed socialist? Really?
Admittedly Sanders was beloved (in some places) outside partisan Democratic circles. But they weren’t places that will win you a general election. A lot of folks who embraced Trump in the primaries were people who share Sanders unhappiness with the economic elite. But they also frequently have a visceral negative reaction to socialism — the label, not necessarily the reality.
And if anyone was actually not of the Sanders far left, and disliked Clinton? Well Martin O’Malley was an option in a lot of places. Didn’t get a whole lot of votes, though.
It’s that Clinton is a polarizing candidate not widely beloved outside partisan Democratic circles. As I have said more than once in so many words.
And Sanders wasn’t polarizing? An avowed socialist? Really?
Admittedly Sanders was beloved (in some places) outside partisan Democratic circles. But they weren’t places that will win you a general election. A lot of folks who embraced Trump in the primaries were people who share Sanders unhappiness with the economic elite. But they also frequently have a visceral negative reaction to socialism — the label, not necessarily the reality.
And if anyone was actually not of the Sanders far left, and disliked Clinton? Well Martin O’Malley was an option in a lot of places. Didn’t get a whole lot of votes, though.
It’s that Clinton is a polarizing candidate not widely beloved outside partisan Democratic circles. As I have said more than once in so many words.
And Sanders wasn’t polarizing? An avowed socialist? Really?
Admittedly Sanders was beloved (in some places) outside partisan Democratic circles. But they weren’t places that will win you a general election. A lot of folks who embraced Trump in the primaries were people who share Sanders unhappiness with the economic elite. But they also frequently have a visceral negative reaction to socialism — the label, not necessarily the reality.
And if anyone was actually not of the Sanders far left, and disliked Clinton? Well Martin O’Malley was an option in a lot of places. Didn’t get a whole lot of votes, though.
my main point is that despite the “unique evil” of Trump we heard only slightly less hyperbolic versions of the same arguments fielded against the viability of progressive politicians in the run-up to every recent election.
Electoral reality is that, while a mildly progressive politician** can win, a truly progressive candidate is going to lose in most places in the country. (Except if the other party fields a candidate who is truly horrible. Which, admittedly, can happen. Cf Barbara Boxer.)
** That “mildly progressive” is using the term as most of us here would. Not in the Fox News and further right usage.
my main point is that despite the “unique evil” of Trump we heard only slightly less hyperbolic versions of the same arguments fielded against the viability of progressive politicians in the run-up to every recent election.
Electoral reality is that, while a mildly progressive politician** can win, a truly progressive candidate is going to lose in most places in the country. (Except if the other party fields a candidate who is truly horrible. Which, admittedly, can happen. Cf Barbara Boxer.)
** That “mildly progressive” is using the term as most of us here would. Not in the Fox News and further right usage.
my main point is that despite the “unique evil” of Trump we heard only slightly less hyperbolic versions of the same arguments fielded against the viability of progressive politicians in the run-up to every recent election.
Electoral reality is that, while a mildly progressive politician** can win, a truly progressive candidate is going to lose in most places in the country. (Except if the other party fields a candidate who is truly horrible. Which, admittedly, can happen. Cf Barbara Boxer.)
** That “mildly progressive” is using the term as most of us here would. Not in the Fox News and further right usage.
Further, I don’t see why it is inconsistent to fault Bush (who did have the information that the evidence for Iraq’s WMDs was false) while allowing Clinton to have been as misinformed as everybody else.
I may be biased on this point as far as Americans go because I spent the run-up abroad, but the administration’s case for WMDs was paper-thin, and widely discredited in foreign media (and also in the more skeptical domestic media, natch). And there had been rumblings of war for over a year at that point (I honestly thought we’d invade a year before we did), so it wasn’t like anyone paying attention didn’t know the administration really wanted to go to war long before they presented their rationales. For that matter, seeing how the administration flinched when Iraq called their “bluff” about admitting inspectors should have given any cautious individual pause.
So no, sorry, not everyone else was misinformed. One would think that someone in a position of authority would take the trouble to ensure they were not misinformed. Being unwilling or unable to do so is an entirely reasonable ground for criticism.
Further, I don’t see why it is inconsistent to fault Bush (who did have the information that the evidence for Iraq’s WMDs was false) while allowing Clinton to have been as misinformed as everybody else.
I may be biased on this point as far as Americans go because I spent the run-up abroad, but the administration’s case for WMDs was paper-thin, and widely discredited in foreign media (and also in the more skeptical domestic media, natch). And there had been rumblings of war for over a year at that point (I honestly thought we’d invade a year before we did), so it wasn’t like anyone paying attention didn’t know the administration really wanted to go to war long before they presented their rationales. For that matter, seeing how the administration flinched when Iraq called their “bluff” about admitting inspectors should have given any cautious individual pause.
So no, sorry, not everyone else was misinformed. One would think that someone in a position of authority would take the trouble to ensure they were not misinformed. Being unwilling or unable to do so is an entirely reasonable ground for criticism.
Further, I don’t see why it is inconsistent to fault Bush (who did have the information that the evidence for Iraq’s WMDs was false) while allowing Clinton to have been as misinformed as everybody else.
I may be biased on this point as far as Americans go because I spent the run-up abroad, but the administration’s case for WMDs was paper-thin, and widely discredited in foreign media (and also in the more skeptical domestic media, natch). And there had been rumblings of war for over a year at that point (I honestly thought we’d invade a year before we did), so it wasn’t like anyone paying attention didn’t know the administration really wanted to go to war long before they presented their rationales. For that matter, seeing how the administration flinched when Iraq called their “bluff” about admitting inspectors should have given any cautious individual pause.
So no, sorry, not everyone else was misinformed. One would think that someone in a position of authority would take the trouble to ensure they were not misinformed. Being unwilling or unable to do so is an entirely reasonable ground for criticism.
Yes, if we think charges of Clinton the rapist-enabling lying Satan are disabling, we could have experienced the awful charges of “avowed pinko Maoist Socialist” against Sanders, not that there is anything wrong with that in my little red book.
Many Republicans would RATHER be raped than taxed excessively, or at all.
Yes, if we think charges of Clinton the rapist-enabling lying Satan are disabling, we could have experienced the awful charges of “avowed pinko Maoist Socialist” against Sanders, not that there is anything wrong with that in my little red book.
Many Republicans would RATHER be raped than taxed excessively, or at all.
Yes, if we think charges of Clinton the rapist-enabling lying Satan are disabling, we could have experienced the awful charges of “avowed pinko Maoist Socialist” against Sanders, not that there is anything wrong with that in my little red book.
Many Republicans would RATHER be raped than taxed excessively, or at all.
IMO, Clinton’s vote on Iraq was just stinking political calculation 101 (the same one that fills US prisons to the brim).
If it turned out to be a disaster it could be blamed on Bush and she could hide in the mass of the ‘deceived’; if it was a success, a vote against it could have hurt her. Better keep a 100 innocents* in prison than to shoulder the blame, if the one you did not keep or put in there does something bad. To vote ‘hard’ is nearly always easier than ‘soft on…’.
She was no different from all the other sheep in fake wolf clothing that populate the US Congress (those on the Left with Scrapie, those on the Right with Rabies).
*innocent nobodies, that is
IMO, Clinton’s vote on Iraq was just stinking political calculation 101 (the same one that fills US prisons to the brim).
If it turned out to be a disaster it could be blamed on Bush and she could hide in the mass of the ‘deceived’; if it was a success, a vote against it could have hurt her. Better keep a 100 innocents* in prison than to shoulder the blame, if the one you did not keep or put in there does something bad. To vote ‘hard’ is nearly always easier than ‘soft on…’.
She was no different from all the other sheep in fake wolf clothing that populate the US Congress (those on the Left with Scrapie, those on the Right with Rabies).
*innocent nobodies, that is
IMO, Clinton’s vote on Iraq was just stinking political calculation 101 (the same one that fills US prisons to the brim).
If it turned out to be a disaster it could be blamed on Bush and she could hide in the mass of the ‘deceived’; if it was a success, a vote against it could have hurt her. Better keep a 100 innocents* in prison than to shoulder the blame, if the one you did not keep or put in there does something bad. To vote ‘hard’ is nearly always easier than ‘soft on…’.
She was no different from all the other sheep in fake wolf clothing that populate the US Congress (those on the Left with Scrapie, those on the Right with Rabies).
*innocent nobodies, that is
Hartmut, you could well be correct. But it’s difficult to be certain what is going on in someone else’s mind — for all that we do a fair amount of speculating on that of that here. 😉
Hartmut, you could well be correct. But it’s difficult to be certain what is going on in someone else’s mind — for all that we do a fair amount of speculating on that of that here. 😉
Hartmut, you could well be correct. But it’s difficult to be certain what is going on in someone else’s mind — for all that we do a fair amount of speculating on that of that here. 😉
And also very much to the point, as Donald pointed out yesterday, we also heard it when elections were years off but we had the unremitting effrontery to criticize a sitting Democratic president. And that’s a point worth bringing up, because I’m pretty damned sure we’ll see the likes of that again.
Okay. I guess I’m not sure who here, aside from one regular I don’t want to name (but you’ll probably know who I have in mind), does that much. If you’re pointing out *something that happens* as opposed to arguing with the people here on this blog, it makes more sense, though the back-and-forth on this thread still strikes me as being off.
As general matter of meta, I never really get the “don’t say that, even if it’s true, because it has this effect on national opinion” when we’re talking about people’s comments on this wonderful but obscure blog.
And also very much to the point, as Donald pointed out yesterday, we also heard it when elections were years off but we had the unremitting effrontery to criticize a sitting Democratic president. And that’s a point worth bringing up, because I’m pretty damned sure we’ll see the likes of that again.
Okay. I guess I’m not sure who here, aside from one regular I don’t want to name (but you’ll probably know who I have in mind), does that much. If you’re pointing out *something that happens* as opposed to arguing with the people here on this blog, it makes more sense, though the back-and-forth on this thread still strikes me as being off.
As general matter of meta, I never really get the “don’t say that, even if it’s true, because it has this effect on national opinion” when we’re talking about people’s comments on this wonderful but obscure blog.
And also very much to the point, as Donald pointed out yesterday, we also heard it when elections were years off but we had the unremitting effrontery to criticize a sitting Democratic president. And that’s a point worth bringing up, because I’m pretty damned sure we’ll see the likes of that again.
Okay. I guess I’m not sure who here, aside from one regular I don’t want to name (but you’ll probably know who I have in mind), does that much. If you’re pointing out *something that happens* as opposed to arguing with the people here on this blog, it makes more sense, though the back-and-forth on this thread still strikes me as being off.
As general matter of meta, I never really get the “don’t say that, even if it’s true, because it has this effect on national opinion” when we’re talking about people’s comments on this wonderful but obscure blog.
Wj, did you read the two links?
I remember 2002 and 2003 and personally I wasn’t completely sure the Iraq War would be worse for Iraqis than Saddam’s rule plus sanctions, but it was. I wasn’t sure how bad Iraq would be. I had thought Afghanistan would be a total disaster and long term it hasn’t been good, but it didn’t initially go as badly as I thought it would. I say this to deny any sort of prescience and to disqualify myself as a presidential candidate. However it was perfectly clear that the Bush people were greatly exaggerating their case for Iraq and using the post 9/11 hysteria to drive us into war and this was clear to a great many others, including some Democratic politicians.. If Clinton was fooled by Bush, that disqualifies her claim as a foreign policy expert. The standard here should be a lot higher than it is for the average American who watched CNN or read the front page stories on the NYT or the pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker. Nobody fooled by Bush on this subject should be touting her FP qualifications. She had her opportunity to line up with some other Democrats and try to prevent the utter catastrophe that Bush caused and she chose the wrong side.
I don’t have any particular desire to argue that Sanders would have a better chance in November. No doubt the Republicans could really blast away at him. But Clinton’s candidacy sucked the oxygen out of the room– I suspect Sanders only ran to get his issues out there and as time went on, started to think he might win. But most others were scared away because it was her turn.
LJ, most of the foreign policy experts who opposed going into Iraq thought it was a really bad idea, period. Hell, even Cheney thought it was a bad idea in the Gulf War.
Wj, did you read the two links?
I remember 2002 and 2003 and personally I wasn’t completely sure the Iraq War would be worse for Iraqis than Saddam’s rule plus sanctions, but it was. I wasn’t sure how bad Iraq would be. I had thought Afghanistan would be a total disaster and long term it hasn’t been good, but it didn’t initially go as badly as I thought it would. I say this to deny any sort of prescience and to disqualify myself as a presidential candidate. However it was perfectly clear that the Bush people were greatly exaggerating their case for Iraq and using the post 9/11 hysteria to drive us into war and this was clear to a great many others, including some Democratic politicians.. If Clinton was fooled by Bush, that disqualifies her claim as a foreign policy expert. The standard here should be a lot higher than it is for the average American who watched CNN or read the front page stories on the NYT or the pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker. Nobody fooled by Bush on this subject should be touting her FP qualifications. She had her opportunity to line up with some other Democrats and try to prevent the utter catastrophe that Bush caused and she chose the wrong side.
I don’t have any particular desire to argue that Sanders would have a better chance in November. No doubt the Republicans could really blast away at him. But Clinton’s candidacy sucked the oxygen out of the room– I suspect Sanders only ran to get his issues out there and as time went on, started to think he might win. But most others were scared away because it was her turn.
LJ, most of the foreign policy experts who opposed going into Iraq thought it was a really bad idea, period. Hell, even Cheney thought it was a bad idea in the Gulf War.
Wj, did you read the two links?
I remember 2002 and 2003 and personally I wasn’t completely sure the Iraq War would be worse for Iraqis than Saddam’s rule plus sanctions, but it was. I wasn’t sure how bad Iraq would be. I had thought Afghanistan would be a total disaster and long term it hasn’t been good, but it didn’t initially go as badly as I thought it would. I say this to deny any sort of prescience and to disqualify myself as a presidential candidate. However it was perfectly clear that the Bush people were greatly exaggerating their case for Iraq and using the post 9/11 hysteria to drive us into war and this was clear to a great many others, including some Democratic politicians.. If Clinton was fooled by Bush, that disqualifies her claim as a foreign policy expert. The standard here should be a lot higher than it is for the average American who watched CNN or read the front page stories on the NYT or the pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker. Nobody fooled by Bush on this subject should be touting her FP qualifications. She had her opportunity to line up with some other Democrats and try to prevent the utter catastrophe that Bush caused and she chose the wrong side.
I don’t have any particular desire to argue that Sanders would have a better chance in November. No doubt the Republicans could really blast away at him. But Clinton’s candidacy sucked the oxygen out of the room– I suspect Sanders only ran to get his issues out there and as time went on, started to think he might win. But most others were scared away because it was her turn.
LJ, most of the foreign policy experts who opposed going into Iraq thought it was a really bad idea, period. Hell, even Cheney thought it was a bad idea in the Gulf War.
If Clinton was fooled by Bush, that disqualifies her claim as a foreign policy expert.
Is there no possibility that someone could lack foreign policy expertise at one point, but have acquired it a decade and a half later?
If Clinton was fooled by Bush, that disqualifies her claim as a foreign policy expert.
Is there no possibility that someone could lack foreign policy expertise at one point, but have acquired it a decade and a half later?
If Clinton was fooled by Bush, that disqualifies her claim as a foreign policy expert.
Is there no possibility that someone could lack foreign policy expertise at one point, but have acquired it a decade and a half later?
That sort of argument is most convincing if the sort of judgement they were criticized for a decade and a half ago was not on prominent display during the period that they acquired their purported FP expertise. If there’s every sign of consistency, I can really see why we’re supposed to assume change against appearances.
That sort of argument is most convincing if the sort of judgement they were criticized for a decade and a half ago was not on prominent display during the period that they acquired their purported FP expertise. If there’s every sign of consistency, I can really see why we’re supposed to assume change against appearances.
That sort of argument is most convincing if the sort of judgement they were criticized for a decade and a half ago was not on prominent display during the period that they acquired their purported FP expertise. If there’s every sign of consistency, I can really see why we’re supposed to assume change against appearances.
*can’t really see, sigh
*can’t really see, sigh
*can’t really see, sigh
I guess I’m not sure who here, aside from one regular I don’t want to name (but you’ll probably know who I have in mind), does that much.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight. It might dawn on certain concern trolls who are worried about 2020 that I was indeed looking ahead.
As to Clinton’s vote on Iraq, it seems to me that she favored the approach suggested by Jessica Matthews, which was to use a credible threat of force to bolster the ability of the inspectors to do their work, and then to wait and let them do it. The AUMF was that credible use of force that was misused by Bush. See this panel discussion, and this editorial. That still seems to me like what would have been a reasonable way to have dealt with the Iraq situation. Unfortunately, giving Bush authority to use military force was an error in trust. Bush was not so nuanced as Jessica Matthews.
In any case, Clinton has acknowledged her mistake in voting to give that authority to Bush. Bernie did not vote that way, and good for him. He does, however, support the drone program and other foreign policy matters that many people here have been “disappointed” in Obama about, so maybe he’s a lesser-evil too. In any case, we now have a contest of Clinton versus Trump, and a hope of winning the Senate. Maybe even the House if we really work hard, one can dream.
I guess I’m not sure who here, aside from one regular I don’t want to name (but you’ll probably know who I have in mind), does that much.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight. It might dawn on certain concern trolls who are worried about 2020 that I was indeed looking ahead.
As to Clinton’s vote on Iraq, it seems to me that she favored the approach suggested by Jessica Matthews, which was to use a credible threat of force to bolster the ability of the inspectors to do their work, and then to wait and let them do it. The AUMF was that credible use of force that was misused by Bush. See this panel discussion, and this editorial. That still seems to me like what would have been a reasonable way to have dealt with the Iraq situation. Unfortunately, giving Bush authority to use military force was an error in trust. Bush was not so nuanced as Jessica Matthews.
In any case, Clinton has acknowledged her mistake in voting to give that authority to Bush. Bernie did not vote that way, and good for him. He does, however, support the drone program and other foreign policy matters that many people here have been “disappointed” in Obama about, so maybe he’s a lesser-evil too. In any case, we now have a contest of Clinton versus Trump, and a hope of winning the Senate. Maybe even the House if we really work hard, one can dream.
I guess I’m not sure who here, aside from one regular I don’t want to name (but you’ll probably know who I have in mind), does that much.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight. It might dawn on certain concern trolls who are worried about 2020 that I was indeed looking ahead.
As to Clinton’s vote on Iraq, it seems to me that she favored the approach suggested by Jessica Matthews, which was to use a credible threat of force to bolster the ability of the inspectors to do their work, and then to wait and let them do it. The AUMF was that credible use of force that was misused by Bush. See this panel discussion, and this editorial. That still seems to me like what would have been a reasonable way to have dealt with the Iraq situation. Unfortunately, giving Bush authority to use military force was an error in trust. Bush was not so nuanced as Jessica Matthews.
In any case, Clinton has acknowledged her mistake in voting to give that authority to Bush. Bernie did not vote that way, and good for him. He does, however, support the drone program and other foreign policy matters that many people here have been “disappointed” in Obama about, so maybe he’s a lesser-evil too. In any case, we now have a contest of Clinton versus Trump, and a hope of winning the Senate. Maybe even the House if we really work hard, one can dream.
Hsh–
When Sanders criticized Clinton on Iraq and other things ( and I don’t have time to get into arguments about the other things today) I saw a lot of outrage from people who thought he was handing ammunition to the Republicans. Not here, but other places. That’s why there are these frankly ludicrous defenses of her Iraq War vote floating around online ( which the other link by Zunes was written to refute). One extremely common meme is that the criticism of Clinton is all rooted in lies told by the right and then echoed by naive Sanders voters. The Iraq War vote is usually ignored, but when mentioned by some critic you get the sort of defense I linked above.
I don’t think it is healthy for the Democrats to tell themselves how all criticisms of Clinton or Democrats in general are just right wing propaganda.
Hsh–
When Sanders criticized Clinton on Iraq and other things ( and I don’t have time to get into arguments about the other things today) I saw a lot of outrage from people who thought he was handing ammunition to the Republicans. Not here, but other places. That’s why there are these frankly ludicrous defenses of her Iraq War vote floating around online ( which the other link by Zunes was written to refute). One extremely common meme is that the criticism of Clinton is all rooted in lies told by the right and then echoed by naive Sanders voters. The Iraq War vote is usually ignored, but when mentioned by some critic you get the sort of defense I linked above.
I don’t think it is healthy for the Democrats to tell themselves how all criticisms of Clinton or Democrats in general are just right wing propaganda.
Hsh–
When Sanders criticized Clinton on Iraq and other things ( and I don’t have time to get into arguments about the other things today) I saw a lot of outrage from people who thought he was handing ammunition to the Republicans. Not here, but other places. That’s why there are these frankly ludicrous defenses of her Iraq War vote floating around online ( which the other link by Zunes was written to refute). One extremely common meme is that the criticism of Clinton is all rooted in lies told by the right and then echoed by naive Sanders voters. The Iraq War vote is usually ignored, but when mentioned by some critic you get the sort of defense I linked above.
I don’t think it is healthy for the Democrats to tell themselves how all criticisms of Clinton or Democrats in general are just right wing propaganda.
In any case, we now have a contest of Clinton versus Trump, and a hope of winning the Senate. Maybe even the House if we really work hard, one can dream.
Sapient, did you happen to catch the fact that Trump is now saying nice things about the guy who is challenging Ryan from the right in the upcoming primary? I have no idea whether the guy has a ghost of a chance. But how beautifully ironic would it be if Ryan ends up as just the latest electoral casualty of the Trump phenomena?
In any case, we now have a contest of Clinton versus Trump, and a hope of winning the Senate. Maybe even the House if we really work hard, one can dream.
Sapient, did you happen to catch the fact that Trump is now saying nice things about the guy who is challenging Ryan from the right in the upcoming primary? I have no idea whether the guy has a ghost of a chance. But how beautifully ironic would it be if Ryan ends up as just the latest electoral casualty of the Trump phenomena?
In any case, we now have a contest of Clinton versus Trump, and a hope of winning the Senate. Maybe even the House if we really work hard, one can dream.
Sapient, did you happen to catch the fact that Trump is now saying nice things about the guy who is challenging Ryan from the right in the upcoming primary? I have no idea whether the guy has a ghost of a chance. But how beautifully ironic would it be if Ryan ends up as just the latest electoral casualty of the Trump phenomena?
But how beautifully ironic would it be if Ryan ends up as just the latest electoral casualty of the Trump phenomena?
Absolutely!
But how beautifully ironic would it be if Ryan ends up as just the latest electoral casualty of the Trump phenomena?
Absolutely!
But how beautifully ironic would it be if Ryan ends up as just the latest electoral casualty of the Trump phenomena?
Absolutely!
I agree completely with Harmut’s take on Clinton’s Iraq vote. IIRC, the issue was pushed through Congress well *before* the more egregious evidence was shown to be false, before midterm elections. Obviously timed to produce maximum political damage.
And really, when millions of people were protesting in the streets, around the world, to no avail…does anyone here think that a solid Dem Senate against Iraq would have done anything other than result in electoral disaster?
BUSH was the one that robbed the bank. I don’t think you can blame HILLARY for not throwing herself in front of the getaway car.
I agree completely with Harmut’s take on Clinton’s Iraq vote. IIRC, the issue was pushed through Congress well *before* the more egregious evidence was shown to be false, before midterm elections. Obviously timed to produce maximum political damage.
And really, when millions of people were protesting in the streets, around the world, to no avail…does anyone here think that a solid Dem Senate against Iraq would have done anything other than result in electoral disaster?
BUSH was the one that robbed the bank. I don’t think you can blame HILLARY for not throwing herself in front of the getaway car.
I agree completely with Harmut’s take on Clinton’s Iraq vote. IIRC, the issue was pushed through Congress well *before* the more egregious evidence was shown to be false, before midterm elections. Obviously timed to produce maximum political damage.
And really, when millions of people were protesting in the streets, around the world, to no avail…does anyone here think that a solid Dem Senate against Iraq would have done anything other than result in electoral disaster?
BUSH was the one that robbed the bank. I don’t think you can blame HILLARY for not throwing herself in front of the getaway car.
Clinton has always seemed a bit hawkish for me, as well. but this is the alternative:
good one, Trump.
Trump is a man who has claimed his prep school experience gave him more military experience than those who served. he routinely denigrates the military service of others. he slanders the family of fallen soldiers. he thinks it would be great if Japan and South Korea got nuclear weapons. he doesn’t understand how treaties work. he says he would order the US military to kill families of enemy combatants.
the guy would be an absolute fncking nightmare. an arrogant ignorant blowhard with thin skin and a chip on his should who doesn’t understand and doesn’t respect the military would be the absolute worst CiC possible. hawkish? Trump be a rabid bear with a flamethrower attached to his head.
but we have to talk about Clinton’s thirteen year old Iraq vote ?
can we get a little perspective please?
Clinton has always seemed a bit hawkish for me, as well. but this is the alternative:
good one, Trump.
Trump is a man who has claimed his prep school experience gave him more military experience than those who served. he routinely denigrates the military service of others. he slanders the family of fallen soldiers. he thinks it would be great if Japan and South Korea got nuclear weapons. he doesn’t understand how treaties work. he says he would order the US military to kill families of enemy combatants.
the guy would be an absolute fncking nightmare. an arrogant ignorant blowhard with thin skin and a chip on his should who doesn’t understand and doesn’t respect the military would be the absolute worst CiC possible. hawkish? Trump be a rabid bear with a flamethrower attached to his head.
but we have to talk about Clinton’s thirteen year old Iraq vote ?
can we get a little perspective please?
Clinton has always seemed a bit hawkish for me, as well. but this is the alternative:
good one, Trump.
Trump is a man who has claimed his prep school experience gave him more military experience than those who served. he routinely denigrates the military service of others. he slanders the family of fallen soldiers. he thinks it would be great if Japan and South Korea got nuclear weapons. he doesn’t understand how treaties work. he says he would order the US military to kill families of enemy combatants.
the guy would be an absolute fncking nightmare. an arrogant ignorant blowhard with thin skin and a chip on his should who doesn’t understand and doesn’t respect the military would be the absolute worst CiC possible. hawkish? Trump be a rabid bear with a flamethrower attached to his head.
but we have to talk about Clinton’s thirteen year old Iraq vote ?
can we get a little perspective please?
I don’t think it is healthy for the Democrats to tell themselves how all criticisms of Clinton or Democrats in general are just right wing propaganda.
This. So much this. I see the meme you speak of all over social media. I don’t know whether I’d feel better assuming that I’m seeing paid Correct The Record shills, or partisans who drank a bit too much of the Koolaid. Either way it’s not good for public discourse.
It might dawn on certain concern trolls who are worried about 2020 that I was indeed looking ahead.
sapient, you either need to look a bit more carefully at the definition of concern troll, or you need to look at a mirror. Your choice.
I don’t think it is healthy for the Democrats to tell themselves how all criticisms of Clinton or Democrats in general are just right wing propaganda.
This. So much this. I see the meme you speak of all over social media. I don’t know whether I’d feel better assuming that I’m seeing paid Correct The Record shills, or partisans who drank a bit too much of the Koolaid. Either way it’s not good for public discourse.
It might dawn on certain concern trolls who are worried about 2020 that I was indeed looking ahead.
sapient, you either need to look a bit more carefully at the definition of concern troll, or you need to look at a mirror. Your choice.
I don’t think it is healthy for the Democrats to tell themselves how all criticisms of Clinton or Democrats in general are just right wing propaganda.
This. So much this. I see the meme you speak of all over social media. I don’t know whether I’d feel better assuming that I’m seeing paid Correct The Record shills, or partisans who drank a bit too much of the Koolaid. Either way it’s not good for public discourse.
It might dawn on certain concern trolls who are worried about 2020 that I was indeed looking ahead.
sapient, you either need to look a bit more carefully at the definition of concern troll, or you need to look at a mirror. Your choice.
Your choice.
I’m pretty comfortable just choosing to acknowledge that you and I just aren’t going to see eye to eye anytime soon.
Your choice.
I’m pretty comfortable just choosing to acknowledge that you and I just aren’t going to see eye to eye anytime soon.
Your choice.
I’m pretty comfortable just choosing to acknowledge that you and I just aren’t going to see eye to eye anytime soon.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight.
I can agree with this but still criticize a given progressive when it seems appropriate. It’s not all one or the other.
One extremely common meme is that the criticism of Clinton is all rooted in lies told by the right and then echoed by naive Sanders voters.
That’s stupid, but I don’t know what to do about that. Lots of people think Donald Trump is just super, too, and I’m similarly, if not more so, at a loss about that.
I’m not saying you can’t bring it up, but I don’t know that there’s any real debate here about it.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight.
I can agree with this but still criticize a given progressive when it seems appropriate. It’s not all one or the other.
One extremely common meme is that the criticism of Clinton is all rooted in lies told by the right and then echoed by naive Sanders voters.
That’s stupid, but I don’t know what to do about that. Lots of people think Donald Trump is just super, too, and I’m similarly, if not more so, at a loss about that.
I’m not saying you can’t bring it up, but I don’t know that there’s any real debate here about it.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight.
I can agree with this but still criticize a given progressive when it seems appropriate. It’s not all one or the other.
One extremely common meme is that the criticism of Clinton is all rooted in lies told by the right and then echoed by naive Sanders voters.
That’s stupid, but I don’t know what to do about that. Lots of people think Donald Trump is just super, too, and I’m similarly, if not more so, at a loss about that.
I’m not saying you can’t bring it up, but I don’t know that there’s any real debate here about it.
On perspective, Trump’s narcissism is Clinton’s strongest argument, though she is better than all the Republicans for a lot of reasons. If people stuck to this and didn’t deny the reasons for being concerned over Clinton I wouldn’t be complaining.
But here is another irony. For 13 years I have seen people blame the Nader campaign for the Iraq War and use that as a reason why one must never vote third party in a swing state ( I added that) and I accept this to some degree. But when Clinton’s actual record of support for the Iraq War is brought up, it is irrelevant and it was all Bush’s fault and she was just tricked and nobody realized what was happening. And she is a foreign policy expert.
Maybe I should cut and paste big chunks of the Zunes article.
On perspective, Trump’s narcissism is Clinton’s strongest argument, though she is better than all the Republicans for a lot of reasons. If people stuck to this and didn’t deny the reasons for being concerned over Clinton I wouldn’t be complaining.
But here is another irony. For 13 years I have seen people blame the Nader campaign for the Iraq War and use that as a reason why one must never vote third party in a swing state ( I added that) and I accept this to some degree. But when Clinton’s actual record of support for the Iraq War is brought up, it is irrelevant and it was all Bush’s fault and she was just tricked and nobody realized what was happening. And she is a foreign policy expert.
Maybe I should cut and paste big chunks of the Zunes article.
On perspective, Trump’s narcissism is Clinton’s strongest argument, though she is better than all the Republicans for a lot of reasons. If people stuck to this and didn’t deny the reasons for being concerned over Clinton I wouldn’t be complaining.
But here is another irony. For 13 years I have seen people blame the Nader campaign for the Iraq War and use that as a reason why one must never vote third party in a swing state ( I added that) and I accept this to some degree. But when Clinton’s actual record of support for the Iraq War is brought up, it is irrelevant and it was all Bush’s fault and she was just tricked and nobody realized what was happening. And she is a foreign policy expert.
Maybe I should cut and paste big chunks of the Zunes article.
sapient, just for the record, this is a perfect example of concern trolling, given that you’ve done a fairly good job of establishing that you do not actually support progressive politics:
You’re offering “helpful” critical advice to progressives with the ostensible aim of aiding them in fulfilling their political goals, despite your being hostile to them doing so in anything but an extremely limited way (and you’ve actually made this pretty clear over the years; you’ve consistently pushed third-way liberalism as THE way). Essentially, you’re suggesting that you want to help progressives achieve their goals, and suggest as a solution that they self-sabotage: they should seek to pursue their agenda by aggressively not pursuing it. This is not a perfect example of concern trolling, but it’s still a pretty good one.
What I said that you labeled as concern trolling would work if you assume that my goal is Republican electoral domination in 2018. 2020, and beyond. Not that the inevitable outcome of my misguided beliefs is such, but that my actual desired outcome is that. Concern trolling is all about intent.
And this is why I brought up mirrors.
sapient, just for the record, this is a perfect example of concern trolling, given that you’ve done a fairly good job of establishing that you do not actually support progressive politics:
You’re offering “helpful” critical advice to progressives with the ostensible aim of aiding them in fulfilling their political goals, despite your being hostile to them doing so in anything but an extremely limited way (and you’ve actually made this pretty clear over the years; you’ve consistently pushed third-way liberalism as THE way). Essentially, you’re suggesting that you want to help progressives achieve their goals, and suggest as a solution that they self-sabotage: they should seek to pursue their agenda by aggressively not pursuing it. This is not a perfect example of concern trolling, but it’s still a pretty good one.
What I said that you labeled as concern trolling would work if you assume that my goal is Republican electoral domination in 2018. 2020, and beyond. Not that the inevitable outcome of my misguided beliefs is such, but that my actual desired outcome is that. Concern trolling is all about intent.
And this is why I brought up mirrors.
sapient, just for the record, this is a perfect example of concern trolling, given that you’ve done a fairly good job of establishing that you do not actually support progressive politics:
You’re offering “helpful” critical advice to progressives with the ostensible aim of aiding them in fulfilling their political goals, despite your being hostile to them doing so in anything but an extremely limited way (and you’ve actually made this pretty clear over the years; you’ve consistently pushed third-way liberalism as THE way). Essentially, you’re suggesting that you want to help progressives achieve their goals, and suggest as a solution that they self-sabotage: they should seek to pursue their agenda by aggressively not pursuing it. This is not a perfect example of concern trolling, but it’s still a pretty good one.
What I said that you labeled as concern trolling would work if you assume that my goal is Republican electoral domination in 2018. 2020, and beyond. Not that the inevitable outcome of my misguided beliefs is such, but that my actual desired outcome is that. Concern trolling is all about intent.
And this is why I brought up mirrors.
Argh, inconsistent over-editing. Replace that first line with “this is a good example of…”, as it really is not a perfect example.
Argh, inconsistent over-editing. Replace that first line with “this is a good example of…”, as it really is not a perfect example.
Argh, inconsistent over-editing. Replace that first line with “this is a good example of…”, as it really is not a perfect example.
I’m willing to state that Clinton should not have voted for AUMF, but I don’t think the vote was as simple as the Zunes article states. This is a rebuttal to some of what Zunes says.
As to the Nader idea, it’s hard for me to accept that you really believe that history would have been similar if Gore had been President on 9/11. I’ll just leave it at that.
I’m willing to state that Clinton should not have voted for AUMF, but I don’t think the vote was as simple as the Zunes article states. This is a rebuttal to some of what Zunes says.
As to the Nader idea, it’s hard for me to accept that you really believe that history would have been similar if Gore had been President on 9/11. I’ll just leave it at that.
I’m willing to state that Clinton should not have voted for AUMF, but I don’t think the vote was as simple as the Zunes article states. This is a rebuttal to some of what Zunes says.
As to the Nader idea, it’s hard for me to accept that you really believe that history would have been similar if Gore had been President on 9/11. I’ll just leave it at that.
…does anyone here think that a solid Dem Senate against Iraq would have done anything other than result in electoral disaster?
Huh? A substantial majority of Dems in the House and the Senate voted “no” on the resolution. Do you believe if more of them had voted the other way that Kerry’s chances would have been improved? I would tend to think not.
As to Clinton’s vote: Cleary she is not at all adverse to employing our bloated military….I mean, that’s what it is there for. The institutional propensity to ring up the Joint Chiefs and get the mobilization going is well neigh overwhelming. It’s what hegemons are for. Was she “fooled” as she has since claimed? Hard to say. Was she a senator from New York where 9/11 took place and the shock and anger of that event had yet a long way to go to be overcome? Definitely.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight.
Likewise, it seems counterproductive to trash the “more progressive” part of the base, who are then implored to vote for the “lesser evil” candidate because “every vote is vital”, and Ralph Nader finger wagging…as “opposed to Republicans…yadda, yadda.”
Also, see here.
…does anyone here think that a solid Dem Senate against Iraq would have done anything other than result in electoral disaster?
Huh? A substantial majority of Dems in the House and the Senate voted “no” on the resolution. Do you believe if more of them had voted the other way that Kerry’s chances would have been improved? I would tend to think not.
As to Clinton’s vote: Cleary she is not at all adverse to employing our bloated military….I mean, that’s what it is there for. The institutional propensity to ring up the Joint Chiefs and get the mobilization going is well neigh overwhelming. It’s what hegemons are for. Was she “fooled” as she has since claimed? Hard to say. Was she a senator from New York where 9/11 took place and the shock and anger of that event had yet a long way to go to be overcome? Definitely.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight.
Likewise, it seems counterproductive to trash the “more progressive” part of the base, who are then implored to vote for the “lesser evil” candidate because “every vote is vital”, and Ralph Nader finger wagging…as “opposed to Republicans…yadda, yadda.”
Also, see here.
…does anyone here think that a solid Dem Senate against Iraq would have done anything other than result in electoral disaster?
Huh? A substantial majority of Dems in the House and the Senate voted “no” on the resolution. Do you believe if more of them had voted the other way that Kerry’s chances would have been improved? I would tend to think not.
As to Clinton’s vote: Cleary she is not at all adverse to employing our bloated military….I mean, that’s what it is there for. The institutional propensity to ring up the Joint Chiefs and get the mobilization going is well neigh overwhelming. It’s what hegemons are for. Was she “fooled” as she has since claimed? Hard to say. Was she a senator from New York where 9/11 took place and the shock and anger of that event had yet a long way to go to be overcome? Definitely.
It seems counterproductive for “progressives” to spend their time trashing the elected official that most represents their views, as opposed to Republicans, who control Congress and obstruct every progressive possibility before it even sees daylight.
Likewise, it seems counterproductive to trash the “more progressive” part of the base, who are then implored to vote for the “lesser evil” candidate because “every vote is vital”, and Ralph Nader finger wagging…as “opposed to Republicans…yadda, yadda.”
Also, see here.
despite your being hostile to them doing so in anything but an extremely limited way
NV, I know you hold yourself out as the true progressive voice on ObWi, but please don’t speak for me and my hostilities. Thanks.
despite your being hostile to them doing so in anything but an extremely limited way
NV, I know you hold yourself out as the true progressive voice on ObWi, but please don’t speak for me and my hostilities. Thanks.
despite your being hostile to them doing so in anything but an extremely limited way
NV, I know you hold yourself out as the true progressive voice on ObWi, but please don’t speak for me and my hostilities. Thanks.
Likewise, it seems counterproductive to trash the “more progressive” part of the base,
I’m pretty sure I’ve said multiple times that I would have voted for Sanders if he’d won the nomination. I don’t trash “progressives” until they start trashing Democrats. And the label “progressives” if it means “those who trash Democrats” is not very apt.
Likewise, it seems counterproductive to trash the “more progressive” part of the base,
I’m pretty sure I’ve said multiple times that I would have voted for Sanders if he’d won the nomination. I don’t trash “progressives” until they start trashing Democrats. And the label “progressives” if it means “those who trash Democrats” is not very apt.
Likewise, it seems counterproductive to trash the “more progressive” part of the base,
I’m pretty sure I’ve said multiple times that I would have voted for Sanders if he’d won the nomination. I don’t trash “progressives” until they start trashing Democrats. And the label “progressives” if it means “those who trash Democrats” is not very apt.
Clinton has made several missteps in her life. she has also been accused of a lot of things she didn’t do.
the sum total of all her bad decisions don’t even compare to a week’s worth of Trump’s promises.
so, i’m not sure what attacking Clinton is supposed to accomplish. the primary is over, so attacks from the left do nothing to help the self-proclaimed true progressives.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons. but even then, is Trump preferable?
Clinton has made several missteps in her life. she has also been accused of a lot of things she didn’t do.
the sum total of all her bad decisions don’t even compare to a week’s worth of Trump’s promises.
so, i’m not sure what attacking Clinton is supposed to accomplish. the primary is over, so attacks from the left do nothing to help the self-proclaimed true progressives.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons. but even then, is Trump preferable?
Clinton has made several missteps in her life. she has also been accused of a lot of things she didn’t do.
the sum total of all her bad decisions don’t even compare to a week’s worth of Trump’s promises.
so, i’m not sure what attacking Clinton is supposed to accomplish. the primary is over, so attacks from the left do nothing to help the self-proclaimed true progressives.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons. but even then, is Trump preferable?
I’m full of popcorn. I need to switch to the ten-foot red licorice ropes and the one pound Chunky bar for the rest of this show:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-baby-get-him-outta-here
Hillary the Great Trickster just made a call to the Donald on her private cellphone network and instructed him, after complaining that he isn’t doing enough to make her look good to Sanders supporters, that the next time a proud Republican mother holds a baby up at the rope line for you to to kiss, just lean in and bite the little rug rat. Yeah, take a big bloody chunk out of it and then spit it on the ground and turn to the camera and bellow “Republican babies taste better than those liberal gets, let me tell you!”
The Donald might protest, (I mean Hillary just goes TOO far!) that, jeez, isn’t it enough that I’ve promised to throw the babies off Obamacare and subject them to open-carry loaded weapons on the coffee table near the playpen and make them attend prophylactic anti-gay classes during pre-school?
“Donald, what did I say? What did I say? What DID I say?”
Donald: (meekly, cowering from the bitch devil Hillary) Bite the baby?
“See, THAT’S what I like to hear. Now, that Purple Heart the soldier gave you the other day … sell it on Ebay and claim you deserve the f*cking Medal of Honor for your heroic comment when Fullujah fell … “Fullajah this!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-purple-heart-virginia-rally
“Okey-Dokey, Mommy Dearest! You are one low broad, Hil.”
I’m full of popcorn. I need to switch to the ten-foot red licorice ropes and the one pound Chunky bar for the rest of this show:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-baby-get-him-outta-here
Hillary the Great Trickster just made a call to the Donald on her private cellphone network and instructed him, after complaining that he isn’t doing enough to make her look good to Sanders supporters, that the next time a proud Republican mother holds a baby up at the rope line for you to to kiss, just lean in and bite the little rug rat. Yeah, take a big bloody chunk out of it and then spit it on the ground and turn to the camera and bellow “Republican babies taste better than those liberal gets, let me tell you!”
The Donald might protest, (I mean Hillary just goes TOO far!) that, jeez, isn’t it enough that I’ve promised to throw the babies off Obamacare and subject them to open-carry loaded weapons on the coffee table near the playpen and make them attend prophylactic anti-gay classes during pre-school?
“Donald, what did I say? What did I say? What DID I say?”
Donald: (meekly, cowering from the bitch devil Hillary) Bite the baby?
“See, THAT’S what I like to hear. Now, that Purple Heart the soldier gave you the other day … sell it on Ebay and claim you deserve the f*cking Medal of Honor for your heroic comment when Fullujah fell … “Fullajah this!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-purple-heart-virginia-rally
“Okey-Dokey, Mommy Dearest! You are one low broad, Hil.”
I’m full of popcorn. I need to switch to the ten-foot red licorice ropes and the one pound Chunky bar for the rest of this show:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-baby-get-him-outta-here
Hillary the Great Trickster just made a call to the Donald on her private cellphone network and instructed him, after complaining that he isn’t doing enough to make her look good to Sanders supporters, that the next time a proud Republican mother holds a baby up at the rope line for you to to kiss, just lean in and bite the little rug rat. Yeah, take a big bloody chunk out of it and then spit it on the ground and turn to the camera and bellow “Republican babies taste better than those liberal gets, let me tell you!”
The Donald might protest, (I mean Hillary just goes TOO far!) that, jeez, isn’t it enough that I’ve promised to throw the babies off Obamacare and subject them to open-carry loaded weapons on the coffee table near the playpen and make them attend prophylactic anti-gay classes during pre-school?
“Donald, what did I say? What did I say? What DID I say?”
Donald: (meekly, cowering from the bitch devil Hillary) Bite the baby?
“See, THAT’S what I like to hear. Now, that Purple Heart the soldier gave you the other day … sell it on Ebay and claim you deserve the f*cking Medal of Honor for your heroic comment when Fullujah fell … “Fullajah this!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-purple-heart-virginia-rally
“Okey-Dokey, Mommy Dearest! You are one low broad, Hil.”
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons. but even then, is Trump preferable?
Well, no, of course not. But characterizing (some) critiques of Clinton as “attacks” is a bit of a misnomer. Do you actually claim to agree wholeheartedly with every single one of her policy positions…without reservation?
It cannot be denied that she has moved left on some of her previous positions (cf TPP, charter schools, min. wage, college tuition). I can only conclude from this that “the left” needs to keep up this pressure, because it has seemed to have had some impact.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons. but even then, is Trump preferable?
Well, no, of course not. But characterizing (some) critiques of Clinton as “attacks” is a bit of a misnomer. Do you actually claim to agree wholeheartedly with every single one of her policy positions…without reservation?
It cannot be denied that she has moved left on some of her previous positions (cf TPP, charter schools, min. wage, college tuition). I can only conclude from this that “the left” needs to keep up this pressure, because it has seemed to have had some impact.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons. but even then, is Trump preferable?
Well, no, of course not. But characterizing (some) critiques of Clinton as “attacks” is a bit of a misnomer. Do you actually claim to agree wholeheartedly with every single one of her policy positions…without reservation?
It cannot be denied that she has moved left on some of her previous positions (cf TPP, charter schools, min. wage, college tuition). I can only conclude from this that “the left” needs to keep up this pressure, because it has seemed to have had some impact.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons.
Cleek, As someone who considers himself a conservative (and who is to the right of Clinton), I really appreciate you putting those quotes in. I don’t much trust Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn’t say I hate her.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons.
Cleek, As someone who considers himself a conservative (and who is to the right of Clinton), I really appreciate you putting those quotes in. I don’t much trust Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn’t say I hate her.
attacks from the right i can understand because all ‘conservatives’ hate all Clintons.
Cleek, As someone who considers himself a conservative (and who is to the right of Clinton), I really appreciate you putting those quotes in. I don’t much trust Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn’t say I hate her.
“After Abbie Hoffman levitated the Pentagon”
I realized I would never be a real radical when I was 13 or 14 and I paid for my copy of “Steal This Book”.
“After Abbie Hoffman levitated the Pentagon”
I realized I would never be a real radical when I was 13 or 14 and I paid for my copy of “Steal This Book”.
“After Abbie Hoffman levitated the Pentagon”
I realized I would never be a real radical when I was 13 or 14 and I paid for my copy of “Steal This Book”.
I did not fail that test.
I did not fail that test.
I did not fail that test.
“but we have to talk about Clinton’s thirteen year old Iraq vote ?”
Nope we will just move on. Nothing to see here. Not her 133 year old vote or her eight year old law breaking or her 4 year old lying to Congress. You are correct, she should not be held accountable for anything she has ever said or done because, well, Trump.
“but we have to talk about Clinton’s thirteen year old Iraq vote ?”
Nope we will just move on. Nothing to see here. Not her 133 year old vote or her eight year old law breaking or her 4 year old lying to Congress. You are correct, she should not be held accountable for anything she has ever said or done because, well, Trump.
“but we have to talk about Clinton’s thirteen year old Iraq vote ?”
Nope we will just move on. Nothing to see here. Not her 133 year old vote or her eight year old law breaking or her 4 year old lying to Congress. You are correct, she should not be held accountable for anything she has ever said or done because, well, Trump.
“I did not fail that test.”
I believe you.
still catching up with the thread…. what candidate in 2016 would *not* have been polarizing?
it seems to me “polarized” is kind of baked in, this year
“I did not fail that test.”
I believe you.
still catching up with the thread…. what candidate in 2016 would *not* have been polarizing?
it seems to me “polarized” is kind of baked in, this year
“I did not fail that test.”
I believe you.
still catching up with the thread…. what candidate in 2016 would *not* have been polarizing?
it seems to me “polarized” is kind of baked in, this year
I did not fail that test.
Heh. I did use his “how to get into a movie theater for free” advise, but only once. It worked.
it seems to me “polarized” is kind of baked in, this year
Yep. With the 2 major parties each becoming increasingly ideologically coherent, that’s going to be baked in for some time. Even a sapient vs. wj race would most likely have this attribute.
I did not fail that test.
Heh. I did use his “how to get into a movie theater for free” advise, but only once. It worked.
it seems to me “polarized” is kind of baked in, this year
Yep. With the 2 major parties each becoming increasingly ideologically coherent, that’s going to be baked in for some time. Even a sapient vs. wj race would most likely have this attribute.
I did not fail that test.
Heh. I did use his “how to get into a movie theater for free” advise, but only once. It worked.
it seems to me “polarized” is kind of baked in, this year
Yep. With the 2 major parties each becoming increasingly ideologically coherent, that’s going to be baked in for some time. Even a sapient vs. wj race would most likely have this attribute.
You are correct, she should not be held accountable for anything she has ever said or done because, well, Trump.
“well, Trump” is a little underpowered here. the guy said he wants to murder civilians. are you OK with that? are you going to vote for him?
i see a lot of complaining about Clinton, but you’re curiously silent about the actual threat to the country. if Clinton had said one morning’s worth of Trumpisms, we’d never hear the end of it.
about holding Clinton to account: if you have evidence of criminality, you should probably bring it to the attention of Mitch McConnell. i’m sure he’d love to have something to jail her with. why are you sitting on all this evidence? don’t you want to slay the Hildebeast?
You are correct, she should not be held accountable for anything she has ever said or done because, well, Trump.
“well, Trump” is a little underpowered here. the guy said he wants to murder civilians. are you OK with that? are you going to vote for him?
i see a lot of complaining about Clinton, but you’re curiously silent about the actual threat to the country. if Clinton had said one morning’s worth of Trumpisms, we’d never hear the end of it.
about holding Clinton to account: if you have evidence of criminality, you should probably bring it to the attention of Mitch McConnell. i’m sure he’d love to have something to jail her with. why are you sitting on all this evidence? don’t you want to slay the Hildebeast?
You are correct, she should not be held accountable for anything she has ever said or done because, well, Trump.
“well, Trump” is a little underpowered here. the guy said he wants to murder civilians. are you OK with that? are you going to vote for him?
i see a lot of complaining about Clinton, but you’re curiously silent about the actual threat to the country. if Clinton had said one morning’s worth of Trumpisms, we’d never hear the end of it.
about holding Clinton to account: if you have evidence of criminality, you should probably bring it to the attention of Mitch McConnell. i’m sure he’d love to have something to jail her with. why are you sitting on all this evidence? don’t you want to slay the Hildebeast?
In Marty’s world, Julian Assange would already be dead, assassinated by Clinton’s Illuminati minions.
Wait. Now I’m not sure if I’m attributing everything negative about Clinton to falsehoods originating from right-wing sources.
Her Iraq vote was wrong! (Whew… Glad I got myself out of that one.)
Wait. Now I’m helping Trump get elected.
Trump’s batsh*t crazy! Don’t vote for him. (Crap. Now I’m glossing over Clinton’s faults with negativity about Trump. Well, I guess I’m okay with that….)
In Marty’s world, Julian Assange would already be dead, assassinated by Clinton’s Illuminati minions.
Wait. Now I’m not sure if I’m attributing everything negative about Clinton to falsehoods originating from right-wing sources.
Her Iraq vote was wrong! (Whew… Glad I got myself out of that one.)
Wait. Now I’m helping Trump get elected.
Trump’s batsh*t crazy! Don’t vote for him. (Crap. Now I’m glossing over Clinton’s faults with negativity about Trump. Well, I guess I’m okay with that….)
In Marty’s world, Julian Assange would already be dead, assassinated by Clinton’s Illuminati minions.
Wait. Now I’m not sure if I’m attributing everything negative about Clinton to falsehoods originating from right-wing sources.
Her Iraq vote was wrong! (Whew… Glad I got myself out of that one.)
Wait. Now I’m helping Trump get elected.
Trump’s batsh*t crazy! Don’t vote for him. (Crap. Now I’m glossing over Clinton’s faults with negativity about Trump. Well, I guess I’m okay with that….)
Do you actually claim to agree wholeheartedly with every single one of her policy positions…without reservation?
of course not. but not all of the discussion of Clinton here is about her specific policy positions.
and she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
Cleek, As someone who considers himself a conservative (and who is to the right of Clinton), I really appreciate you putting those quotes in.
heh. intentional! glad they work for you.
Do you actually claim to agree wholeheartedly with every single one of her policy positions…without reservation?
of course not. but not all of the discussion of Clinton here is about her specific policy positions.
and she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
Cleek, As someone who considers himself a conservative (and who is to the right of Clinton), I really appreciate you putting those quotes in.
heh. intentional! glad they work for you.
Do you actually claim to agree wholeheartedly with every single one of her policy positions…without reservation?
of course not. but not all of the discussion of Clinton here is about her specific policy positions.
and she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
Cleek, As someone who considers himself a conservative (and who is to the right of Clinton), I really appreciate you putting those quotes in.
heh. intentional! glad they work for you.
“In Marty’s world, Julian Assange would already be dead, assassinated by
Clinton’shis Illuminati minions.”Or a Russian. I just want minions. Or just a minion.
But when he turns up dead next week I will know who is responsible.
Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?
“In Marty’s world, Julian Assange would already be dead, assassinated by
Clinton’shis Illuminati minions.”Or a Russian. I just want minions. Or just a minion.
But when he turns up dead next week I will know who is responsible.
Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?
“In Marty’s world, Julian Assange would already be dead, assassinated by
Clinton’shis Illuminati minions.”Or a Russian. I just want minions. Or just a minion.
But when he turns up dead next week I will know who is responsible.
Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?
and she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
You don’t know until you try! God knows, that last day of the convention got all the right center patriot types (who don’t hate her guts) that could conceivably be available in line.
Maybe Ethyl Merman singing “Good Bless America” would have gotten a few more. Who knows?
and she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
You don’t know until you try! God knows, that last day of the convention got all the right center patriot types (who don’t hate her guts) that could conceivably be available in line.
Maybe Ethyl Merman singing “Good Bless America” would have gotten a few more. Who knows?
and she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
You don’t know until you try! God knows, that last day of the convention got all the right center patriot types (who don’t hate her guts) that could conceivably be available in line.
Maybe Ethyl Merman singing “Good Bless America” would have gotten a few more. Who knows?
Pardon. That should be “Ethel”. Ethyl is what I had for lunch.
Pardon. That should be “Ethel”. Ethyl is what I had for lunch.
Pardon. That should be “Ethel”. Ethyl is what I had for lunch.
can anyone remember a candidate outsourcing his opposition research to Russia ?
can anyone remember a candidate outsourcing his opposition research to Russia ?
can anyone remember a candidate outsourcing his opposition research to Russia ?
Can anyone remember a major-party nominee as un-presidential and ill-suited for office as Trump? Can anyone remember a nominee with as many high-raking members of his own party coming out against him?
If ever the rules no longer applied…
Can anyone remember a major-party nominee as un-presidential and ill-suited for office as Trump? Can anyone remember a nominee with as many high-raking members of his own party coming out against him?
If ever the rules no longer applied…
Can anyone remember a major-party nominee as un-presidential and ill-suited for office as Trump? Can anyone remember a nominee with as many high-raking members of his own party coming out against him?
If ever the rules no longer applied…
i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
for what it’s worth
i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
for what it’s worth
i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
for what it’s worth
“Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?”
Oh my word, an insane, sociopathic reality show host getting dissed by the President. What a crack in the firmament!
It was a public service announcement, not a diss.
I recall Eisenhower holding his nose when he endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960. Does that count?
Can anyone remember the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader tut-tutting/censoring the Leader and Presidential candidate of their own Party during an election?
Numerous times within weeks?
The three of them can bite me, but still.
Do we want to start making list of the “Does anyone remember” moments Donald Trump has brought to our discourse, already rent to tatters by his predecessor Republicans these last 35 years?
It’s all new. It’s going to be new from now on.
Including the violence.
“Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?”
Oh my word, an insane, sociopathic reality show host getting dissed by the President. What a crack in the firmament!
It was a public service announcement, not a diss.
I recall Eisenhower holding his nose when he endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960. Does that count?
Can anyone remember the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader tut-tutting/censoring the Leader and Presidential candidate of their own Party during an election?
Numerous times within weeks?
The three of them can bite me, but still.
Do we want to start making list of the “Does anyone remember” moments Donald Trump has brought to our discourse, already rent to tatters by his predecessor Republicans these last 35 years?
It’s all new. It’s going to be new from now on.
Including the violence.
“Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?”
Oh my word, an insane, sociopathic reality show host getting dissed by the President. What a crack in the firmament!
It was a public service announcement, not a diss.
I recall Eisenhower holding his nose when he endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960. Does that count?
Can anyone remember the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader tut-tutting/censoring the Leader and Presidential candidate of their own Party during an election?
Numerous times within weeks?
The three of them can bite me, but still.
Do we want to start making list of the “Does anyone remember” moments Donald Trump has brought to our discourse, already rent to tatters by his predecessor Republicans these last 35 years?
It’s all new. It’s going to be new from now on.
Including the violence.
“Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?”
“He’s [Nixon] like a Spanish horse, who runs faster than anyone for the first nine lengths and then turns around and runs backwards. You’ll see; he’ll do something wrong in the end. He always does.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
“Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?”
“He’s [Nixon] like a Spanish horse, who runs faster than anyone for the first nine lengths and then turns around and runs backwards. You’ll see; he’ll do something wrong in the end. He always does.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
“Can anyone remember a sitting President dissing the oppositions candidate?”
“He’s [Nixon] like a Spanish horse, who runs faster than anyone for the first nine lengths and then turns around and runs backwards. You’ll see; he’ll do something wrong in the end. He always does.”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
can anyone remember a candidate outsourcing his opposition research to Russia ?
Hey, now. They work for cheap.
can anyone remember a candidate outsourcing his opposition research to Russia ?
Hey, now. They work for cheap.
can anyone remember a candidate outsourcing his opposition research to Russia ?
Hey, now. They work for cheap.
I borrowed my “Steal This Book” out of the public library, an act now characterized by Ayn Randers, Libertarians, and at times in the not too distant past by a few Republican nutcakes as stealing from the taxpayer.
I borrowed my “Steal This Book” out of the public library, an act now characterized by Ayn Randers, Libertarians, and at times in the not too distant past by a few Republican nutcakes as stealing from the taxpayer.
I borrowed my “Steal This Book” out of the public library, an act now characterized by Ayn Randers, Libertarians, and at times in the not too distant past by a few Republican nutcakes as stealing from the taxpayer.
bobbyp, hmm.
so i went and looked at the poll and it’s ‘polling memo’, which talks about which questions belong to the ‘rewrite the rules’ set and which belong to the ‘build on the progress’ set.
one of them appears to be Q49. here’s a bit of it:
that bolded sentence sounded familiar. that’s because it’s a line Clinton has used many times during the campaign. “We cannot allow Wall Street to wreck Main Street” is a staple of her pitch.
but it’s in the what the pollsters say is the more Sanders-like set of questions.
so… i’m not sure i trust the pollster’s editorializing on this. if they can’t even identify who they’re quoting.
bobbyp, hmm.
so i went and looked at the poll and it’s ‘polling memo’, which talks about which questions belong to the ‘rewrite the rules’ set and which belong to the ‘build on the progress’ set.
one of them appears to be Q49. here’s a bit of it:
that bolded sentence sounded familiar. that’s because it’s a line Clinton has used many times during the campaign. “We cannot allow Wall Street to wreck Main Street” is a staple of her pitch.
but it’s in the what the pollsters say is the more Sanders-like set of questions.
so… i’m not sure i trust the pollster’s editorializing on this. if they can’t even identify who they’re quoting.
bobbyp, hmm.
so i went and looked at the poll and it’s ‘polling memo’, which talks about which questions belong to the ‘rewrite the rules’ set and which belong to the ‘build on the progress’ set.
one of them appears to be Q49. here’s a bit of it:
that bolded sentence sounded familiar. that’s because it’s a line Clinton has used many times during the campaign. “We cannot allow Wall Street to wreck Main Street” is a staple of her pitch.
but it’s in the what the pollsters say is the more Sanders-like set of questions.
so… i’m not sure i trust the pollster’s editorializing on this. if they can’t even identify who they’re quoting.
she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
Pretty much standard for candidates to move away from the center during the primaries. And back towards the center once the general election campaign starts. In both cases, in search of votes from the specific electorate they are addressing. It will be totally unsurprising if Clinton does the same (at least on some issues).
Granted, Trump shows no sign of the usual “turn towards the center”. But then, Trump’s approach to campaigning is unique on lots of points.
she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
Pretty much standard for candidates to move away from the center during the primaries. And back towards the center once the general election campaign starts. In both cases, in search of votes from the specific electorate they are addressing. It will be totally unsurprising if Clinton does the same (at least on some issues).
Granted, Trump shows no sign of the usual “turn towards the center”. But then, Trump’s approach to campaigning is unique on lots of points.
she certainly has indeed moved left, in search of votes. i guess the question now is: are there any more votes up for grabs to her left ?
Pretty much standard for candidates to move away from the center during the primaries. And back towards the center once the general election campaign starts. In both cases, in search of votes from the specific electorate they are addressing. It will be totally unsurprising if Clinton does the same (at least on some issues).
Granted, Trump shows no sign of the usual “turn towards the center”. But then, Trump’s approach to campaigning is unique on lots of points.
this is also a direct quote from Clinton:
this is also a direct quote from Clinton:
this is also a direct quote from Clinton:
wow. the more i look at Q49 the more my jaw drops…
so, because i can’t possible include so many links in a comment here… check this out.
wow. the more i look at Q49 the more my jaw drops…
so, because i can’t possible include so many links in a comment here… check this out.
wow. the more i look at Q49 the more my jaw drops…
so, because i can’t possible include so many links in a comment here… check this out.
She stole all of Bernie’s lines!!! 🙂
Another take on the Trumpf phenomenon here.
When people assert “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference”, I shake my head and say, “Take some time and learn some history.”
She stole all of Bernie’s lines!!! 🙂
Another take on the Trumpf phenomenon here.
When people assert “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference”, I shake my head and say, “Take some time and learn some history.”
She stole all of Bernie’s lines!!! 🙂
Another take on the Trumpf phenomenon here.
When people assert “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference”, I shake my head and say, “Take some time and learn some history.”
What bobbyp linked to, bears repeating:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/02/trumps-indecent-proposal/#more-39662
Commie dupe and Muslim towel head nigger Warren Buffet chimes in:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/08/01/warren-buffett-to-donald-trump-have-no-sense-decency.html
What bobbyp linked to, bears repeating:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/02/trumps-indecent-proposal/#more-39662
Commie dupe and Muslim towel head nigger Warren Buffet chimes in:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/08/01/warren-buffett-to-donald-trump-have-no-sense-decency.html
What bobbyp linked to, bears repeating:
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/08/02/trumps-indecent-proposal/#more-39662
Commie dupe and Muslim towel head nigger Warren Buffet chimes in:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/08/01/warren-buffett-to-donald-trump-have-no-sense-decency.html
Chris Christie, the iceberg, helps Trump sink the Titanic of the Republican Party, and now, dresses up like the fat lady singing and is trying to board and swamp the lifeboats holding all of the cowardly Republican crew who are abandoning ship BEFORE their base can make up from steerage.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-trump-khan-attacks-inappropriate
Chris Christie, the iceberg, helps Trump sink the Titanic of the Republican Party, and now, dresses up like the fat lady singing and is trying to board and swamp the lifeboats holding all of the cowardly Republican crew who are abandoning ship BEFORE their base can make up from steerage.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-trump-khan-attacks-inappropriate
Chris Christie, the iceberg, helps Trump sink the Titanic of the Republican Party, and now, dresses up like the fat lady singing and is trying to board and swamp the lifeboats holding all of the cowardly Republican crew who are abandoning ship BEFORE their base can make up from steerage.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-trump-khan-attacks-inappropriate
Hillary could still lose this thing.
Hillary could still lose this thing.
Hillary could still lose this thing.
“Chris Christie, the iceberg, helps Trump sink the Titanic of the Republican Party…”
Neez moar Hindenberg and campaign rallies in Lakehurst NJ.
I wonder what happened to that huge manatee that was appeared lost and as wandering around the Delaware River…
“Chris Christie, the iceberg, helps Trump sink the Titanic of the Republican Party…”
Neez moar Hindenberg and campaign rallies in Lakehurst NJ.
I wonder what happened to that huge manatee that was appeared lost and as wandering around the Delaware River…
“Chris Christie, the iceberg, helps Trump sink the Titanic of the Republican Party…”
Neez moar Hindenberg and campaign rallies in Lakehurst NJ.
I wonder what happened to that huge manatee that was appeared lost and as wandering around the Delaware River…
You wanna play “Who’s worse?”
Ryan is worse:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/02/who-is-worse-donald-trump-or-paul-ryan/
You wanna play “Who’s worse?”
Ryan is worse:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/02/who-is-worse-donald-trump-or-paul-ryan/
You wanna play “Who’s worse?”
Ryan is worse:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/02/who-is-worse-donald-trump-or-paul-ryan/
Yes, Donald Trump is in a league by himself when it comes to assholery.
Why does he have any traction at all? Here’s a recent piece in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/
Yes, Donald Trump is in a league by himself when it comes to assholery.
Why does he have any traction at all? Here’s a recent piece in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/
Yes, Donald Trump is in a league by himself when it comes to assholery.
Why does he have any traction at all? Here’s a recent piece in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/
that’s your boy McTx.
own him.
that’s your boy McTx.
own him.
that’s your boy McTx.
own him.
Clinton and Comey are splitting hairs about the classification process.
Trump is in league with Roger Stone and Alex Jones.
yep. hard call.
Clinton and Comey are splitting hairs about the classification process.
Trump is in league with Roger Stone and Alex Jones.
yep. hard call.
Clinton and Comey are splitting hairs about the classification process.
Trump is in league with Roger Stone and Alex Jones.
yep. hard call.
Why does he have any traction at all?
Yeah, we know why. We got it.
I think he’d have the same traction against Sanders, if not more. For that matter, against any Democrat.
Who, backing Trump, would change their minds about Clinton or liberals in general if Vince Foster showed up tomorrow and said the whole thing was just murder mystery dinner theater gone off the rails.
NV has said a bunch of here are going to own whatever Clinton does in office.
cleek wants MCKT to own Trump.
Not too long ago, I told Marty I was going to blame him if Trump wins. Heh.
I’m pretty sure if you examine correspondence between cousins in the North and South circa @ 1859, you’d see the same irrevocable taking up of sides.
What am I supposed to do, vote for the Libertarian clown who gave up his daily marijuana intake to make us think he’s a little better than the naked dancing dude who he beat out for the Libertarian nomination?
Shit, man.
Trump and his people are insane.
Why does he have any traction at all?
Yeah, we know why. We got it.
I think he’d have the same traction against Sanders, if not more. For that matter, against any Democrat.
Who, backing Trump, would change their minds about Clinton or liberals in general if Vince Foster showed up tomorrow and said the whole thing was just murder mystery dinner theater gone off the rails.
NV has said a bunch of here are going to own whatever Clinton does in office.
cleek wants MCKT to own Trump.
Not too long ago, I told Marty I was going to blame him if Trump wins. Heh.
I’m pretty sure if you examine correspondence between cousins in the North and South circa @ 1859, you’d see the same irrevocable taking up of sides.
What am I supposed to do, vote for the Libertarian clown who gave up his daily marijuana intake to make us think he’s a little better than the naked dancing dude who he beat out for the Libertarian nomination?
Shit, man.
Trump and his people are insane.
Why does he have any traction at all?
Yeah, we know why. We got it.
I think he’d have the same traction against Sanders, if not more. For that matter, against any Democrat.
Who, backing Trump, would change their minds about Clinton or liberals in general if Vince Foster showed up tomorrow and said the whole thing was just murder mystery dinner theater gone off the rails.
NV has said a bunch of here are going to own whatever Clinton does in office.
cleek wants MCKT to own Trump.
Not too long ago, I told Marty I was going to blame him if Trump wins. Heh.
I’m pretty sure if you examine correspondence between cousins in the North and South circa @ 1859, you’d see the same irrevocable taking up of sides.
What am I supposed to do, vote for the Libertarian clown who gave up his daily marijuana intake to make us think he’s a little better than the naked dancing dude who he beat out for the Libertarian nomination?
Shit, man.
Trump and his people are insane.
a bunch of here are going to own whatever Clinton does in office.
i’m sure it’s just a coincidence that reflexive anti-establishmentarianism makes it easy to avoid owning anything.
a bunch of here are going to own whatever Clinton does in office.
i’m sure it’s just a coincidence that reflexive anti-establishmentarianism makes it easy to avoid owning anything.
a bunch of here are going to own whatever Clinton does in office.
i’m sure it’s just a coincidence that reflexive anti-establishmentarianism makes it easy to avoid owning anything.
Maybe this is the kind of stuff has given Trump traction:
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13660127/1/wall-street-again-calls-on-southwest-airlines-to-impose-bag-fees.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo
I’m either going to take up cross-country hitchhiking again, or send my new Southwest baggage fees to Goldman Sachs for validation.
Americans love to fuck other Americans with so many little love pecks.
People are just tired of being fucked with and then lectured that it’s the American way to fuck each other.
Maybe it is. Well, it’s going to stop.
Maybe this is the kind of stuff has given Trump traction:
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13660127/1/wall-street-again-calls-on-southwest-airlines-to-impose-bag-fees.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo
I’m either going to take up cross-country hitchhiking again, or send my new Southwest baggage fees to Goldman Sachs for validation.
Americans love to fuck other Americans with so many little love pecks.
People are just tired of being fucked with and then lectured that it’s the American way to fuck each other.
Maybe it is. Well, it’s going to stop.
Maybe this is the kind of stuff has given Trump traction:
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13660127/1/wall-street-again-calls-on-southwest-airlines-to-impose-bag-fees.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO&yptr=yahoo
I’m either going to take up cross-country hitchhiking again, or send my new Southwest baggage fees to Goldman Sachs for validation.
Americans love to fuck other Americans with so many little love pecks.
People are just tired of being fucked with and then lectured that it’s the American way to fuck each other.
Maybe it is. Well, it’s going to stop.
the biggest outrage of the week: Stranger Things was only 8 episodes long!
the biggest outrage of the week: Stranger Things was only 8 episodes long!
the biggest outrage of the week: Stranger Things was only 8 episodes long!
Here’s the thing: everything you say about Trump is true. Everything. But, you’ve put up a candidate who no one outside your niche really likes, who very few trust and who lies a lot, about everything. She’s a liar. You can say it ain’t so until hell freezes over. That doesn’t change who she is and how people see her.
So, what we really have is this: if Trump wins, it’s the Democrat’s fault; if HRC wins, it’s the Republican’s fault.
Both sides picked their worst candidate. It would be funny if it wasn’t so fricking tragic.
Here’s the thing: everything you say about Trump is true. Everything. But, you’ve put up a candidate who no one outside your niche really likes, who very few trust and who lies a lot, about everything. She’s a liar. You can say it ain’t so until hell freezes over. That doesn’t change who she is and how people see her.
So, what we really have is this: if Trump wins, it’s the Democrat’s fault; if HRC wins, it’s the Republican’s fault.
Both sides picked their worst candidate. It would be funny if it wasn’t so fricking tragic.
Here’s the thing: everything you say about Trump is true. Everything. But, you’ve put up a candidate who no one outside your niche really likes, who very few trust and who lies a lot, about everything. She’s a liar. You can say it ain’t so until hell freezes over. That doesn’t change who she is and how people see her.
So, what we really have is this: if Trump wins, it’s the Democrat’s fault; if HRC wins, it’s the Republican’s fault.
Both sides picked their worst candidate. It would be funny if it wasn’t so fricking tragic.
i fully accept responsibility for my vote’s share of everything Clinton would do in office. policy-wise she’ll be a bog-standard Democrat.
your turn, Tex. own your boy. speak the words.
i fully accept responsibility for my vote’s share of everything Clinton would do in office. policy-wise she’ll be a bog-standard Democrat.
your turn, Tex. own your boy. speak the words.
i fully accept responsibility for my vote’s share of everything Clinton would do in office. policy-wise she’ll be a bog-standard Democrat.
your turn, Tex. own your boy. speak the words.
your turn, Tex. own your boy. speak the words.
You’re literate, you’re just not very objective. I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not voting for Trump. I’m not voting for either major candidate, for reasons I’ve stated more than once. You and others here as so involved/committed/in the tank that any pushback is viewed as something on the order of treason. Or insanity. Or support for Trump.
Your candidate is hugely flawed. HRC is the best thing that could have happened to Trump. And vice versa.
your turn, Tex. own your boy. speak the words.
You’re literate, you’re just not very objective. I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not voting for Trump. I’m not voting for either major candidate, for reasons I’ve stated more than once. You and others here as so involved/committed/in the tank that any pushback is viewed as something on the order of treason. Or insanity. Or support for Trump.
Your candidate is hugely flawed. HRC is the best thing that could have happened to Trump. And vice versa.
your turn, Tex. own your boy. speak the words.
You’re literate, you’re just not very objective. I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not voting for Trump. I’m not voting for either major candidate, for reasons I’ve stated more than once. You and others here as so involved/committed/in the tank that any pushback is viewed as something on the order of treason. Or insanity. Or support for Trump.
Your candidate is hugely flawed. HRC is the best thing that could have happened to Trump. And vice versa.
I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not voting for Trump.
clearly, you haven’t.
I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not voting for Trump.
clearly, you haven’t.
I’ve made it crystal clear that I’m not voting for Trump.
clearly, you haven’t.
the biggest outrage of the week: Stranger Things was only 8 episodes long!
What cleek said.
the biggest outrage of the week: Stranger Things was only 8 episodes long!
What cleek said.
the biggest outrage of the week: Stranger Things was only 8 episodes long!
What cleek said.
and, just for the record. this is the text in my FireFox search box:
i was actually searching, earlier this AM, to see if you’d (and Marty) had said anything about voting for Trump. i didn’t find anything.
and, just for the record. this is the text in my FireFox search box:
i was actually searching, earlier this AM, to see if you’d (and Marty) had said anything about voting for Trump. i didn’t find anything.
and, just for the record. this is the text in my FireFox search box:
i was actually searching, earlier this AM, to see if you’d (and Marty) had said anything about voting for Trump. i didn’t find anything.
” (and Marty) ”
search harder
” (and Marty) ”
search harder
” (and Marty) ”
search harder
it’s a tough search to get anything conclusive from. the words are all too common here.
it’s a tough search to get anything conclusive from. the words are all too common here.
it’s a tough search to get anything conclusive from. the words are all too common here.
“What am I supposed to do, vote for the Libertarian clown who gave up his daily marijuana intake to make us think he’s a little better than the naked dancing dude who he beat out for the Libertarian nomination?”
I preferred the naked dancing dude but have given up my daily marijuana intake in solidarity with Johnson/Weld but I may not make it to election day if I have to watch the US election coverage continue to slide into a parody of TMZ. Both sides have become the worst of what online media can offer.
“What am I supposed to do, vote for the Libertarian clown who gave up his daily marijuana intake to make us think he’s a little better than the naked dancing dude who he beat out for the Libertarian nomination?”
I preferred the naked dancing dude but have given up my daily marijuana intake in solidarity with Johnson/Weld but I may not make it to election day if I have to watch the US election coverage continue to slide into a parody of TMZ. Both sides have become the worst of what online media can offer.
“What am I supposed to do, vote for the Libertarian clown who gave up his daily marijuana intake to make us think he’s a little better than the naked dancing dude who he beat out for the Libertarian nomination?”
I preferred the naked dancing dude but have given up my daily marijuana intake in solidarity with Johnson/Weld but I may not make it to election day if I have to watch the US election coverage continue to slide into a parody of TMZ. Both sides have become the worst of what online media can offer.
Josh Marshall: Trump isn’t an accident. His ascendance is tied to Republican voters who became a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of the GOP elites’ own creation. Weened on decades of victim-speak, impossible goals, over-primed lust for revenge against various domestic bad guys and outsiders and perverts and all the rest, they finally rebelled and chose someone who at least said he could follow through on the political snuff films they see on Breitbart, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily and the rest.
He’s a cross between Richard Dawson in Running Man and John C. Calhoun.
Josh Marshall: Trump isn’t an accident. His ascendance is tied to Republican voters who became a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of the GOP elites’ own creation. Weened on decades of victim-speak, impossible goals, over-primed lust for revenge against various domestic bad guys and outsiders and perverts and all the rest, they finally rebelled and chose someone who at least said he could follow through on the political snuff films they see on Breitbart, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily and the rest.
He’s a cross between Richard Dawson in Running Man and John C. Calhoun.
Josh Marshall: Trump isn’t an accident. His ascendance is tied to Republican voters who became a sort of Frankenstein’s monster of the GOP elites’ own creation. Weened on decades of victim-speak, impossible goals, over-primed lust for revenge against various domestic bad guys and outsiders and perverts and all the rest, they finally rebelled and chose someone who at least said he could follow through on the political snuff films they see on Breitbart, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily and the rest.
He’s a cross between Richard Dawson in Running Man and John C. Calhoun.
cleek, they’ve both been pretty damned clear on that score over periods of months. If you haven’t been reading what they write carefully enough to catch that, it’s you’re choice, but you need to own up to it. It feels nice to demonize those who disagree with you, but “if it feels good, do it” is supposed to be a DFH mantra, not a nice respectable establishment liberal one.
cleek, they’ve both been pretty damned clear on that score over periods of months. If you haven’t been reading what they write carefully enough to catch that, it’s you’re choice, but you need to own up to it. It feels nice to demonize those who disagree with you, but “if it feels good, do it” is supposed to be a DFH mantra, not a nice respectable establishment liberal one.
cleek, they’ve both been pretty damned clear on that score over periods of months. If you haven’t been reading what they write carefully enough to catch that, it’s you’re choice, but you need to own up to it. It feels nice to demonize those who disagree with you, but “if it feels good, do it” is supposed to be a DFH mantra, not a nice respectable establishment liberal one.
Cleek, McKinney not only has been clear that he isn’t voting for Trump, he has been explicit. Those words here are a self-quote from an earlier comment (not, I think, in this thread).
HRC is the best thing that could have happened to Trump. And vice versa.
McK, I mostly agree. Although Cruz would have run a close second IMHO. The GOP was over-staffed with terrible candidate options this year.
Cleek, McKinney not only has been clear that he isn’t voting for Trump, he has been explicit. Those words here are a self-quote from an earlier comment (not, I think, in this thread).
HRC is the best thing that could have happened to Trump. And vice versa.
McK, I mostly agree. Although Cruz would have run a close second IMHO. The GOP was over-staffed with terrible candidate options this year.
Cleek, McKinney not only has been clear that he isn’t voting for Trump, he has been explicit. Those words here are a self-quote from an earlier comment (not, I think, in this thread).
HRC is the best thing that could have happened to Trump. And vice versa.
McK, I mostly agree. Although Cruz would have run a close second IMHO. The GOP was over-staffed with terrible candidate options this year.
cleek, they’ve both been pretty damned clear on that score over periods of months
that’s fantastic. i wasn’t here for a while. in lieu of reading the thousands of comments i missed, i used Google. it didn’t tell me.
It feels nice to demonize those who disagree with you, but “if it feels good, do it” is supposed to be a DFH mantra, not a nice respectable establishment liberal one.
did that feel good?
cleek, they’ve both been pretty damned clear on that score over periods of months
that’s fantastic. i wasn’t here for a while. in lieu of reading the thousands of comments i missed, i used Google. it didn’t tell me.
It feels nice to demonize those who disagree with you, but “if it feels good, do it” is supposed to be a DFH mantra, not a nice respectable establishment liberal one.
did that feel good?
cleek, they’ve both been pretty damned clear on that score over periods of months
that’s fantastic. i wasn’t here for a while. in lieu of reading the thousands of comments i missed, i used Google. it didn’t tell me.
It feels nice to demonize those who disagree with you, but “if it feels good, do it” is supposed to be a DFH mantra, not a nice respectable establishment liberal one.
did that feel good?
Trump advisor bad-mouthing the US in a speech in Moscow?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carter-page-trump-russia
yep!
the GOP still supports him, of course. because the GOP is a farce.
Trump advisor bad-mouthing the US in a speech in Moscow?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carter-page-trump-russia
yep!
the GOP still supports him, of course. because the GOP is a farce.
Trump advisor bad-mouthing the US in a speech in Moscow?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carter-page-trump-russia
yep!
the GOP still supports him, of course. because the GOP is a farce.
i was actually searching, earlier this AM, to see if you’d (and Marty) had said anything about voting for Trump. i didn’t find anything
I probably didn’t use the word “vote” in the same sentence as Trump, although I’m 90% sure I’ve said I’m not voting for either candidate, so maybe take “Trump” out of your search and see what you get.
i was actually searching, earlier this AM, to see if you’d (and Marty) had said anything about voting for Trump. i didn’t find anything
I probably didn’t use the word “vote” in the same sentence as Trump, although I’m 90% sure I’ve said I’m not voting for either candidate, so maybe take “Trump” out of your search and see what you get.
i was actually searching, earlier this AM, to see if you’d (and Marty) had said anything about voting for Trump. i didn’t find anything
I probably didn’t use the word “vote” in the same sentence as Trump, although I’m 90% sure I’ve said I’m not voting for either candidate, so maybe take “Trump” out of your search and see what you get.
Sapient, I read the Kaplan piece months ago when Krugman linked to it as part of his defense of Clinton and claims that all criticisms of her were based on lies from the right and misunderstandings.
The problem is that Zunes anticipated all the defenses and answered them already. Clinton supporters in the past year or so are busy rewriting the history and trying to make it seem like she was merely a dupe and only voted for the AUMF to give Bush the chance to pressure Saddam.
Here is Matt Y writing on this back when it was Obama vs. Clinton and Democrats felt less need to defend her–
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2007/02/10/178671/pre_emptive_war/
Everyone knew she was pro-war. Now I see people in comment threads elsewhere heatedly denying it, saying it’s all a lie. She just wanted to give Bush a little leverage. Nonsense.
Why this matters–It matters for various reasons. There is a tendency in the US to demonize our enemies. Take someone who is already bad and a foe, like Saddam, and people feel free to make wild allegations and others who question those allegations will be accused of being apologists for Saddam. It wasn’t just the Bushies who did this in 2002-2003. The NYT did it, and the New Yorker ran insane pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and a significant fraction of the Democratic Party, including Clinton, went along with this propaganda. That’s why so many people were for it and are apparently willing to give Clinton a pass, but the difference here is that Clinton damn well should have known better. She has no excuse. And again, it’s not just her.
Now today we have the prospect of Trump in the WH and yeah, that scares me because he is massively unstable. He is also bringing Islamophobia out in the open–that’s been going on for years, but Trump is taking it to the next level. He needs to be crushed. I want him to lose in a landslide. But I am going to feel queasy with Clinton in the WH with her record on war and peace. I am in the position of wanting Trump to lose in a landslide, but not liking the thought of Clinton winning in a landslide.
Now for what might seem like a change in topic. I don’t know much about Eastern Europe or the Ukraine or Russia, but I have seen the dissenting opinions in the Nation over the past couple of decades. The US mainstream seemed to love Yeltsin, though his time in office was a total disaster for Russians and there was a very brutal war in Chechnya then . Putin otoh is demonized here. Putin is undoubtedly a thug, but I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side. Some of those wonderful mainstream non-Trump Republicans wanted us to intervene in Georgia. You don’t have to like Putin to wonder if our mainstream foreign policy establishment is maybe just a little crazy. It wouldn’t’ be the first time. And today Dennis Ross wants us to bomb the Syrian military in places where the Russians aren’t present. Ross has ties with the Clintons. I’m not sure I trust where a Clinton administration will head, but I suspect that if she heads off in a militaristic direction, there will be some of the same one-sided and less than accurate coverage in the press that we saw in 2002-2003. Clinton herself is a policy wonk, but you can be a wonk and have very poor judgment. Robert McNamara comes to mind.
Sapient, I read the Kaplan piece months ago when Krugman linked to it as part of his defense of Clinton and claims that all criticisms of her were based on lies from the right and misunderstandings.
The problem is that Zunes anticipated all the defenses and answered them already. Clinton supporters in the past year or so are busy rewriting the history and trying to make it seem like she was merely a dupe and only voted for the AUMF to give Bush the chance to pressure Saddam.
Here is Matt Y writing on this back when it was Obama vs. Clinton and Democrats felt less need to defend her–
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2007/02/10/178671/pre_emptive_war/
Everyone knew she was pro-war. Now I see people in comment threads elsewhere heatedly denying it, saying it’s all a lie. She just wanted to give Bush a little leverage. Nonsense.
Why this matters–It matters for various reasons. There is a tendency in the US to demonize our enemies. Take someone who is already bad and a foe, like Saddam, and people feel free to make wild allegations and others who question those allegations will be accused of being apologists for Saddam. It wasn’t just the Bushies who did this in 2002-2003. The NYT did it, and the New Yorker ran insane pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and a significant fraction of the Democratic Party, including Clinton, went along with this propaganda. That’s why so many people were for it and are apparently willing to give Clinton a pass, but the difference here is that Clinton damn well should have known better. She has no excuse. And again, it’s not just her.
Now today we have the prospect of Trump in the WH and yeah, that scares me because he is massively unstable. He is also bringing Islamophobia out in the open–that’s been going on for years, but Trump is taking it to the next level. He needs to be crushed. I want him to lose in a landslide. But I am going to feel queasy with Clinton in the WH with her record on war and peace. I am in the position of wanting Trump to lose in a landslide, but not liking the thought of Clinton winning in a landslide.
Now for what might seem like a change in topic. I don’t know much about Eastern Europe or the Ukraine or Russia, but I have seen the dissenting opinions in the Nation over the past couple of decades. The US mainstream seemed to love Yeltsin, though his time in office was a total disaster for Russians and there was a very brutal war in Chechnya then . Putin otoh is demonized here. Putin is undoubtedly a thug, but I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side. Some of those wonderful mainstream non-Trump Republicans wanted us to intervene in Georgia. You don’t have to like Putin to wonder if our mainstream foreign policy establishment is maybe just a little crazy. It wouldn’t’ be the first time. And today Dennis Ross wants us to bomb the Syrian military in places where the Russians aren’t present. Ross has ties with the Clintons. I’m not sure I trust where a Clinton administration will head, but I suspect that if she heads off in a militaristic direction, there will be some of the same one-sided and less than accurate coverage in the press that we saw in 2002-2003. Clinton herself is a policy wonk, but you can be a wonk and have very poor judgment. Robert McNamara comes to mind.
Sapient, I read the Kaplan piece months ago when Krugman linked to it as part of his defense of Clinton and claims that all criticisms of her were based on lies from the right and misunderstandings.
The problem is that Zunes anticipated all the defenses and answered them already. Clinton supporters in the past year or so are busy rewriting the history and trying to make it seem like she was merely a dupe and only voted for the AUMF to give Bush the chance to pressure Saddam.
Here is Matt Y writing on this back when it was Obama vs. Clinton and Democrats felt less need to defend her–
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2007/02/10/178671/pre_emptive_war/
Everyone knew she was pro-war. Now I see people in comment threads elsewhere heatedly denying it, saying it’s all a lie. She just wanted to give Bush a little leverage. Nonsense.
Why this matters–It matters for various reasons. There is a tendency in the US to demonize our enemies. Take someone who is already bad and a foe, like Saddam, and people feel free to make wild allegations and others who question those allegations will be accused of being apologists for Saddam. It wasn’t just the Bushies who did this in 2002-2003. The NYT did it, and the New Yorker ran insane pieces by Jeffrey Goldberg linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and a significant fraction of the Democratic Party, including Clinton, went along with this propaganda. That’s why so many people were for it and are apparently willing to give Clinton a pass, but the difference here is that Clinton damn well should have known better. She has no excuse. And again, it’s not just her.
Now today we have the prospect of Trump in the WH and yeah, that scares me because he is massively unstable. He is also bringing Islamophobia out in the open–that’s been going on for years, but Trump is taking it to the next level. He needs to be crushed. I want him to lose in a landslide. But I am going to feel queasy with Clinton in the WH with her record on war and peace. I am in the position of wanting Trump to lose in a landslide, but not liking the thought of Clinton winning in a landslide.
Now for what might seem like a change in topic. I don’t know much about Eastern Europe or the Ukraine or Russia, but I have seen the dissenting opinions in the Nation over the past couple of decades. The US mainstream seemed to love Yeltsin, though his time in office was a total disaster for Russians and there was a very brutal war in Chechnya then . Putin otoh is demonized here. Putin is undoubtedly a thug, but I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side. Some of those wonderful mainstream non-Trump Republicans wanted us to intervene in Georgia. You don’t have to like Putin to wonder if our mainstream foreign policy establishment is maybe just a little crazy. It wouldn’t’ be the first time. And today Dennis Ross wants us to bomb the Syrian military in places where the Russians aren’t present. Ross has ties with the Clintons. I’m not sure I trust where a Clinton administration will head, but I suspect that if she heads off in a militaristic direction, there will be some of the same one-sided and less than accurate coverage in the press that we saw in 2002-2003. Clinton herself is a policy wonk, but you can be a wonk and have very poor judgment. Robert McNamara comes to mind.
I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side.
Granted we included the Baltics in NATO, and they border Russia. It was at their urgent request, but we did include them.
On the other hand, we declined Georgia’s request to join. And look what that got them: invaded. Guess there was reason for concern about the consequences of not being in NATO. We also declined to add Ukraine to NATO — and they also got invaded.
So it appears to me that, from the Russian view, anyone who didn’t join NATO is just an acceptable target for invasion. Not really a great way to convince the neighbors not to join someone else’s alliance.
I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side.
Granted we included the Baltics in NATO, and they border Russia. It was at their urgent request, but we did include them.
On the other hand, we declined Georgia’s request to join. And look what that got them: invaded. Guess there was reason for concern about the consequences of not being in NATO. We also declined to add Ukraine to NATO — and they also got invaded.
So it appears to me that, from the Russian view, anyone who didn’t join NATO is just an acceptable target for invasion. Not really a great way to convince the neighbors not to join someone else’s alliance.
I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side.
Granted we included the Baltics in NATO, and they border Russia. It was at their urgent request, but we did include them.
On the other hand, we declined Georgia’s request to join. And look what that got them: invaded. Guess there was reason for concern about the consequences of not being in NATO. We also declined to add Ukraine to NATO — and they also got invaded.
So it appears to me that, from the Russian view, anyone who didn’t join NATO is just an acceptable target for invasion. Not really a great way to convince the neighbors not to join someone else’s alliance.
Although Cruz would have run a close second IMHO.
My sense is that Cruz would do a lot worse against Clinton than Trump.
Cleek, I’m on the record despising Cruz too.
Although Cruz would have run a close second IMHO.
My sense is that Cruz would do a lot worse against Clinton than Trump.
Cleek, I’m on the record despising Cruz too.
Although Cruz would have run a close second IMHO.
My sense is that Cruz would do a lot worse against Clinton than Trump.
Cleek, I’m on the record despising Cruz too.
Clinton supporters in the past year or so are busy rewriting the history and trying to make it seem like she was merely a dupe and only voted for the AUMF to give Bush the chance to pressure Saddam.
Clinton’s vote for the AUMF was a big part of why i didn’t like her in 2008. on the other hand, i suspect Obama would’ve voted for it too, had he been a Senator at the time. but he got the benefit of the doubt.
still, i remember people defending Clinton’s vote with those arguments in 2008, too.
but it’s not 2008. Obama wasn’t on my primary ballot. the options were Clinton or Sanders and Sanders didn’t seem up to the job, to me. democracy isn’t about perfect candidates. you get to choose from the people who want to put themselves through the process and they all come with problems. an election is, necessarily, about compromise between what you want and what’s on offer.
so, Clinton it is.
given that the alternative is an unstable imbecile, pushing back on some of the more ridiculous Clinton smears seems like the right thing to do.
Clinton supporters in the past year or so are busy rewriting the history and trying to make it seem like she was merely a dupe and only voted for the AUMF to give Bush the chance to pressure Saddam.
Clinton’s vote for the AUMF was a big part of why i didn’t like her in 2008. on the other hand, i suspect Obama would’ve voted for it too, had he been a Senator at the time. but he got the benefit of the doubt.
still, i remember people defending Clinton’s vote with those arguments in 2008, too.
but it’s not 2008. Obama wasn’t on my primary ballot. the options were Clinton or Sanders and Sanders didn’t seem up to the job, to me. democracy isn’t about perfect candidates. you get to choose from the people who want to put themselves through the process and they all come with problems. an election is, necessarily, about compromise between what you want and what’s on offer.
so, Clinton it is.
given that the alternative is an unstable imbecile, pushing back on some of the more ridiculous Clinton smears seems like the right thing to do.
Clinton supporters in the past year or so are busy rewriting the history and trying to make it seem like she was merely a dupe and only voted for the AUMF to give Bush the chance to pressure Saddam.
Clinton’s vote for the AUMF was a big part of why i didn’t like her in 2008. on the other hand, i suspect Obama would’ve voted for it too, had he been a Senator at the time. but he got the benefit of the doubt.
still, i remember people defending Clinton’s vote with those arguments in 2008, too.
but it’s not 2008. Obama wasn’t on my primary ballot. the options were Clinton or Sanders and Sanders didn’t seem up to the job, to me. democracy isn’t about perfect candidates. you get to choose from the people who want to put themselves through the process and they all come with problems. an election is, necessarily, about compromise between what you want and what’s on offer.
so, Clinton it is.
given that the alternative is an unstable imbecile, pushing back on some of the more ridiculous Clinton smears seems like the right thing to do.
To those remaining in the peanut gallery for this election, “not-a-dime-worth-of-differencism” doesn’t seem to me to be a credible stance. There’s a clear superior candidate, no matter how imperfect you think she is.
To those remaining in the peanut gallery for this election, “not-a-dime-worth-of-differencism” doesn’t seem to me to be a credible stance. There’s a clear superior candidate, no matter how imperfect you think she is.
To those remaining in the peanut gallery for this election, “not-a-dime-worth-of-differencism” doesn’t seem to me to be a credible stance. There’s a clear superior candidate, no matter how imperfect you think she is.
“There’s a clear superior candidate, no matter how imperfect you think she is.”
Yes, he is clearly better than either major party candidate. I am more convinced all the time of the hypocrisy of those calling out Ryan et al to not support Trump. By that measure they shouldn’t support Clinton either and everyone should throw their weight behind the Libertarians. Either you believe in holding your nose and toeing the party line or you don’t. She isn’t enough better than Trump to warrant the distinction.
“There’s a clear superior candidate, no matter how imperfect you think she is.”
Yes, he is clearly better than either major party candidate. I am more convinced all the time of the hypocrisy of those calling out Ryan et al to not support Trump. By that measure they shouldn’t support Clinton either and everyone should throw their weight behind the Libertarians. Either you believe in holding your nose and toeing the party line or you don’t. She isn’t enough better than Trump to warrant the distinction.
“There’s a clear superior candidate, no matter how imperfect you think she is.”
Yes, he is clearly better than either major party candidate. I am more convinced all the time of the hypocrisy of those calling out Ryan et al to not support Trump. By that measure they shouldn’t support Clinton either and everyone should throw their weight behind the Libertarians. Either you believe in holding your nose and toeing the party line or you don’t. She isn’t enough better than Trump to warrant the distinction.
did that feel good?
Did this?
The hypocrisy of your self-righteousness is palpable.
did that feel good?
Did this?
The hypocrisy of your self-righteousness is palpable.
did that feel good?
Did this?
The hypocrisy of your self-righteousness is palpable.
The hypocrisy of your self-righteousness is palpable.
are you sure you know what self-righteousness means? because, it doesn’t mean pointing out that you repeatedly do exactly what you accuse others of doing.
also, you can’t touch hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy of your self-righteousness is palpable.
are you sure you know what self-righteousness means? because, it doesn’t mean pointing out that you repeatedly do exactly what you accuse others of doing.
also, you can’t touch hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy of your self-righteousness is palpable.
are you sure you know what self-righteousness means? because, it doesn’t mean pointing out that you repeatedly do exactly what you accuse others of doing.
also, you can’t touch hypocrisy.
cleek, do you even metaphor? Saying that “X is palpable” isn’t exactly an obscure turn of phrase, and it pretty much gets used in exactly the same way I used it here.
And your self-righteousness in this case would be acting as though you hold a moral high ground when you’re as petty and spiteful as anyone else – and frankly worse than most here, as am I all too often. If you want to be condescending and abrasive, own it, especially if you just finished sneering about how bad it is not to own up to things.
So, yes, your hypocrisy is palpable.
cleek, do you even metaphor? Saying that “X is palpable” isn’t exactly an obscure turn of phrase, and it pretty much gets used in exactly the same way I used it here.
And your self-righteousness in this case would be acting as though you hold a moral high ground when you’re as petty and spiteful as anyone else – and frankly worse than most here, as am I all too often. If you want to be condescending and abrasive, own it, especially if you just finished sneering about how bad it is not to own up to things.
So, yes, your hypocrisy is palpable.
cleek, do you even metaphor? Saying that “X is palpable” isn’t exactly an obscure turn of phrase, and it pretty much gets used in exactly the same way I used it here.
And your self-righteousness in this case would be acting as though you hold a moral high ground when you’re as petty and spiteful as anyone else – and frankly worse than most here, as am I all too often. If you want to be condescending and abrasive, own it, especially if you just finished sneering about how bad it is not to own up to things.
So, yes, your hypocrisy is palpable.
McKinney,
This thread has run so long that even I almost forgot I already asked you this: as a lawyer, how would you respond to Comey if Hillary Clinton was your client? See my July 29, 2016 at 05:09 PM comment a few pages back.
I’m not asking you to do pro bono work for Hillary. I’m not even suggesting that you should reconsider your fundamental opinion that she’s a liar. I’m just curious to know whether you think she is, literally, indefensible.
–TP
McKinney,
This thread has run so long that even I almost forgot I already asked you this: as a lawyer, how would you respond to Comey if Hillary Clinton was your client? See my July 29, 2016 at 05:09 PM comment a few pages back.
I’m not asking you to do pro bono work for Hillary. I’m not even suggesting that you should reconsider your fundamental opinion that she’s a liar. I’m just curious to know whether you think she is, literally, indefensible.
–TP
McKinney,
This thread has run so long that even I almost forgot I already asked you this: as a lawyer, how would you respond to Comey if Hillary Clinton was your client? See my July 29, 2016 at 05:09 PM comment a few pages back.
I’m not asking you to do pro bono work for Hillary. I’m not even suggesting that you should reconsider your fundamental opinion that she’s a liar. I’m just curious to know whether you think she is, literally, indefensible.
–TP
*ground, when
self-righteousness described before, reason why it’s unjustfied and hypocritical after
Time for a break.
*ground, when
self-righteousness described before, reason why it’s unjustfied and hypocritical after
Time for a break.
*ground, when
self-righteousness described before, reason why it’s unjustfied and hypocritical after
Time for a break.
If you want to be condescending and abrasive, own it, especially if you just finished sneering about how bad it is not to own up to things.
when have i denied my condescension and abrasiveness?
If you want to be condescending and abrasive, own it, especially if you just finished sneering about how bad it is not to own up to things.
when have i denied my condescension and abrasiveness?
If you want to be condescending and abrasive, own it, especially if you just finished sneering about how bad it is not to own up to things.
when have i denied my condescension and abrasiveness?
Either you believe in holding your nose and toeing the party line or you don’t.
the choice doesn’t have to be about party.
Either you believe in holding your nose and toeing the party line or you don’t.
the choice doesn’t have to be about party.
Either you believe in holding your nose and toeing the party line or you don’t.
the choice doesn’t have to be about party.
oops. premature submission! that 12:51 was a work in progress. delete from your memory banks, SVP.
oops. premature submission! that 12:51 was a work in progress. delete from your memory banks, SVP.
oops. premature submission! that 12:51 was a work in progress. delete from your memory banks, SVP.
I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side.
Donald, you make some good points. As for how things look from the Russian side, there is more than one angle to that question. Obama/Clinton tried the reset button with Putin and got manure in their face. Every concession was met with contempt and demands for more. Putin has tapped very successfully into the unattractive nationalist underside of Russian society. What Russia needs to see, but won’t under either candidate, is a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity. Not to fight a war, but to deter one.
I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side.
Donald, you make some good points. As for how things look from the Russian side, there is more than one angle to that question. Obama/Clinton tried the reset button with Putin and got manure in their face. Every concession was met with contempt and demands for more. Putin has tapped very successfully into the unattractive nationalist underside of Russian society. What Russia needs to see, but won’t under either candidate, is a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity. Not to fight a war, but to deter one.
I’m a little bemused at how we expand NATO right up to their borders, play a role in the Ukrainian change of government in the 2014 and show no curiosity about how things might look from the Russian side.
Donald, you make some good points. As for how things look from the Russian side, there is more than one angle to that question. Obama/Clinton tried the reset button with Putin and got manure in their face. Every concession was met with contempt and demands for more. Putin has tapped very successfully into the unattractive nationalist underside of Russian society. What Russia needs to see, but won’t under either candidate, is a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity. Not to fight a war, but to deter one.
What Russia needs to see, but won’t under either candidate, is a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity
is our capacity really that lacking?
seems like Russia simply knows that we don’t want to go to blows over the things Russia’s been doing. having more stuff that we don’t want to use doesn’t seem like a good use of money.
[not that we should be eager use what we have, either.]
What Russia needs to see, but won’t under either candidate, is a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity
is our capacity really that lacking?
seems like Russia simply knows that we don’t want to go to blows over the things Russia’s been doing. having more stuff that we don’t want to use doesn’t seem like a good use of money.
[not that we should be eager use what we have, either.]
What Russia needs to see, but won’t under either candidate, is a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity
is our capacity really that lacking?
seems like Russia simply knows that we don’t want to go to blows over the things Russia’s been doing. having more stuff that we don’t want to use doesn’t seem like a good use of money.
[not that we should be eager use what we have, either.]
a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity.
Having 10 times the number of nuclear powered aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined isn’t enough?
Or 10 times the number Russia has?
a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity.
Having 10 times the number of nuclear powered aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined isn’t enough?
Or 10 times the number Russia has?
a beefed up US conventional naval and air projection capacity.
Having 10 times the number of nuclear powered aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined isn’t enough?
Or 10 times the number Russia has?
as a lawyer, how would you respond to Comey if Hillary Clinton was your client? See my July 29, 2016 at 05:09 PM comment a few pages back.
Care to examine that for us the way you would if the Director of the FBI had said it about a client of yours, in a press conference to announce that his agency was NOT asking for an indictment?
Keeping in mind that I am not a criminal attorney and also keeping in mind that none of my clients are candidates for any political office, if any agency declared it was not going to prosecute one of my clients, I would tell my client to be grateful and to be quiet.
as a lawyer, how would you respond to Comey if Hillary Clinton was your client? See my July 29, 2016 at 05:09 PM comment a few pages back.
Care to examine that for us the way you would if the Director of the FBI had said it about a client of yours, in a press conference to announce that his agency was NOT asking for an indictment?
Keeping in mind that I am not a criminal attorney and also keeping in mind that none of my clients are candidates for any political office, if any agency declared it was not going to prosecute one of my clients, I would tell my client to be grateful and to be quiet.
as a lawyer, how would you respond to Comey if Hillary Clinton was your client? See my July 29, 2016 at 05:09 PM comment a few pages back.
Care to examine that for us the way you would if the Director of the FBI had said it about a client of yours, in a press conference to announce that his agency was NOT asking for an indictment?
Keeping in mind that I am not a criminal attorney and also keeping in mind that none of my clients are candidates for any political office, if any agency declared it was not going to prosecute one of my clients, I would tell my client to be grateful and to be quiet.
Deeply frustrated to have just lost a long, detailed list of Hillary’s supposed negatives, and refutations where available, and admissions where not. From memory, briefly:
1. She is a criminal
No charges, let alone convictions.
2. She lies.
True, and not good. However, when remembering e.g. her version of disembarking under fire, who remembers Reagan lying about what he had done in WW11?
3. She is not qualified to be President.
Demonstrably untrue, in terms of her intellect (evidenced by educational achievements) and subsequent tenures as Senator and Secretary of State.
4. She does not have a “true marriage” or, in the absence of McKT’s retraction of straw person accusation, has a “sham marriage” which she has used to enable Bill’s misdemeanours, pursue her own ambitions, and betray feminist ideals.
In view of everything that has been said, about the unknowability of other people’s marriages and of the lengths that people might go to to preserve their marriages, and of the normality of people leveraging their family or contacts to obtain position, this seems the most absurd of all the points against her.
5. She is a hawk, and voted for the Iraq war.
Both true, but her hawkishness would not be a minus point for much, or even the majority of the US public. I was vehemently against the war myself, but to quote Snarki upthread:
I really don’t think it’s necessary to make a list of Trump’s negatives, but it seems clear to me beyond the shadow of a doubt who is the better candidate, both in traditional terms and also (arguably, I suppose for the conservatives here) in terms of who is likely to do most good for most people in the US. I know Marty and McKinney have said they have no intention of voting Trump, and I think NV has stated he has no intention of voting Hillary. I would only remark that all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Of course, regarding the definition of evil, YMMV, (I gather Trump referred to Hillary as the devil in a recent speech, so that supports my point!)
Deeply frustrated to have just lost a long, detailed list of Hillary’s supposed negatives, and refutations where available, and admissions where not. From memory, briefly:
1. She is a criminal
No charges, let alone convictions.
2. She lies.
True, and not good. However, when remembering e.g. her version of disembarking under fire, who remembers Reagan lying about what he had done in WW11?
3. She is not qualified to be President.
Demonstrably untrue, in terms of her intellect (evidenced by educational achievements) and subsequent tenures as Senator and Secretary of State.
4. She does not have a “true marriage” or, in the absence of McKT’s retraction of straw person accusation, has a “sham marriage” which she has used to enable Bill’s misdemeanours, pursue her own ambitions, and betray feminist ideals.
In view of everything that has been said, about the unknowability of other people’s marriages and of the lengths that people might go to to preserve their marriages, and of the normality of people leveraging their family or contacts to obtain position, this seems the most absurd of all the points against her.
5. She is a hawk, and voted for the Iraq war.
Both true, but her hawkishness would not be a minus point for much, or even the majority of the US public. I was vehemently against the war myself, but to quote Snarki upthread:
I really don’t think it’s necessary to make a list of Trump’s negatives, but it seems clear to me beyond the shadow of a doubt who is the better candidate, both in traditional terms and also (arguably, I suppose for the conservatives here) in terms of who is likely to do most good for most people in the US. I know Marty and McKinney have said they have no intention of voting Trump, and I think NV has stated he has no intention of voting Hillary. I would only remark that all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Of course, regarding the definition of evil, YMMV, (I gather Trump referred to Hillary as the devil in a recent speech, so that supports my point!)
Deeply frustrated to have just lost a long, detailed list of Hillary’s supposed negatives, and refutations where available, and admissions where not. From memory, briefly:
1. She is a criminal
No charges, let alone convictions.
2. She lies.
True, and not good. However, when remembering e.g. her version of disembarking under fire, who remembers Reagan lying about what he had done in WW11?
3. She is not qualified to be President.
Demonstrably untrue, in terms of her intellect (evidenced by educational achievements) and subsequent tenures as Senator and Secretary of State.
4. She does not have a “true marriage” or, in the absence of McKT’s retraction of straw person accusation, has a “sham marriage” which she has used to enable Bill’s misdemeanours, pursue her own ambitions, and betray feminist ideals.
In view of everything that has been said, about the unknowability of other people’s marriages and of the lengths that people might go to to preserve their marriages, and of the normality of people leveraging their family or contacts to obtain position, this seems the most absurd of all the points against her.
5. She is a hawk, and voted for the Iraq war.
Both true, but her hawkishness would not be a minus point for much, or even the majority of the US public. I was vehemently against the war myself, but to quote Snarki upthread:
I really don’t think it’s necessary to make a list of Trump’s negatives, but it seems clear to me beyond the shadow of a doubt who is the better candidate, both in traditional terms and also (arguably, I suppose for the conservatives here) in terms of who is likely to do most good for most people in the US. I know Marty and McKinney have said they have no intention of voting Trump, and I think NV has stated he has no intention of voting Hillary. I would only remark that all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Of course, regarding the definition of evil, YMMV, (I gather Trump referred to Hillary as the devil in a recent speech, so that supports my point!)
is our capacity really that lacking?
I intended to include the PRC in my comment. Relating solely to Russia, we have more than enough naval capacity to deter any mischief at sea. We lack, IMO, sufficient forward deployed air assets and supporting elements to deter Russia at NATO’s periphery.
Regarding the PRC and Ugh’s comments re 10 nuke carriers, no we don’t have enough. Land based air craft enjoy huge logistical advantages over carrier based aircraft. Ten carriers spread over most of the world means not enough at any one location to be decisive other than in relatively minor operations. We should have a larger naval presence in the Pacific and a lot more in the way of forward deployed, land based air craft.
We’ve done nothing but draw down our forces across the board since the Soviet Union imploded, yet the PRC in particular continues to arm and picks fights with its neighbors on a monthly basis. Nothing we’ve done justifies the PRC’s unilateral arms race. We are no threat to any part of the PRC other than as a brake on their armed expansion and threats of force against friends and allies.
is our capacity really that lacking?
I intended to include the PRC in my comment. Relating solely to Russia, we have more than enough naval capacity to deter any mischief at sea. We lack, IMO, sufficient forward deployed air assets and supporting elements to deter Russia at NATO’s periphery.
Regarding the PRC and Ugh’s comments re 10 nuke carriers, no we don’t have enough. Land based air craft enjoy huge logistical advantages over carrier based aircraft. Ten carriers spread over most of the world means not enough at any one location to be decisive other than in relatively minor operations. We should have a larger naval presence in the Pacific and a lot more in the way of forward deployed, land based air craft.
We’ve done nothing but draw down our forces across the board since the Soviet Union imploded, yet the PRC in particular continues to arm and picks fights with its neighbors on a monthly basis. Nothing we’ve done justifies the PRC’s unilateral arms race. We are no threat to any part of the PRC other than as a brake on their armed expansion and threats of force against friends and allies.
is our capacity really that lacking?
I intended to include the PRC in my comment. Relating solely to Russia, we have more than enough naval capacity to deter any mischief at sea. We lack, IMO, sufficient forward deployed air assets and supporting elements to deter Russia at NATO’s periphery.
Regarding the PRC and Ugh’s comments re 10 nuke carriers, no we don’t have enough. Land based air craft enjoy huge logistical advantages over carrier based aircraft. Ten carriers spread over most of the world means not enough at any one location to be decisive other than in relatively minor operations. We should have a larger naval presence in the Pacific and a lot more in the way of forward deployed, land based air craft.
We’ve done nothing but draw down our forces across the board since the Soviet Union imploded, yet the PRC in particular continues to arm and picks fights with its neighbors on a monthly basis. Nothing we’ve done justifies the PRC’s unilateral arms race. We are no threat to any part of the PRC other than as a brake on their armed expansion and threats of force against friends and allies.
For whatever reason, the Google spiders don’t seem to crawling this website completely. A week or so ago, I tried to nudge Google into doing more complete coverage. Doesn’t seem to have worked.
For whatever reason, the Google spiders don’t seem to crawling this website completely. A week or so ago, I tried to nudge Google into doing more complete coverage. Doesn’t seem to have worked.
For whatever reason, the Google spiders don’t seem to crawling this website completely. A week or so ago, I tried to nudge Google into doing more complete coverage. Doesn’t seem to have worked.
I can see if the US (alone) is to provide the world’s global deterrent force then maybe we don’t have enough. That seems a ridiculous posture for the US to take, but here we (and NATO) are. Also, where are we going to forward deploy aircraft in NATO’s periphery that isn’t going to be taken as a threat by Russia and possibly spark the very thing forward deployment is meant to prevent?
As for this:
We’ve done nothing but draw down our forces across the board since the Soviet Union imploded, yet the PRC in particular continues to arm and picks fights with its neighbors on a monthly basis. Nothing we’ve done justifies the PRC’s unilateral arms race. We are no threat to any part of the PRC other than as a brake on their armed expansion and threats of force against friends and allies.
So says you and probably even true. But does the PRC view it that way? Or even if they don’t view the US as a “threat,” might there be other reasons for them to build up their forces? They’ve got Japan to their east, Russia to their North, India and Pakistan to their West, heavily populated Southeast Asian nations, not to mention North and South Korea right on their doorstep (and the thorn in their side in Taiwan). Long memories too.
Who knows what kinds of paranoia (and/or pride) runs in the minds of their leaders and armed forces. See, e.g., the ISTM wildly overstated view of USSR capacity in the US circles from circa 1970-1991.
I think Russia in Ukraine/Crimea and the PRC in its actions in the South China Sea are banking on the fact that they can live with most things the US (and others) might do short of active hostilities and when it comes right down to it it isn’t worth it to the US (and others) to engage in active hostilities over what they’re doing.
Essentially, what cleek said RE “more things we aren’t willing to use”
I can see if the US (alone) is to provide the world’s global deterrent force then maybe we don’t have enough. That seems a ridiculous posture for the US to take, but here we (and NATO) are. Also, where are we going to forward deploy aircraft in NATO’s periphery that isn’t going to be taken as a threat by Russia and possibly spark the very thing forward deployment is meant to prevent?
As for this:
We’ve done nothing but draw down our forces across the board since the Soviet Union imploded, yet the PRC in particular continues to arm and picks fights with its neighbors on a monthly basis. Nothing we’ve done justifies the PRC’s unilateral arms race. We are no threat to any part of the PRC other than as a brake on their armed expansion and threats of force against friends and allies.
So says you and probably even true. But does the PRC view it that way? Or even if they don’t view the US as a “threat,” might there be other reasons for them to build up their forces? They’ve got Japan to their east, Russia to their North, India and Pakistan to their West, heavily populated Southeast Asian nations, not to mention North and South Korea right on their doorstep (and the thorn in their side in Taiwan). Long memories too.
Who knows what kinds of paranoia (and/or pride) runs in the minds of their leaders and armed forces. See, e.g., the ISTM wildly overstated view of USSR capacity in the US circles from circa 1970-1991.
I think Russia in Ukraine/Crimea and the PRC in its actions in the South China Sea are banking on the fact that they can live with most things the US (and others) might do short of active hostilities and when it comes right down to it it isn’t worth it to the US (and others) to engage in active hostilities over what they’re doing.
Essentially, what cleek said RE “more things we aren’t willing to use”
I can see if the US (alone) is to provide the world’s global deterrent force then maybe we don’t have enough. That seems a ridiculous posture for the US to take, but here we (and NATO) are. Also, where are we going to forward deploy aircraft in NATO’s periphery that isn’t going to be taken as a threat by Russia and possibly spark the very thing forward deployment is meant to prevent?
As for this:
We’ve done nothing but draw down our forces across the board since the Soviet Union imploded, yet the PRC in particular continues to arm and picks fights with its neighbors on a monthly basis. Nothing we’ve done justifies the PRC’s unilateral arms race. We are no threat to any part of the PRC other than as a brake on their armed expansion and threats of force against friends and allies.
So says you and probably even true. But does the PRC view it that way? Or even if they don’t view the US as a “threat,” might there be other reasons for them to build up their forces? They’ve got Japan to their east, Russia to their North, India and Pakistan to their West, heavily populated Southeast Asian nations, not to mention North and South Korea right on their doorstep (and the thorn in their side in Taiwan). Long memories too.
Who knows what kinds of paranoia (and/or pride) runs in the minds of their leaders and armed forces. See, e.g., the ISTM wildly overstated view of USSR capacity in the US circles from circa 1970-1991.
I think Russia in Ukraine/Crimea and the PRC in its actions in the South China Sea are banking on the fact that they can live with most things the US (and others) might do short of active hostilities and when it comes right down to it it isn’t worth it to the US (and others) to engage in active hostilities over what they’re doing.
Essentially, what cleek said RE “more things we aren’t willing to use”
Regarding China, I think that the TPP is a foreign policy effort, more than an economic one.
Regarding China, I think that the TPP is a foreign policy effort, more than an economic one.
Regarding China, I think that the TPP is a foreign policy effort, more than an economic one.
Looks like the kids are at it again.
Looks like the kids are at it again.
Looks like the kids are at it again.
McTX: … if any agency declared it was not going to prosecute one of my clients, I would tell my client to be grateful and to be quiet.
If that was ALL the head of the agency had to say, that would be good advice.
–TP
McTX: … if any agency declared it was not going to prosecute one of my clients, I would tell my client to be grateful and to be quiet.
If that was ALL the head of the agency had to say, that would be good advice.
–TP
McTX: … if any agency declared it was not going to prosecute one of my clients, I would tell my client to be grateful and to be quiet.
If that was ALL the head of the agency had to say, that would be good advice.
–TP
To be pedantic, the PRC doesn’t have a military. The Chinese Communist Party has a military. This may seem to be a distinction without a difference. But it is a real difference.
To be pedantic, the PRC doesn’t have a military. The Chinese Communist Party has a military. This may seem to be a distinction without a difference. But it is a real difference.
To be pedantic, the PRC doesn’t have a military. The Chinese Communist Party has a military. This may seem to be a distinction without a difference. But it is a real difference.
They’ve got Japan to their east, Russia to their North, India and Pakistan to their West, heavily populated Southeast Asian nations, not to mention North and South Korea right on their doorstep (and the thorn in their side in Taiwan). Long memories too.
None of which are any kind of a threat, particularly a naval threat. The PRC is more bellicose by the day. I have no expectations that we will rise to the occasion. We can always convince ourselves that they are arming to the teeth for reasons that are non-threatening and, when you just look at the world through their eyes, legitimate.
They’ve got Japan to their east, Russia to their North, India and Pakistan to their West, heavily populated Southeast Asian nations, not to mention North and South Korea right on their doorstep (and the thorn in their side in Taiwan). Long memories too.
None of which are any kind of a threat, particularly a naval threat. The PRC is more bellicose by the day. I have no expectations that we will rise to the occasion. We can always convince ourselves that they are arming to the teeth for reasons that are non-threatening and, when you just look at the world through their eyes, legitimate.
They’ve got Japan to their east, Russia to their North, India and Pakistan to their West, heavily populated Southeast Asian nations, not to mention North and South Korea right on their doorstep (and the thorn in their side in Taiwan). Long memories too.
None of which are any kind of a threat, particularly a naval threat. The PRC is more bellicose by the day. I have no expectations that we will rise to the occasion. We can always convince ourselves that they are arming to the teeth for reasons that are non-threatening and, when you just look at the world through their eyes, legitimate.
Looks like the kids are at it again.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. Way, way back in the day, circa 1975-80, the conventional balance of forces between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was tilted heavily in favor of the WP. So heavily that the threshold for use of theater nukes was quite low. Few believed a theater level nuclear exchange could be contained. Most analysts believed a general exchange would follow.
By building up US and NATO conventional forces to the point where a WP invasion would almost certainly fail, the main threat of escalation getting out of hand was foreclosed.
The same principle applies today when nuclear powers confront one another. We have no desire to have a war with the PRC. There is nothing in it for us under any analysis, leaving morality and everything else off to one side. We support the status quo with the exception of N Korea.
The PRC is not a fan of the status quo but no one knows what their end game is. Hell, they may not know. If we were to be compelled to confront the PRC, we would want and need to do so in a way that, conventionally, we hold whatever is in dispute while simultaneously making it crystal clear that doing so is the limit our military intent. Any escalation would be purely at the option of the PRC. If, objectively, we had the assets to assure local military superiority, the chances of the PRC doing something stupid are reduced significantly.
Looks like the kids are at it again.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. Way, way back in the day, circa 1975-80, the conventional balance of forces between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was tilted heavily in favor of the WP. So heavily that the threshold for use of theater nukes was quite low. Few believed a theater level nuclear exchange could be contained. Most analysts believed a general exchange would follow.
By building up US and NATO conventional forces to the point where a WP invasion would almost certainly fail, the main threat of escalation getting out of hand was foreclosed.
The same principle applies today when nuclear powers confront one another. We have no desire to have a war with the PRC. There is nothing in it for us under any analysis, leaving morality and everything else off to one side. We support the status quo with the exception of N Korea.
The PRC is not a fan of the status quo but no one knows what their end game is. Hell, they may not know. If we were to be compelled to confront the PRC, we would want and need to do so in a way that, conventionally, we hold whatever is in dispute while simultaneously making it crystal clear that doing so is the limit our military intent. Any escalation would be purely at the option of the PRC. If, objectively, we had the assets to assure local military superiority, the chances of the PRC doing something stupid are reduced significantly.
Looks like the kids are at it again.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. Way, way back in the day, circa 1975-80, the conventional balance of forces between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was tilted heavily in favor of the WP. So heavily that the threshold for use of theater nukes was quite low. Few believed a theater level nuclear exchange could be contained. Most analysts believed a general exchange would follow.
By building up US and NATO conventional forces to the point where a WP invasion would almost certainly fail, the main threat of escalation getting out of hand was foreclosed.
The same principle applies today when nuclear powers confront one another. We have no desire to have a war with the PRC. There is nothing in it for us under any analysis, leaving morality and everything else off to one side. We support the status quo with the exception of N Korea.
The PRC is not a fan of the status quo but no one knows what their end game is. Hell, they may not know. If we were to be compelled to confront the PRC, we would want and need to do so in a way that, conventionally, we hold whatever is in dispute while simultaneously making it crystal clear that doing so is the limit our military intent. Any escalation would be purely at the option of the PRC. If, objectively, we had the assets to assure local military superiority, the chances of the PRC doing something stupid are reduced significantly.
How Would Pres. Clinton Handle the South China Sea? (YouTube)
How Would Pres. Clinton Handle the South China Sea? (YouTube)
How Would Pres. Clinton Handle the South China Sea? (YouTube)
…and air projection capacity
by coincidence, the Air Force’s F35 fleet became combat-ready yesterday.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/air-force-f-35-combat-ready/index.html
…and air projection capacity
by coincidence, the Air Force’s F35 fleet became combat-ready yesterday.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/air-force-f-35-combat-ready/index.html
…and air projection capacity
by coincidence, the Air Force’s F35 fleet became combat-ready yesterday.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/air-force-f-35-combat-ready/index.html
None of which are any kind of a threat, particularly a naval threat.
Despite the fact that Russia and China actually engaged in actual land combat not all that long ago?
Despite the fact that the memory of Japan’s invasion is still relatively fresh in Chinese minds?
Despite the fact that Japan’s current prime minister is pushing for rearmament?
Despite the fact that N. Korea v S. Korea continues to be an open sore in east asia?
Despite the decades old and ongoing border dispute and clashes with India?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
None of which are any kind of a threat, particularly a naval threat.
Despite the fact that Russia and China actually engaged in actual land combat not all that long ago?
Despite the fact that the memory of Japan’s invasion is still relatively fresh in Chinese minds?
Despite the fact that Japan’s current prime minister is pushing for rearmament?
Despite the fact that N. Korea v S. Korea continues to be an open sore in east asia?
Despite the decades old and ongoing border dispute and clashes with India?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
None of which are any kind of a threat, particularly a naval threat.
Despite the fact that Russia and China actually engaged in actual land combat not all that long ago?
Despite the fact that the memory of Japan’s invasion is still relatively fresh in Chinese minds?
Despite the fact that Japan’s current prime minister is pushing for rearmament?
Despite the fact that N. Korea v S. Korea continues to be an open sore in east asia?
Despite the decades old and ongoing border dispute and clashes with India?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
One difference between dealing with Russia and Dealing with China is this.
When dealing with Russia, there are several NATO countries besides the US which have sufficient forces to be significant if Russia gets into a military confrontation. Yes, the Europeans could (and should) do more. But their military forces are not insignificant compared to what the Russians can put into the field. (And a couple of them even have their own nukes.) In short, if Russia gets into it militarily with anyone of us, they have a serious problem.
In contrast, what is there in East Asia? To the east of China, South Korea has a big military . . . and North Korea right next to it. Japan is forbidden any significant military by its own (US written) Constitution. Taiwan can’t even be sure anyone else would step in if they get to the point of a military interaction.
To the south, India and Pakistan are not going to do much militarily to China, being too busy looking at each other. Not to mention that their militaries aren’t up to giving the PLA a real fight.
To the southeast, the Phillipines haven’t got the economic infrastructure to support a major military. Vietnam is strong enough to stop a Chinese land invasion (and has, more than once), but not to project power at sea. Australia could help some, at least at sea, but not a lot. And that’s about it.
So China can do pretty much anything it likes, as long as it is careful to stop short of anything that would get the US seriously worked up. They can create islands and bases in the South China Sea. They can claim the whole South China Sea . . . as long as they refrain from attacking US vessels which are treating it as international waters. There just isn’t anyone else able and willing to stop them, or even slow them down much.
How much do you think it would take for the US to seriously deter China from its current path of military adventureism?
One difference between dealing with Russia and Dealing with China is this.
When dealing with Russia, there are several NATO countries besides the US which have sufficient forces to be significant if Russia gets into a military confrontation. Yes, the Europeans could (and should) do more. But their military forces are not insignificant compared to what the Russians can put into the field. (And a couple of them even have their own nukes.) In short, if Russia gets into it militarily with anyone of us, they have a serious problem.
In contrast, what is there in East Asia? To the east of China, South Korea has a big military . . . and North Korea right next to it. Japan is forbidden any significant military by its own (US written) Constitution. Taiwan can’t even be sure anyone else would step in if they get to the point of a military interaction.
To the south, India and Pakistan are not going to do much militarily to China, being too busy looking at each other. Not to mention that their militaries aren’t up to giving the PLA a real fight.
To the southeast, the Phillipines haven’t got the economic infrastructure to support a major military. Vietnam is strong enough to stop a Chinese land invasion (and has, more than once), but not to project power at sea. Australia could help some, at least at sea, but not a lot. And that’s about it.
So China can do pretty much anything it likes, as long as it is careful to stop short of anything that would get the US seriously worked up. They can create islands and bases in the South China Sea. They can claim the whole South China Sea . . . as long as they refrain from attacking US vessels which are treating it as international waters. There just isn’t anyone else able and willing to stop them, or even slow them down much.
How much do you think it would take for the US to seriously deter China from its current path of military adventureism?
One difference between dealing with Russia and Dealing with China is this.
When dealing with Russia, there are several NATO countries besides the US which have sufficient forces to be significant if Russia gets into a military confrontation. Yes, the Europeans could (and should) do more. But their military forces are not insignificant compared to what the Russians can put into the field. (And a couple of them even have their own nukes.) In short, if Russia gets into it militarily with anyone of us, they have a serious problem.
In contrast, what is there in East Asia? To the east of China, South Korea has a big military . . . and North Korea right next to it. Japan is forbidden any significant military by its own (US written) Constitution. Taiwan can’t even be sure anyone else would step in if they get to the point of a military interaction.
To the south, India and Pakistan are not going to do much militarily to China, being too busy looking at each other. Not to mention that their militaries aren’t up to giving the PLA a real fight.
To the southeast, the Phillipines haven’t got the economic infrastructure to support a major military. Vietnam is strong enough to stop a Chinese land invasion (and has, more than once), but not to project power at sea. Australia could help some, at least at sea, but not a lot. And that’s about it.
So China can do pretty much anything it likes, as long as it is careful to stop short of anything that would get the US seriously worked up. They can create islands and bases in the South China Sea. They can claim the whole South China Sea . . . as long as they refrain from attacking US vessels which are treating it as international waters. There just isn’t anyone else able and willing to stop them, or even slow them down much.
How much do you think it would take for the US to seriously deter China from its current path of military adventureism?
Well, under the lesser Bush there were attempts to get Japan to renounce its pacifist ways (imposed after WW2) and the current Japanese leaders are thinking aloud about that (against the stated will of the population). And the Western hawks openly curse the success of their excorcism of the bellicose spirit (btw they did the same about Germany). Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if the old Nazis and Japs were at hand but this time on our side to fight our former allies?
Russia and China do what these kind of powers used and were expected to do not so long ago. Why should they not have a Mon Lu or Monorow doctrine about non-intervention in ‘their’ hemisphere? Do they have to found a United Fruit first?
Personally, I think it shows weakness on the part of their leaders. Putin seems like an ice-cold pragmatist to me who plays the national card because he has run out of other options. China is a bit more complex but it also seems to be at least partially for internal consumption.
Well, under the lesser Bush there were attempts to get Japan to renounce its pacifist ways (imposed after WW2) and the current Japanese leaders are thinking aloud about that (against the stated will of the population). And the Western hawks openly curse the success of their excorcism of the bellicose spirit (btw they did the same about Germany). Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if the old Nazis and Japs were at hand but this time on our side to fight our former allies?
Russia and China do what these kind of powers used and were expected to do not so long ago. Why should they not have a Mon Lu or Monorow doctrine about non-intervention in ‘their’ hemisphere? Do they have to found a United Fruit first?
Personally, I think it shows weakness on the part of their leaders. Putin seems like an ice-cold pragmatist to me who plays the national card because he has run out of other options. China is a bit more complex but it also seems to be at least partially for internal consumption.
Well, under the lesser Bush there were attempts to get Japan to renounce its pacifist ways (imposed after WW2) and the current Japanese leaders are thinking aloud about that (against the stated will of the population). And the Western hawks openly curse the success of their excorcism of the bellicose spirit (btw they did the same about Germany). Hey, wouldn’t it be nice if the old Nazis and Japs were at hand but this time on our side to fight our former allies?
Russia and China do what these kind of powers used and were expected to do not so long ago. Why should they not have a Mon Lu or Monorow doctrine about non-intervention in ‘their’ hemisphere? Do they have to found a United Fruit first?
Personally, I think it shows weakness on the part of their leaders. Putin seems like an ice-cold pragmatist to me who plays the national card because he has run out of other options. China is a bit more complex but it also seems to be at least partially for internal consumption.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Comrade, I’m heading out for a round of golf. Will get back to you tomorrow.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Comrade, I’m heading out for a round of golf. Will get back to you tomorrow.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Comrade, I’m heading out for a round of golf. Will get back to you tomorrow.
TPP, people.
TPP, people.
TPP, people.
I meant TPP, people. Those who don’t want us to use military power, but claim not to be isolationists, should consider the strategic value of other kinds of alliances.
I meant TPP, people. Those who don’t want us to use military power, but claim not to be isolationists, should consider the strategic value of other kinds of alliances.
I meant TPP, people. Those who don’t want us to use military power, but claim not to be isolationists, should consider the strategic value of other kinds of alliances.
TPP, people.
that all sounds reasonable.
the problem i have is that i can easily find dozens of reasonable-sounding articles that talk about TPP’s negatives.
and if i wanted to indulge my inner TruthDig or Breitbart, there are innumerable conspiracy-minded objections to it, too.
maybe it’s just too big and carries too much bad along with the good? beats me.
TPP, people.
that all sounds reasonable.
the problem i have is that i can easily find dozens of reasonable-sounding articles that talk about TPP’s negatives.
and if i wanted to indulge my inner TruthDig or Breitbart, there are innumerable conspiracy-minded objections to it, too.
maybe it’s just too big and carries too much bad along with the good? beats me.
TPP, people.
that all sounds reasonable.
the problem i have is that i can easily find dozens of reasonable-sounding articles that talk about TPP’s negatives.
and if i wanted to indulge my inner TruthDig or Breitbart, there are innumerable conspiracy-minded objections to it, too.
maybe it’s just too big and carries too much bad along with the good? beats me.
maybe it’s just too big and carries too much bad along with the good? beats me.
As I said before, assessing the value of the agreement is above my pay grade. I just worry that people dismiss it out of hand without knowing any more than I do.
maybe it’s just too big and carries too much bad along with the good? beats me.
As I said before, assessing the value of the agreement is above my pay grade. I just worry that people dismiss it out of hand without knowing any more than I do.
maybe it’s just too big and carries too much bad along with the good? beats me.
As I said before, assessing the value of the agreement is above my pay grade. I just worry that people dismiss it out of hand without knowing any more than I do.
I just worry that people dismiss it out of hand without knowing any more than I do.
It’s the sort of thing you’re almost entirely at the mercy of the experts, unless you happen to be one of them. It also may be the sort of thing that the experts don’t largely agree on, so you don’t even get to go with the consensus opinion. What I do know is that, just as a completely random example, Donald Trump isn’t one of the experts.
In any case, when lay people form really strong opinions on this kind of stuff, rather than discussing arguments for or against that seem on the surface to make the most sense them without going so far as to form a strong opinion one way or the other, it’s just annoying. And when you point out that they don’t know enough about it to form a strong opinion, they point out to you that you don’t either, even though you haven’t formed as strong opinion (other than that they don’t have a good basis for their strong opinion).
It’s like the guy pretending to be an architect in Something About Mary who sniffs out the other guy pretending to be an architect. The first guy may not know what he’s talking about, but he does know that the second guy doesn’t either.
I just worry that people dismiss it out of hand without knowing any more than I do.
It’s the sort of thing you’re almost entirely at the mercy of the experts, unless you happen to be one of them. It also may be the sort of thing that the experts don’t largely agree on, so you don’t even get to go with the consensus opinion. What I do know is that, just as a completely random example, Donald Trump isn’t one of the experts.
In any case, when lay people form really strong opinions on this kind of stuff, rather than discussing arguments for or against that seem on the surface to make the most sense them without going so far as to form a strong opinion one way or the other, it’s just annoying. And when you point out that they don’t know enough about it to form a strong opinion, they point out to you that you don’t either, even though you haven’t formed as strong opinion (other than that they don’t have a good basis for their strong opinion).
It’s like the guy pretending to be an architect in Something About Mary who sniffs out the other guy pretending to be an architect. The first guy may not know what he’s talking about, but he does know that the second guy doesn’t either.
I just worry that people dismiss it out of hand without knowing any more than I do.
It’s the sort of thing you’re almost entirely at the mercy of the experts, unless you happen to be one of them. It also may be the sort of thing that the experts don’t largely agree on, so you don’t even get to go with the consensus opinion. What I do know is that, just as a completely random example, Donald Trump isn’t one of the experts.
In any case, when lay people form really strong opinions on this kind of stuff, rather than discussing arguments for or against that seem on the surface to make the most sense them without going so far as to form a strong opinion one way or the other, it’s just annoying. And when you point out that they don’t know enough about it to form a strong opinion, they point out to you that you don’t either, even though you haven’t formed as strong opinion (other than that they don’t have a good basis for their strong opinion).
It’s like the guy pretending to be an architect in Something About Mary who sniffs out the other guy pretending to be an architect. The first guy may not know what he’s talking about, but he does know that the second guy doesn’t either.
The PRC is not a fan of the status quo but no one knows what their end game is. Hell, they may not know.
Well yes. And thus concluding that this, that or the other thing is or is not a threat seems rather problematic. I suppose that might lead to the conclusion that the US “needs to be ready for everything” and therefore endless military buildups. Of course that might then lead to China wondering what we’re up to since they don’t consider themselves a threat to the US – but they better be ready for anything so…etc.
The PRC is not a fan of the status quo but no one knows what their end game is. Hell, they may not know.
Well yes. And thus concluding that this, that or the other thing is or is not a threat seems rather problematic. I suppose that might lead to the conclusion that the US “needs to be ready for everything” and therefore endless military buildups. Of course that might then lead to China wondering what we’re up to since they don’t consider themselves a threat to the US – but they better be ready for anything so…etc.
The PRC is not a fan of the status quo but no one knows what their end game is. Hell, they may not know.
Well yes. And thus concluding that this, that or the other thing is or is not a threat seems rather problematic. I suppose that might lead to the conclusion that the US “needs to be ready for everything” and therefore endless military buildups. Of course that might then lead to China wondering what we’re up to since they don’t consider themselves a threat to the US – but they better be ready for anything so…etc.
Comrade, I’m heading out for a round of golf. Will get back to you tomorrow.
Enjoy your round, fellow worker.
Comrade, I’m heading out for a round of golf. Will get back to you tomorrow.
Enjoy your round, fellow worker.
Comrade, I’m heading out for a round of golf. Will get back to you tomorrow.
Enjoy your round, fellow worker.
And that’s about it.
Yep. And china does have legitimate interests. One may not like them, but just like us, they are a large power, and they have legitimate interests, just like we do in the western hemisphere.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that.
But we continue in our attempts to ensure that “our interests” prevail. This is hegemonic thinking, not classical balance of power thinking.
It’s the kind of thinking that usually does not turn out well.
And that’s about it.
Yep. And china does have legitimate interests. One may not like them, but just like us, they are a large power, and they have legitimate interests, just like we do in the western hemisphere.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that.
But we continue in our attempts to ensure that “our interests” prevail. This is hegemonic thinking, not classical balance of power thinking.
It’s the kind of thinking that usually does not turn out well.
And that’s about it.
Yep. And china does have legitimate interests. One may not like them, but just like us, they are a large power, and they have legitimate interests, just like we do in the western hemisphere.
Perhaps we should acknowledge that.
But we continue in our attempts to ensure that “our interests” prevail. This is hegemonic thinking, not classical balance of power thinking.
It’s the kind of thinking that usually does not turn out well.
“And China does have legitimate interests.”
And, the American “conservative movement” and their traitor vermin Supreme Court Justices (I speak with conservative terms) has allowed them to further those interests by interfering and intervening in our elections.
As Barack Cbama predicted:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/now-we-have-how-manual-foreigners-who-want-donate-us-political-campaigns
Why is Samuel Alito still among the living? Had a liberal jurist enabled this, conservative militia would have shot him in the head by now, and it would have been cheered by conservatives.
Yeah, I get why Trump has traction.
“And China does have legitimate interests.”
And, the American “conservative movement” and their traitor vermin Supreme Court Justices (I speak with conservative terms) has allowed them to further those interests by interfering and intervening in our elections.
As Barack Cbama predicted:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/now-we-have-how-manual-foreigners-who-want-donate-us-political-campaigns
Why is Samuel Alito still among the living? Had a liberal jurist enabled this, conservative militia would have shot him in the head by now, and it would have been cheered by conservatives.
Yeah, I get why Trump has traction.
“And China does have legitimate interests.”
And, the American “conservative movement” and their traitor vermin Supreme Court Justices (I speak with conservative terms) has allowed them to further those interests by interfering and intervening in our elections.
As Barack Cbama predicted:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/now-we-have-how-manual-foreigners-who-want-donate-us-political-campaigns
Why is Samuel Alito still among the living? Had a liberal jurist enabled this, conservative militia would have shot him in the head by now, and it would have been cheered by conservatives.
Yeah, I get why Trump has traction.
James Taylor with Jackson Browne. Fenway, beautiful summer evening. I’ll check back tomorrow.
James Taylor with Jackson Browne. Fenway, beautiful summer evening. I’ll check back tomorrow.
James Taylor with Jackson Browne. Fenway, beautiful summer evening. I’ll check back tomorrow.
Every issue involves experts. I am unclear how TPP is different. There are still meteorologists who deny human caused climate change and without doing a lot of study I wouldn’t want to argue with Richard Lindzen, but I still have an opinion on the subject. Anyway, if the argument for TPP is based on national security, then isn’t it convenient that it gives corporations what they want?
http://www.prosperousamerica.org/dean_baker_is_the_tpp_obama_s_vietnam
Btw, like any ordinary layperson with an opinion I could write a couple of paragraphs explaining why I take the position I do on TPP, but it’s easier to provide links to people who can write better paragraphs.
Every issue involves experts. I am unclear how TPP is different. There are still meteorologists who deny human caused climate change and without doing a lot of study I wouldn’t want to argue with Richard Lindzen, but I still have an opinion on the subject. Anyway, if the argument for TPP is based on national security, then isn’t it convenient that it gives corporations what they want?
http://www.prosperousamerica.org/dean_baker_is_the_tpp_obama_s_vietnam
Btw, like any ordinary layperson with an opinion I could write a couple of paragraphs explaining why I take the position I do on TPP, but it’s easier to provide links to people who can write better paragraphs.
Every issue involves experts. I am unclear how TPP is different. There are still meteorologists who deny human caused climate change and without doing a lot of study I wouldn’t want to argue with Richard Lindzen, but I still have an opinion on the subject. Anyway, if the argument for TPP is based on national security, then isn’t it convenient that it gives corporations what they want?
http://www.prosperousamerica.org/dean_baker_is_the_tpp_obama_s_vietnam
Btw, like any ordinary layperson with an opinion I could write a couple of paragraphs explaining why I take the position I do on TPP, but it’s easier to provide links to people who can write better paragraphs.
This Dara Lind piece (via LGM) may be worth considering
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12322862/hillary-clinton-protest
McT is all a flutter about China. Have to say, plumping up Putin is not really the best way to tamp down that threat.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/trump-campaign-changed-ukraine-platform-lied-about-it.html
This Dara Lind piece (via LGM) may be worth considering
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12322862/hillary-clinton-protest
McT is all a flutter about China. Have to say, plumping up Putin is not really the best way to tamp down that threat.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/trump-campaign-changed-ukraine-platform-lied-about-it.html
This Dara Lind piece (via LGM) may be worth considering
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12322862/hillary-clinton-protest
McT is all a flutter about China. Have to say, plumping up Putin is not really the best way to tamp down that threat.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/trump-campaign-changed-ukraine-platform-lied-about-it.html
…but I still have an opinion on the subject.
So do I, but there is far more of a consensus among experts on climate change. Either way, the point was about people forming strong opinions on subjects they know little about, rather than discussing why they lean toward a certain position and why. And some issues are sufficiently complex and/or arcane that you are far more reliant on experts and far less likely to have sufficient grasp of the fundamentals to exercise judgement without extensive study.
AFAICT, you aren’t the sort of person who does what I was describing, Donald. (Donald Trump is, but you aren’t.)
…but I still have an opinion on the subject.
So do I, but there is far more of a consensus among experts on climate change. Either way, the point was about people forming strong opinions on subjects they know little about, rather than discussing why they lean toward a certain position and why. And some issues are sufficiently complex and/or arcane that you are far more reliant on experts and far less likely to have sufficient grasp of the fundamentals to exercise judgement without extensive study.
AFAICT, you aren’t the sort of person who does what I was describing, Donald. (Donald Trump is, but you aren’t.)
…but I still have an opinion on the subject.
So do I, but there is far more of a consensus among experts on climate change. Either way, the point was about people forming strong opinions on subjects they know little about, rather than discussing why they lean toward a certain position and why. And some issues are sufficiently complex and/or arcane that you are far more reliant on experts and far less likely to have sufficient grasp of the fundamentals to exercise judgement without extensive study.
AFAICT, you aren’t the sort of person who does what I was describing, Donald. (Donald Trump is, but you aren’t.)
Btw, like any ordinary layperson with an opinion I could write a couple of paragraphs explaining why I take the position I do on TPP
Of course, like you I could write what I think, but chose to provide a link.
Dean Baker carries the mantle of progressive isolationism. He was far from disappointed about Brexit, for example. I’m against the austerity that’s been pervasive in Europe, but like the TPP could be, the EU has allowed Europe to have a common reason to avoid war. And the UK doesn’t seem to be headed down a path of government spending.
Economists disagree a bit about the TPP, but most say that the job impact is not a huge issue. As your link points out, it’s mostly the intellectual property provisions that are troubling. I think that this issue is worthy of more discussion than “corporations get what they want”, or a two sentence summary of “higher prices”. Also, it is possible to look at problematic provisions and figure out how to mitigate their impact.
Or maybe the TPP is fatally flawed – I could be persuaded that it is. I’m suspicious of people who turn the issue into their torch of progressivism however. I question whether the No TPP sign-carriers at the Democratic convention had given the issue much thought. Unlike some people who comment here, I don’t think Obama reflexively supports issues in order to “give corporations what they want”. I have a high level of trust in him, more so than Clinton, and more so than Dean Baker.
Btw, like any ordinary layperson with an opinion I could write a couple of paragraphs explaining why I take the position I do on TPP
Of course, like you I could write what I think, but chose to provide a link.
Dean Baker carries the mantle of progressive isolationism. He was far from disappointed about Brexit, for example. I’m against the austerity that’s been pervasive in Europe, but like the TPP could be, the EU has allowed Europe to have a common reason to avoid war. And the UK doesn’t seem to be headed down a path of government spending.
Economists disagree a bit about the TPP, but most say that the job impact is not a huge issue. As your link points out, it’s mostly the intellectual property provisions that are troubling. I think that this issue is worthy of more discussion than “corporations get what they want”, or a two sentence summary of “higher prices”. Also, it is possible to look at problematic provisions and figure out how to mitigate their impact.
Or maybe the TPP is fatally flawed – I could be persuaded that it is. I’m suspicious of people who turn the issue into their torch of progressivism however. I question whether the No TPP sign-carriers at the Democratic convention had given the issue much thought. Unlike some people who comment here, I don’t think Obama reflexively supports issues in order to “give corporations what they want”. I have a high level of trust in him, more so than Clinton, and more so than Dean Baker.
Btw, like any ordinary layperson with an opinion I could write a couple of paragraphs explaining why I take the position I do on TPP
Of course, like you I could write what I think, but chose to provide a link.
Dean Baker carries the mantle of progressive isolationism. He was far from disappointed about Brexit, for example. I’m against the austerity that’s been pervasive in Europe, but like the TPP could be, the EU has allowed Europe to have a common reason to avoid war. And the UK doesn’t seem to be headed down a path of government spending.
Economists disagree a bit about the TPP, but most say that the job impact is not a huge issue. As your link points out, it’s mostly the intellectual property provisions that are troubling. I think that this issue is worthy of more discussion than “corporations get what they want”, or a two sentence summary of “higher prices”. Also, it is possible to look at problematic provisions and figure out how to mitigate their impact.
Or maybe the TPP is fatally flawed – I could be persuaded that it is. I’m suspicious of people who turn the issue into their torch of progressivism however. I question whether the No TPP sign-carriers at the Democratic convention had given the issue much thought. Unlike some people who comment here, I don’t think Obama reflexively supports issues in order to “give corporations what they want”. I have a high level of trust in him, more so than Clinton, and more so than Dean Baker.
James Taylor with Jackson Browne. Fenway, beautiful summer evening. I’ll check back tomorrow.
Marty, I’m green with envy!
James Taylor with Jackson Browne. Fenway, beautiful summer evening. I’ll check back tomorrow.
Marty, I’m green with envy!
James Taylor with Jackson Browne. Fenway, beautiful summer evening. I’ll check back tomorrow.
Marty, I’m green with envy!
Dean Baker carries the mantle of progressive isolationism.
Obviously you don’t read him much, because that is an ignorant slur.
I think that this issue is worthy of more discussion than “corporations get what they want”
Well? That’s what they wanted, and they got what they wanted. But then you chide others for writing opinions off the top of their head, and then you go ahead and do the very same thing.
jfc
Dean Baker carries the mantle of progressive isolationism.
Obviously you don’t read him much, because that is an ignorant slur.
I think that this issue is worthy of more discussion than “corporations get what they want”
Well? That’s what they wanted, and they got what they wanted. But then you chide others for writing opinions off the top of their head, and then you go ahead and do the very same thing.
jfc
Dean Baker carries the mantle of progressive isolationism.
Obviously you don’t read him much, because that is an ignorant slur.
I think that this issue is worthy of more discussion than “corporations get what they want”
Well? That’s what they wanted, and they got what they wanted. But then you chide others for writing opinions off the top of their head, and then you go ahead and do the very same thing.
jfc
You know of course that James Taylor is tall, skinny, and bald? Well, his voice is still pure gold.
You know of course that James Taylor is tall, skinny, and bald? Well, his voice is still pure gold.
You know of course that James Taylor is tall, skinny, and bald? Well, his voice is still pure gold.
Obviously you don’t read him much, because that is an ignorant slur.
You’re correct that I don’t read him much. I read him occasionally, and I read some quick articles on this issue.
But then you chide others for writing opinions off the top of their head, and then you go ahead and do the very same thing.
Actually, I declined to do so at first, and then was challenged on that by Donald Johnson so I took the plunge. I assumed that people would caveat emptor.
Obviously you don’t read him much, because that is an ignorant slur.
You’re correct that I don’t read him much. I read him occasionally, and I read some quick articles on this issue.
But then you chide others for writing opinions off the top of their head, and then you go ahead and do the very same thing.
Actually, I declined to do so at first, and then was challenged on that by Donald Johnson so I took the plunge. I assumed that people would caveat emptor.
Obviously you don’t read him much, because that is an ignorant slur.
You’re correct that I don’t read him much. I read him occasionally, and I read some quick articles on this issue.
But then you chide others for writing opinions off the top of their head, and then you go ahead and do the very same thing.
Actually, I declined to do so at first, and then was challenged on that by Donald Johnson so I took the plunge. I assumed that people would caveat emptor.
So having reread Donald’s link, and having spent some time last evening reading Dean Baker’s blog, I will say this:
From the link: the ITC model is explicitly a full employment model. It rules out the possibility that the TPP could lead to a higher unemployment rate as a result of increased imports displacing U.S. workers. The ITC analysis also failed to include the negative growth effects of stronger and longer copyright and patent protection.
Although there are definitely problems with long-term IP protection, I think that the reason this is an issue in trade deals is that we are leveraging the property value of our tech-based industries in a concession to the fact that manufacturing has gone elsewhere. Technology is valueless as a commodity when it can be copied (or pirated), so a trade deficit is inevitable if all we have to offer from our economy are unprotected ideas. From my brief googling, it seems that economists are working on this problem, but the IP protection regime in international trade is as much about the trade deficit as it is about “giving corporations what they want” even if both things are true. I would feel better if the articles by progressives opposed to the TPP would acknowledge this and propose a way to solve it.
Dean Baker makes a lot of good point in his articles. He frequently brings up the notion that professional people are protected from competition by the licensing structure that exists in the US. Although that’s true, and should definitely be examined to allow (for example) more doctors to practice in underserved areas, and to bring costs down, these issues are difficult to deal with in a trade pact because they are heavily impacted by state law. If we’re going to restructure our economic system, we need to do so at home, but we can’t ignore our relationships with other countries in the meantime.
So having reread Donald’s link, and having spent some time last evening reading Dean Baker’s blog, I will say this:
From the link: the ITC model is explicitly a full employment model. It rules out the possibility that the TPP could lead to a higher unemployment rate as a result of increased imports displacing U.S. workers. The ITC analysis also failed to include the negative growth effects of stronger and longer copyright and patent protection.
Although there are definitely problems with long-term IP protection, I think that the reason this is an issue in trade deals is that we are leveraging the property value of our tech-based industries in a concession to the fact that manufacturing has gone elsewhere. Technology is valueless as a commodity when it can be copied (or pirated), so a trade deficit is inevitable if all we have to offer from our economy are unprotected ideas. From my brief googling, it seems that economists are working on this problem, but the IP protection regime in international trade is as much about the trade deficit as it is about “giving corporations what they want” even if both things are true. I would feel better if the articles by progressives opposed to the TPP would acknowledge this and propose a way to solve it.
Dean Baker makes a lot of good point in his articles. He frequently brings up the notion that professional people are protected from competition by the licensing structure that exists in the US. Although that’s true, and should definitely be examined to allow (for example) more doctors to practice in underserved areas, and to bring costs down, these issues are difficult to deal with in a trade pact because they are heavily impacted by state law. If we’re going to restructure our economic system, we need to do so at home, but we can’t ignore our relationships with other countries in the meantime.
So having reread Donald’s link, and having spent some time last evening reading Dean Baker’s blog, I will say this:
From the link: the ITC model is explicitly a full employment model. It rules out the possibility that the TPP could lead to a higher unemployment rate as a result of increased imports displacing U.S. workers. The ITC analysis also failed to include the negative growth effects of stronger and longer copyright and patent protection.
Although there are definitely problems with long-term IP protection, I think that the reason this is an issue in trade deals is that we are leveraging the property value of our tech-based industries in a concession to the fact that manufacturing has gone elsewhere. Technology is valueless as a commodity when it can be copied (or pirated), so a trade deficit is inevitable if all we have to offer from our economy are unprotected ideas. From my brief googling, it seems that economists are working on this problem, but the IP protection regime in international trade is as much about the trade deficit as it is about “giving corporations what they want” even if both things are true. I would feel better if the articles by progressives opposed to the TPP would acknowledge this and propose a way to solve it.
Dean Baker makes a lot of good point in his articles. He frequently brings up the notion that professional people are protected from competition by the licensing structure that exists in the US. Although that’s true, and should definitely be examined to allow (for example) more doctors to practice in underserved areas, and to bring costs down, these issues are difficult to deal with in a trade pact because they are heavily impacted by state law. If we’re going to restructure our economic system, we need to do so at home, but we can’t ignore our relationships with other countries in the meantime.
Sapient,
I appreciate that you took some time to read some of DB’s material.
Technology is valueless as a commodity when it can be copied (or pirated), so a trade deficit is inevitable if all we have to offer from our economy are unprotected ideas.
Technology has “value” only insofar as it improves the human condition. Baker has promoted some alternative policies to remit fairly for the effort to come up with new ideas. They may or may not be better than granting a nearly permanent government enforced monopoly, but that is a discussion for another day. Also, other people in the world come up with new ideas. We aren’t the only ones who do that.
We still make lots of stuff. Other imbalances are driving our trade deficit.
Sapient,
I appreciate that you took some time to read some of DB’s material.
Technology is valueless as a commodity when it can be copied (or pirated), so a trade deficit is inevitable if all we have to offer from our economy are unprotected ideas.
Technology has “value” only insofar as it improves the human condition. Baker has promoted some alternative policies to remit fairly for the effort to come up with new ideas. They may or may not be better than granting a nearly permanent government enforced monopoly, but that is a discussion for another day. Also, other people in the world come up with new ideas. We aren’t the only ones who do that.
We still make lots of stuff. Other imbalances are driving our trade deficit.
Sapient,
I appreciate that you took some time to read some of DB’s material.
Technology is valueless as a commodity when it can be copied (or pirated), so a trade deficit is inevitable if all we have to offer from our economy are unprotected ideas.
Technology has “value” only insofar as it improves the human condition. Baker has promoted some alternative policies to remit fairly for the effort to come up with new ideas. They may or may not be better than granting a nearly permanent government enforced monopoly, but that is a discussion for another day. Also, other people in the world come up with new ideas. We aren’t the only ones who do that.
We still make lots of stuff. Other imbalances are driving our trade deficit.
We still make lots of stuff. Other imbalances are driving our trade deficit.
Agreed. Also, I too have trouble with the long-term IP protection, as I stated even before I did my homework. I know there are other ways to compensate people for technological innovation (and perhaps you can post a link to Baker’s thoughts on this). i hope that we find an effective alternative. Now, though, we have an incentive-based system that promises wealth to those who innovate. We have to work with the system we have as we engage in trade agreements, unless someone can point to a better way to do this.
Of course, people elsewhere have ideas. I assume that the IP protections that we put in place would be reciprocal. Again, I make that assumption without having read every word of the TPP, and without knowing whether mitigating factors are contained in the TPP. The treaty was negotiated over many years, with many countries, so I assume that Microsoft was not the only entity influencing the result.
We still make lots of stuff. Other imbalances are driving our trade deficit.
Agreed. Also, I too have trouble with the long-term IP protection, as I stated even before I did my homework. I know there are other ways to compensate people for technological innovation (and perhaps you can post a link to Baker’s thoughts on this). i hope that we find an effective alternative. Now, though, we have an incentive-based system that promises wealth to those who innovate. We have to work with the system we have as we engage in trade agreements, unless someone can point to a better way to do this.
Of course, people elsewhere have ideas. I assume that the IP protections that we put in place would be reciprocal. Again, I make that assumption without having read every word of the TPP, and without knowing whether mitigating factors are contained in the TPP. The treaty was negotiated over many years, with many countries, so I assume that Microsoft was not the only entity influencing the result.
We still make lots of stuff. Other imbalances are driving our trade deficit.
Agreed. Also, I too have trouble with the long-term IP protection, as I stated even before I did my homework. I know there are other ways to compensate people for technological innovation (and perhaps you can post a link to Baker’s thoughts on this). i hope that we find an effective alternative. Now, though, we have an incentive-based system that promises wealth to those who innovate. We have to work with the system we have as we engage in trade agreements, unless someone can point to a better way to do this.
Of course, people elsewhere have ideas. I assume that the IP protections that we put in place would be reciprocal. Again, I make that assumption without having read every word of the TPP, and without knowing whether mitigating factors are contained in the TPP. The treaty was negotiated over many years, with many countries, so I assume that Microsoft was not the only entity influencing the result.
An intro to Baker’s thoughts–
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/more-thoughts-on-patents-and-copyrights
An intro to Baker’s thoughts–
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/more-thoughts-on-patents-and-copyrights
An intro to Baker’s thoughts–
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/more-thoughts-on-patents-and-copyrights
Donald, I’ve always been against long-term IP protection – we’ve had other conversations about that – so I completely agree with Dean Baker’s argument about that. No convincing necessary as to that underlying argument.
How do we account for our strength in IP with regard to trade deficits? i’ll do my own research on that issue, but I haven’t seen that addressed with regard to any discussion about the TPP.
Again, my problem with the anti-TPP movement as a progressive torch is that it’s my impression that most people feel that it’s a job killer, and some subset are worried about the sovereignty issue. How many “progressives” are agitating for the amendment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (something that I would certainly support).
Donald, I’ve always been against long-term IP protection – we’ve had other conversations about that – so I completely agree with Dean Baker’s argument about that. No convincing necessary as to that underlying argument.
How do we account for our strength in IP with regard to trade deficits? i’ll do my own research on that issue, but I haven’t seen that addressed with regard to any discussion about the TPP.
Again, my problem with the anti-TPP movement as a progressive torch is that it’s my impression that most people feel that it’s a job killer, and some subset are worried about the sovereignty issue. How many “progressives” are agitating for the amendment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (something that I would certainly support).
Donald, I’ve always been against long-term IP protection – we’ve had other conversations about that – so I completely agree with Dean Baker’s argument about that. No convincing necessary as to that underlying argument.
How do we account for our strength in IP with regard to trade deficits? i’ll do my own research on that issue, but I haven’t seen that addressed with regard to any discussion about the TPP.
Again, my problem with the anti-TPP movement as a progressive torch is that it’s my impression that most people feel that it’s a job killer, and some subset are worried about the sovereignty issue. How many “progressives” are agitating for the amendment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (something that I would certainly support).
DCMA isn’t a conservative/liberal issue. it’s a somewhat technical consumer / creator issue, and stuff like that never makes the cut.
DCMA isn’t a conservative/liberal issue. it’s a somewhat technical consumer / creator issue, and stuff like that never makes the cut.
DCMA isn’t a conservative/liberal issue. it’s a somewhat technical consumer / creator issue, and stuff like that never makes the cut.
cleek, I guess so, but it seems like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is a more straightforward issue for people to be up in arms about.
cleek, I guess so, but it seems like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is a more straightforward issue for people to be up in arms about.
cleek, I guess so, but it seems like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is a more straightforward issue for people to be up in arms about.
it’s definitely something people should have been worked up about. but, it’s like 15 or 20 years old now.
it’s hard to get people worked up about Clinton-era copyright stuff.
it’s definitely something people should have been worked up about. but, it’s like 15 or 20 years old now.
it’s hard to get people worked up about Clinton-era copyright stuff.
it’s definitely something people should have been worked up about. but, it’s like 15 or 20 years old now.
it’s hard to get people worked up about Clinton-era copyright stuff.
I’m just trying to imagine what the protesters’ signs would read if the issue was intellectual-property law.
Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?
I’m just trying to imagine what the protesters’ signs would read if the issue was intellectual-property law.
Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?
I’m just trying to imagine what the protesters’ signs would read if the issue was intellectual-property law.
Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?
Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?
This is kind of what I’m saying about the TPP. I think people think it’s about jobs. I could be wrong.
Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?
This is kind of what I’m saying about the TPP. I think people think it’s about jobs. I could be wrong.
Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?
This is kind of what I’m saying about the TPP. I think people think it’s about jobs. I could be wrong.
if you want the hard-left opinion, hop on over to places like CommonDreams or TruthDig and read some of their TPP articles.
ex.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/05/betrayed-again-time-unconvincing-arguments-tpp
sounds pretty dire.
if you want the hard-left opinion, hop on over to places like CommonDreams or TruthDig and read some of their TPP articles.
ex.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/05/betrayed-again-time-unconvincing-arguments-tpp
sounds pretty dire.
if you want the hard-left opinion, hop on over to places like CommonDreams or TruthDig and read some of their TPP articles.
ex.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/05/betrayed-again-time-unconvincing-arguments-tpp
sounds pretty dire.
Has anyone read the lyrics to “The Beat Goes On”?
“The grocery store’s the super mart, uh huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
Electrically they keep a baseball score.”
Who would want to copy that?
I say let’s levitate Microsoft, and I’d be happy to shoplift any of Russell’s and cleek’s software from Best Buy, entitled “Steal This Software.”
“Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?”
Before we get that granularly civilized in our policy discussions, first we need to kill these Trump-traction racist, fascist, conservative Republican filth and all of their fellow travelers in the Republican Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?smid=fb-share
There are tens of millions of them and as has been pointed out, they have the traction of Panzer divisions running over Polish Jews (their anti-Semitic brothers-in-hate have taken over Poland too, as a matter of fact, though they seem to be losing some traction in Kansas, so maybe there is still time for ameliorative peaceful action through normal channels:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kansas-republican-primary-brownback
See, their reptilian brain stems ARE against fractional-reserve banking (where would debt mavin Trump be without fractional-reserve banking, I ask them, only to be sucker-punched) and copyright protections for Woody Allen, but first they want to kill the niggers in the White House, the she-bitch running for President, the wetbacks, the faggots, the camel jockeys, the chinks, the kikes, and the spics and any smarmy liberal elitist one of us who dares utter the educated words “fractional reserve banking” or “digital millenium copyright act.”
First things first.
First violence, and then change.
Has anyone read the lyrics to “The Beat Goes On”?
“The grocery store’s the super mart, uh huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
Electrically they keep a baseball score.”
Who would want to copy that?
I say let’s levitate Microsoft, and I’d be happy to shoplift any of Russell’s and cleek’s software from Best Buy, entitled “Steal This Software.”
“Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?”
Before we get that granularly civilized in our policy discussions, first we need to kill these Trump-traction racist, fascist, conservative Republican filth and all of their fellow travelers in the Republican Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?smid=fb-share
There are tens of millions of them and as has been pointed out, they have the traction of Panzer divisions running over Polish Jews (their anti-Semitic brothers-in-hate have taken over Poland too, as a matter of fact, though they seem to be losing some traction in Kansas, so maybe there is still time for ameliorative peaceful action through normal channels:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kansas-republican-primary-brownback
See, their reptilian brain stems ARE against fractional-reserve banking (where would debt mavin Trump be without fractional-reserve banking, I ask them, only to be sucker-punched) and copyright protections for Woody Allen, but first they want to kill the niggers in the White House, the she-bitch running for President, the wetbacks, the faggots, the camel jockeys, the chinks, the kikes, and the spics and any smarmy liberal elitist one of us who dares utter the educated words “fractional reserve banking” or “digital millenium copyright act.”
First things first.
First violence, and then change.
Has anyone read the lyrics to “The Beat Goes On”?
“The grocery store’s the super mart, uh huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
Electrically they keep a baseball score.”
Who would want to copy that?
I say let’s levitate Microsoft, and I’d be happy to shoplift any of Russell’s and cleek’s software from Best Buy, entitled “Steal This Software.”
“Would there be violence if they ran into people protesting fractional-reserve banking?”
Before we get that granularly civilized in our policy discussions, first we need to kill these Trump-traction racist, fascist, conservative Republican filth and all of their fellow travelers in the Republican Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?smid=fb-share
There are tens of millions of them and as has been pointed out, they have the traction of Panzer divisions running over Polish Jews (their anti-Semitic brothers-in-hate have taken over Poland too, as a matter of fact, though they seem to be losing some traction in Kansas, so maybe there is still time for ameliorative peaceful action through normal channels:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kansas-republican-primary-brownback
See, their reptilian brain stems ARE against fractional-reserve banking (where would debt mavin Trump be without fractional-reserve banking, I ask them, only to be sucker-punched) and copyright protections for Woody Allen, but first they want to kill the niggers in the White House, the she-bitch running for President, the wetbacks, the faggots, the camel jockeys, the chinks, the kikes, and the spics and any smarmy liberal elitist one of us who dares utter the educated words “fractional reserve banking” or “digital millenium copyright act.”
First things first.
First violence, and then change.
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant? Oh my.
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant? Oh my.
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant? Oh my.
Comrade:
Despite the fact that Russia and China actually engaged in actual land combat not all that long ago?
More than 60 years ago, so why the huge naval build up?
Despite the fact that the memory of Japan’s invasion is still relatively fresh in Chinese minds?
Japan was defeated and disarmed. Japanese re-armament is a direct response to PRC arming to the teeth, saber rattling and asserting sovereignty over atolls in international waters.
Despite the fact that Japan’s current prime minister is pushing for rearmament?
See comment above.
Despite the fact that N. Korea v S. Korea continues to be an open sore in east asia?
Neither are a naval threat to the PRC. S Korea is no threat to the PRC and I’m pretty sure N Korea and the PRC are aligned, not opposed.
Despite the decades old and ongoing border dispute and clashes with India?
India is the aggressor? I think not. Tibet?
What else you got?
I’m back in it; should never have taken off. Played shitty, lost $17. Later.
Comrade:
Despite the fact that Russia and China actually engaged in actual land combat not all that long ago?
More than 60 years ago, so why the huge naval build up?
Despite the fact that the memory of Japan’s invasion is still relatively fresh in Chinese minds?
Japan was defeated and disarmed. Japanese re-armament is a direct response to PRC arming to the teeth, saber rattling and asserting sovereignty over atolls in international waters.
Despite the fact that Japan’s current prime minister is pushing for rearmament?
See comment above.
Despite the fact that N. Korea v S. Korea continues to be an open sore in east asia?
Neither are a naval threat to the PRC. S Korea is no threat to the PRC and I’m pretty sure N Korea and the PRC are aligned, not opposed.
Despite the decades old and ongoing border dispute and clashes with India?
India is the aggressor? I think not. Tibet?
What else you got?
I’m back in it; should never have taken off. Played shitty, lost $17. Later.
Comrade:
Despite the fact that Russia and China actually engaged in actual land combat not all that long ago?
More than 60 years ago, so why the huge naval build up?
Despite the fact that the memory of Japan’s invasion is still relatively fresh in Chinese minds?
Japan was defeated and disarmed. Japanese re-armament is a direct response to PRC arming to the teeth, saber rattling and asserting sovereignty over atolls in international waters.
Despite the fact that Japan’s current prime minister is pushing for rearmament?
See comment above.
Despite the fact that N. Korea v S. Korea continues to be an open sore in east asia?
Neither are a naval threat to the PRC. S Korea is no threat to the PRC and I’m pretty sure N Korea and the PRC are aligned, not opposed.
Despite the decades old and ongoing border dispute and clashes with India?
India is the aggressor? I think not. Tibet?
What else you got?
I’m back in it; should never have taken off. Played shitty, lost $17. Later.
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant?
IOKIYTrump
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant?
IOKIYTrump
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant?
IOKIYTrump
In dealing with Russia, China’s best course looks to be to keep a low profile. Let Putin finish his work of making Russia implode. Keep the Chinese economy working well (at least, visibly better than Russia’s). And wait for everything east of the Urals fall into their lap.
In dealing with Russia, China’s best course looks to be to keep a low profile. Let Putin finish his work of making Russia implode. Keep the Chinese economy working well (at least, visibly better than Russia’s). And wait for everything east of the Urals fall into their lap.
In dealing with Russia, China’s best course looks to be to keep a low profile. Let Putin finish his work of making Russia implode. Keep the Chinese economy working well (at least, visibly better than Russia’s). And wait for everything east of the Urals fall into their lap.
From the TPM link (emphasis added):
I say I cringed not because there’s anything wrong with the piece but because we too were working on it back in February and March and had it pretty well nailed. The hold up was that there was at least one theoretically possible way she could have been legal that we couldn’t definitively rule out since the Trumps’ of course were not going to answer any questions or provide any of her immigrants papers.
This demonstrates to me the difference between having a bias and being full of sh*t. TPM is a liberal outlet, to be sure, but I can’t imagine this level of restraint from many of the conservative outlets I’ve seen people quoting as sources (not here so much, mind you). Would the people at, say, Newsmax concern themselves with sort of verification before putting a story out?
From the TPM link (emphasis added):
I say I cringed not because there’s anything wrong with the piece but because we too were working on it back in February and March and had it pretty well nailed. The hold up was that there was at least one theoretically possible way she could have been legal that we couldn’t definitively rule out since the Trumps’ of course were not going to answer any questions or provide any of her immigrants papers.
This demonstrates to me the difference between having a bias and being full of sh*t. TPM is a liberal outlet, to be sure, but I can’t imagine this level of restraint from many of the conservative outlets I’ve seen people quoting as sources (not here so much, mind you). Would the people at, say, Newsmax concern themselves with sort of verification before putting a story out?
From the TPM link (emphasis added):
I say I cringed not because there’s anything wrong with the piece but because we too were working on it back in February and March and had it pretty well nailed. The hold up was that there was at least one theoretically possible way she could have been legal that we couldn’t definitively rule out since the Trumps’ of course were not going to answer any questions or provide any of her immigrants papers.
This demonstrates to me the difference between having a bias and being full of sh*t. TPM is a liberal outlet, to be sure, but I can’t imagine this level of restraint from many of the conservative outlets I’ve seen people quoting as sources (not here so much, mind you). Would the people at, say, Newsmax concern themselves with sort of verification before putting a story out?
just FYI, we have a new entry in the “No You Created Trump” playoffs: the Congressional GOP leaders!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-hannity-goes-off-paul-ryan-john-mccain
just FYI, we have a new entry in the “No You Created Trump” playoffs: the Congressional GOP leaders!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-hannity-goes-off-paul-ryan-john-mccain
just FYI, we have a new entry in the “No You Created Trump” playoffs: the Congressional GOP leaders!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-hannity-goes-off-paul-ryan-john-mccain
hsh, I do applaud them for not printing a story that at best is completely unimportant.
The process she describes is used pretty much every day by any number of individuals who work in consulting/contracting roles who can’t get an H1-B sponsor(in those days they were given out by lottery anyway) or, as most likely for her, are coming for a few days. It is the going 60 in a 55 version of visa “fraud”, by a young model at the direction of her agency. If immigration acted on this it would constitute clear use of the governments resources for political purposes.
None of which has anything to do with Trumps stance on immigration. Which TPM didn’t bother to process. I
hsh, I do applaud them for not printing a story that at best is completely unimportant.
The process she describes is used pretty much every day by any number of individuals who work in consulting/contracting roles who can’t get an H1-B sponsor(in those days they were given out by lottery anyway) or, as most likely for her, are coming for a few days. It is the going 60 in a 55 version of visa “fraud”, by a young model at the direction of her agency. If immigration acted on this it would constitute clear use of the governments resources for political purposes.
None of which has anything to do with Trumps stance on immigration. Which TPM didn’t bother to process. I
hsh, I do applaud them for not printing a story that at best is completely unimportant.
The process she describes is used pretty much every day by any number of individuals who work in consulting/contracting roles who can’t get an H1-B sponsor(in those days they were given out by lottery anyway) or, as most likely for her, are coming for a few days. It is the going 60 in a 55 version of visa “fraud”, by a young model at the direction of her agency. If immigration acted on this it would constitute clear use of the governments resources for political purposes.
None of which has anything to do with Trumps stance on immigration. Which TPM didn’t bother to process. I
it’s hard to get people worked up about Clinton-era copyright stuff.
certainly. but it is part and parcel of the bigger issue of public policies that promote the redistribution of income upward, leaving the proles to go at each others’ throats fighting over the scraps.
if misinterpreting the technical aspects of TPP still advances the politics of reversing that disastrous big issue, well, I’m ok with it.
it’s hard to get people worked up about Clinton-era copyright stuff.
certainly. but it is part and parcel of the bigger issue of public policies that promote the redistribution of income upward, leaving the proles to go at each others’ throats fighting over the scraps.
if misinterpreting the technical aspects of TPP still advances the politics of reversing that disastrous big issue, well, I’m ok with it.
it’s hard to get people worked up about Clinton-era copyright stuff.
certainly. but it is part and parcel of the bigger issue of public policies that promote the redistribution of income upward, leaving the proles to go at each others’ throats fighting over the scraps.
if misinterpreting the technical aspects of TPP still advances the politics of reversing that disastrous big issue, well, I’m ok with it.
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant?
IOKIYTrump
Mostly, this is just a big “pftt, so what?” But I would amend to:
IOKIYwhite
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant?
IOKIYTrump
Mostly, this is just a big “pftt, so what?” But I would amend to:
IOKIYwhite
Melania Trump was (is?) an illegal immigrant?
IOKIYTrump
Mostly, this is just a big “pftt, so what?” But I would amend to:
IOKIYwhite
IOKIYwhite
or Indian or Spanish or Canadian or Mexican or British or, I guess, Slovenian. It’s kind of a long list.
IOKIYwhite
or Indian or Spanish or Canadian or Mexican or British or, I guess, Slovenian. It’s kind of a long list.
IOKIYwhite
or Indian or Spanish or Canadian or Mexican or British or, I guess, Slovenian. It’s kind of a long list.
Sorry to be so dense (I certainly am about TPP) but I don’t understand Marty. I thought it wasn’t OK with Trump, where people other than his wife were concerned?
Sorry to be so dense (I certainly am about TPP) but I don’t understand Marty. I thought it wasn’t OK with Trump, where people other than his wife were concerned?
Sorry to be so dense (I certainly am about TPP) but I don’t understand Marty. I thought it wasn’t OK with Trump, where people other than his wife were concerned?
Got this one from my son:
“Out of 319 Million People
We Narrow It Down to These Two
Way to Go, America”
Got this one from my son:
“Out of 319 Million People
We Narrow It Down to These Two
Way to Go, America”
Got this one from my son:
“Out of 319 Million People
We Narrow It Down to These Two
Way to Go, America”
trying to think of the last time i had no reservations about any candidate for anything..
.
..
…
….
nope.
trying to think of the last time i had no reservations about any candidate for anything..
.
..
…
….
nope.
trying to think of the last time i had no reservations about any candidate for anything..
.
..
…
….
nope.
In America, any boy, or girl, can grow up to be president. Well, no one has ever claimed the system is perfect.
If pass trends hold, there are alive at this moment about 16 former, present and future presidents.
In America, any boy, or girl, can grow up to be president. Well, no one has ever claimed the system is perfect.
If pass trends hold, there are alive at this moment about 16 former, present and future presidents.
In America, any boy, or girl, can grow up to be president. Well, no one has ever claimed the system is perfect.
If pass trends hold, there are alive at this moment about 16 former, present and future presidents.
She’s lump, she’s lump
She’s in my head
She’s lump, she’s lump, she’s lump
She might be dead
Millions of peaches, peaches for me
Millions of peaches, peaches for free
She’s lump, she’s lump
She’s in my head
She’s lump, she’s lump, she’s lump
She might be dead
Millions of peaches, peaches for me
Millions of peaches, peaches for free
She’s lump, she’s lump
She’s in my head
She’s lump, she’s lump, she’s lump
She might be dead
Millions of peaches, peaches for me
Millions of peaches, peaches for free
but that’s only like 3 of them….
but that’s only like 3 of them….
but that’s only like 3 of them….
There’s 3 of us, but we’re not the Beatles!
There’s 3 of us, but we’re not the Beatles!
There’s 3 of us, but we’re not the Beatles!
GftNC,
I am sure it is not ok with Trump for anyone else. Heck, if pushed he might divorce her over it to prove how authentic he is. But her use of the those visa laws isn’t really pertinent. And since she won’t be in the WH anyway its a pretty innocuous story.
GftNC,
I am sure it is not ok with Trump for anyone else. Heck, if pushed he might divorce her over it to prove how authentic he is. But her use of the those visa laws isn’t really pertinent. And since she won’t be in the WH anyway its a pretty innocuous story.
GftNC,
I am sure it is not ok with Trump for anyone else. Heck, if pushed he might divorce her over it to prove how authentic he is. But her use of the those visa laws isn’t really pertinent. And since she won’t be in the WH anyway its a pretty innocuous story.
The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom….
The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom….
The Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom….
or Indian or Spanish or Canadian or Mexican or British or, I guess, Slovenian. It’s kind of a long list.
really?
or Indian or Spanish or Canadian or Mexican or British or, I guess, Slovenian. It’s kind of a long list.
really?
or Indian or Spanish or Canadian or Mexican or British or, I guess, Slovenian. It’s kind of a long list.
really?
And since she won’t be in the WH anyway its a pretty innocuous story.
From your lips to God’s ear, as my mother would say. I don’t dare to assume this is so, but I really, really hope you’re right.
As far as UK Prime Ministers are concerned, I’m sure many of them have been deeply dodgy geezers, but nonetheless, what exactly did you have in mind? Spill….
And since she won’t be in the WH anyway its a pretty innocuous story.
From your lips to God’s ear, as my mother would say. I don’t dare to assume this is so, but I really, really hope you’re right.
As far as UK Prime Ministers are concerned, I’m sure many of them have been deeply dodgy geezers, but nonetheless, what exactly did you have in mind? Spill….
And since she won’t be in the WH anyway its a pretty innocuous story.
From your lips to God’s ear, as my mother would say. I don’t dare to assume this is so, but I really, really hope you’re right.
As far as UK Prime Ministers are concerned, I’m sure many of them have been deeply dodgy geezers, but nonetheless, what exactly did you have in mind? Spill….
All those Latinos that go home every six months to get their visa stamped…..cmon bobbyp
All those Latinos that go home every six months to get their visa stamped…..cmon bobbyp
All those Latinos that go home every six months to get their visa stamped…..cmon bobbyp
GftNC just giving the Beatles a proper name.
GftNC just giving the Beatles a proper name.
GftNC just giving the Beatles a proper name.
Got it!
Got it!
Got it!
Marty, if you are white and in the country illegally, you’re chances of being rounded up and deported are less than if you are Hispanic or Asian.
Marty, if you are white and in the country illegally, you’re chances of being rounded up and deported are less than if you are Hispanic or Asian.
Marty, if you are white and in the country illegally, you’re chances of being rounded up and deported are less than if you are Hispanic or Asian.
Way to Go, America
Even if I had faith in my own abilities, I would never, ever, ever seek public office. Who wants the grief for oneself, one’s family? Never. We’re lucky we get such (with exceptions, not talking to you, W) competent people elected.
Way to Go, America
Even if I had faith in my own abilities, I would never, ever, ever seek public office. Who wants the grief for oneself, one’s family? Never. We’re lucky we get such (with exceptions, not talking to you, W) competent people elected.
Way to Go, America
Even if I had faith in my own abilities, I would never, ever, ever seek public office. Who wants the grief for oneself, one’s family? Never. We’re lucky we get such (with exceptions, not talking to you, W) competent people elected.
or Run EMI
or Run EMI
or Run EMI
“Marty, if you are white and in the country illegally, you’re chances of being rounded up and deported are less than if you are Hispanic or Asian.”
No shit, well I don’t know about Asians. Is there statistically significant data available on Asian deportations? However, if your jobbing the visa system to get to work and you go home regularly to get your temporary visa renewed I bet there is less difference.
“Marty, if you are white and in the country illegally, you’re chances of being rounded up and deported are less than if you are Hispanic or Asian.”
No shit, well I don’t know about Asians. Is there statistically significant data available on Asian deportations? However, if your jobbing the visa system to get to work and you go home regularly to get your temporary visa renewed I bet there is less difference.
“Marty, if you are white and in the country illegally, you’re chances of being rounded up and deported are less than if you are Hispanic or Asian.”
No shit, well I don’t know about Asians. Is there statistically significant data available on Asian deportations? However, if your jobbing the visa system to get to work and you go home regularly to get your temporary visa renewed I bet there is less difference.
The only *actual* *for sure* illegal immigrant that I knew was an English guy, living in Chicago.
Build the wall.
The only *actual* *for sure* illegal immigrant that I knew was an English guy, living in Chicago.
Build the wall.
The only *actual* *for sure* illegal immigrant that I knew was an English guy, living in Chicago.
Build the wall.
Not an open thread so, sorry, but James Taylor told the story about being discovered by the Beatles last night. Somehow it was an even cooler story listening to him tell it in person, then play Something in the Way She Moves. At 68 he can still make you feel how nerve wracking that moment was, 48 years ago. And anyway else he wants you to feel.
It was the first time I had heard Steamroller Blues live. The band was awesome, they (Jackson Browne) sang Take It Easy together. Then Doctor My Eyes in the encore set. But America the Beautiful/Shed a little Light put us on our feet never to sit again for the night.
It reminded me that, outside the hate filled echo chamber of the internet, we are mostly a people who want to live together in love and equality. The unrealized promise of a hopeful youth.
Not an open thread so, sorry, but James Taylor told the story about being discovered by the Beatles last night. Somehow it was an even cooler story listening to him tell it in person, then play Something in the Way She Moves. At 68 he can still make you feel how nerve wracking that moment was, 48 years ago. And anyway else he wants you to feel.
It was the first time I had heard Steamroller Blues live. The band was awesome, they (Jackson Browne) sang Take It Easy together. Then Doctor My Eyes in the encore set. But America the Beautiful/Shed a little Light put us on our feet never to sit again for the night.
It reminded me that, outside the hate filled echo chamber of the internet, we are mostly a people who want to live together in love and equality. The unrealized promise of a hopeful youth.
Not an open thread so, sorry, but James Taylor told the story about being discovered by the Beatles last night. Somehow it was an even cooler story listening to him tell it in person, then play Something in the Way She Moves. At 68 he can still make you feel how nerve wracking that moment was, 48 years ago. And anyway else he wants you to feel.
It was the first time I had heard Steamroller Blues live. The band was awesome, they (Jackson Browne) sang Take It Easy together. Then Doctor My Eyes in the encore set. But America the Beautiful/Shed a little Light put us on our feet never to sit again for the night.
It reminded me that, outside the hate filled echo chamber of the internet, we are mostly a people who want to live together in love and equality. The unrealized promise of a hopeful youth.
seconded.
seconded.
seconded.
It reminded me that, outside the hate filled echo chamber of the internet, we are mostly a people who want to live together in love and equality. The unrealized promise of a hopeful youth.
Not me. Screw everybody. I like being a snarky-ass, old, white-privileged male. The rapier-like wit is just a bonus.
It reminded me that, outside the hate filled echo chamber of the internet, we are mostly a people who want to live together in love and equality. The unrealized promise of a hopeful youth.
Not me. Screw everybody. I like being a snarky-ass, old, white-privileged male. The rapier-like wit is just a bonus.
It reminded me that, outside the hate filled echo chamber of the internet, we are mostly a people who want to live together in love and equality. The unrealized promise of a hopeful youth.
Not me. Screw everybody. I like being a snarky-ass, old, white-privileged male. The rapier-like wit is just a bonus.
Well, Texas is a whole nother country.
Me third.
Well, Texas is a whole nother country.
Me third.
Well, Texas is a whole nother country.
Me third.
Hippies.
Hippies.
Hippies.
Beatles Schmeatles $-!
Beatles Schmeatles $-!
Beatles Schmeatles $-!
Economists disagree a bit about the TPP, but most say that the job impact is not a huge issue.
Most? Can we get a show of hands?
I’d be happy to shoplift any of Russell’s and cleek’s software from Best Buy, entitled “Steal This Software.”
I’ve seen a tiny bit of clerk’s work, he’s good.
Turbulence traffics in stuff that is so far above my pay grade that I probably couldn’t even follow the Cliff notes. Slarti, also.
Software wise, I’m a plumber. But I’m a good plumber.
It pays for vibraphone lessons.
The process she describes is used pretty much every day by any number of individuals who work in consulting/contracting roles who can’t get an H1-B sponsor
IOKIY white collar.
Out of 319 Million People
We Narrow It Down to These Two
Way to Go, America
I feel you.
The only *actual* *for sure* illegal immigrant that I knew was an English guy, living in Chicago.
In my case, Irish, Beverly MA.
My great-grands came here with bugger all, they did not speak English and never did speak English, they lived in an Italian ghetto in East Orange NJ where nobody spoke English. They were Catholic, and arrived at a time when Catholic + Italian was not such a good thing, and in fact at a time when people of their general ethnic persuasion actually were active in various programs of anarchist terrorism.
My great-grandfather dug holes in the ground that subways run through now, my great-grandmother made ravioli and knitted mittens. I don’t know this for a fact, but I am extraordinarily sure that they did not have any kind of paper work in order before embarking from Genoa to Ellis Island.
They got on a boat in Italy, and they got off in NY. And here I am, along with probably a couple hundred other of their progeny.
We grant, in a good year, something like a million permanent visas per year. That’s about one-third of one percent of the population of the US.
That is why there are so many illegal immigrants here.
You read it here first.
The other thing I’ve been pondering is the common claim that HRC is a liar, and is therefore unfit for the office of POTUS. Or, at least, is an unsavory choice for the same.
Which makes me wonder, compared to whom? Somehow I missed the army of cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die truth-telling candidates.
Where is the freaking bar?
And please take that question in any sense you like.
Economists disagree a bit about the TPP, but most say that the job impact is not a huge issue.
Most? Can we get a show of hands?
I’d be happy to shoplift any of Russell’s and cleek’s software from Best Buy, entitled “Steal This Software.”
I’ve seen a tiny bit of clerk’s work, he’s good.
Turbulence traffics in stuff that is so far above my pay grade that I probably couldn’t even follow the Cliff notes. Slarti, also.
Software wise, I’m a plumber. But I’m a good plumber.
It pays for vibraphone lessons.
The process she describes is used pretty much every day by any number of individuals who work in consulting/contracting roles who can’t get an H1-B sponsor
IOKIY white collar.
Out of 319 Million People
We Narrow It Down to These Two
Way to Go, America
I feel you.
The only *actual* *for sure* illegal immigrant that I knew was an English guy, living in Chicago.
In my case, Irish, Beverly MA.
My great-grands came here with bugger all, they did not speak English and never did speak English, they lived in an Italian ghetto in East Orange NJ where nobody spoke English. They were Catholic, and arrived at a time when Catholic + Italian was not such a good thing, and in fact at a time when people of their general ethnic persuasion actually were active in various programs of anarchist terrorism.
My great-grandfather dug holes in the ground that subways run through now, my great-grandmother made ravioli and knitted mittens. I don’t know this for a fact, but I am extraordinarily sure that they did not have any kind of paper work in order before embarking from Genoa to Ellis Island.
They got on a boat in Italy, and they got off in NY. And here I am, along with probably a couple hundred other of their progeny.
We grant, in a good year, something like a million permanent visas per year. That’s about one-third of one percent of the population of the US.
That is why there are so many illegal immigrants here.
You read it here first.
The other thing I’ve been pondering is the common claim that HRC is a liar, and is therefore unfit for the office of POTUS. Or, at least, is an unsavory choice for the same.
Which makes me wonder, compared to whom? Somehow I missed the army of cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die truth-telling candidates.
Where is the freaking bar?
And please take that question in any sense you like.
Economists disagree a bit about the TPP, but most say that the job impact is not a huge issue.
Most? Can we get a show of hands?
I’d be happy to shoplift any of Russell’s and cleek’s software from Best Buy, entitled “Steal This Software.”
I’ve seen a tiny bit of clerk’s work, he’s good.
Turbulence traffics in stuff that is so far above my pay grade that I probably couldn’t even follow the Cliff notes. Slarti, also.
Software wise, I’m a plumber. But I’m a good plumber.
It pays for vibraphone lessons.
The process she describes is used pretty much every day by any number of individuals who work in consulting/contracting roles who can’t get an H1-B sponsor
IOKIY white collar.
Out of 319 Million People
We Narrow It Down to These Two
Way to Go, America
I feel you.
The only *actual* *for sure* illegal immigrant that I knew was an English guy, living in Chicago.
In my case, Irish, Beverly MA.
My great-grands came here with bugger all, they did not speak English and never did speak English, they lived in an Italian ghetto in East Orange NJ where nobody spoke English. They were Catholic, and arrived at a time when Catholic + Italian was not such a good thing, and in fact at a time when people of their general ethnic persuasion actually were active in various programs of anarchist terrorism.
My great-grandfather dug holes in the ground that subways run through now, my great-grandmother made ravioli and knitted mittens. I don’t know this for a fact, but I am extraordinarily sure that they did not have any kind of paper work in order before embarking from Genoa to Ellis Island.
They got on a boat in Italy, and they got off in NY. And here I am, along with probably a couple hundred other of their progeny.
We grant, in a good year, something like a million permanent visas per year. That’s about one-third of one percent of the population of the US.
That is why there are so many illegal immigrants here.
You read it here first.
The other thing I’ve been pondering is the common claim that HRC is a liar, and is therefore unfit for the office of POTUS. Or, at least, is an unsavory choice for the same.
Which makes me wonder, compared to whom? Somehow I missed the army of cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die truth-telling candidates.
Where is the freaking bar?
And please take that question in any sense you like.
It’s a block and a half down the street. I’m off in a few minutes to do karaoke.
Tonight’s set:
Walk On By Dionne Warwick, but I’m going to lower the chorus an octave and try to copy Laura Nyro’s vocalizations in HER cover.
Miss You Rolling Stones
Higher and Higher Jackie Wilson
Maybe “The Girl Is Mine” McCartney/Jackson if the young woman is there who I sing duets with on occasion.
I’ll sneak a Beatles song if the vibe (remember vibes; they exist) is right. Been working on Hey Bulldog.
It’s a block and a half down the street. I’m off in a few minutes to do karaoke.
Tonight’s set:
Walk On By Dionne Warwick, but I’m going to lower the chorus an octave and try to copy Laura Nyro’s vocalizations in HER cover.
Miss You Rolling Stones
Higher and Higher Jackie Wilson
Maybe “The Girl Is Mine” McCartney/Jackson if the young woman is there who I sing duets with on occasion.
I’ll sneak a Beatles song if the vibe (remember vibes; they exist) is right. Been working on Hey Bulldog.
It’s a block and a half down the street. I’m off in a few minutes to do karaoke.
Tonight’s set:
Walk On By Dionne Warwick, but I’m going to lower the chorus an octave and try to copy Laura Nyro’s vocalizations in HER cover.
Miss You Rolling Stones
Higher and Higher Jackie Wilson
Maybe “The Girl Is Mine” McCartney/Jackson if the young woman is there who I sing duets with on occasion.
I’ll sneak a Beatles song if the vibe (remember vibes; they exist) is right. Been working on Hey Bulldog.
I’m partial to I dig a pony, but it seems like everyone is covering that these days.
I have a friend who who does a great version of Reba mcintyre’s “fancy”, but in the voice of lorne greene.
I’m partial to I dig a pony, but it seems like everyone is covering that these days.
I have a friend who who does a great version of Reba mcintyre’s “fancy”, but in the voice of lorne greene.
I’m partial to I dig a pony, but it seems like everyone is covering that these days.
I have a friend who who does a great version of Reba mcintyre’s “fancy”, but in the voice of lorne greene.
also, too, IMO the bachrach-davis-Warwick combination was just freaking brilliant.
hip, effortless, light as a feather, but there’s a lot there when you get under the hood.
high level songcraft.
also, too, IMO the bachrach-davis-Warwick combination was just freaking brilliant.
hip, effortless, light as a feather, but there’s a lot there when you get under the hood.
high level songcraft.
also, too, IMO the bachrach-davis-Warwick combination was just freaking brilliant.
hip, effortless, light as a feather, but there’s a lot there when you get under the hood.
high level songcraft.
david, not davis. Hal david.
david, not davis. Hal david.
david, not davis. Hal david.
Bachrach-david nice stuff. Amazingly hard to sing for songs that sound effortless. Nyro is cheating. I just punch the words a little and get the breathless sound, no note. They are mostly drunk anyway.
Bachrach-david nice stuff. Amazingly hard to sing for songs that sound effortless. Nyro is cheating. I just punch the words a little and get the breathless sound, no note. They are mostly drunk anyway.
Bachrach-david nice stuff. Amazingly hard to sing for songs that sound effortless. Nyro is cheating. I just punch the words a little and get the breathless sound, no note. They are mostly drunk anyway.
“Is Hillary Clinton Corrupt? An Archive of Financial Improprieties” @munilass https://medium.com/@munilass/is-hillary-clinton-corrupt-an-archive-of-financial-improprieties-5d6efc01111
“Is Hillary Clinton Corrupt? An Archive of Financial Improprieties” @munilass https://medium.com/@munilass/is-hillary-clinton-corrupt-an-archive-of-financial-improprieties-5d6efc01111
“Is Hillary Clinton Corrupt? An Archive of Financial Improprieties” @munilass https://medium.com/@munilass/is-hillary-clinton-corrupt-an-archive-of-financial-improprieties-5d6efc01111
Three comments:
1) Congratulations on all the commentary and interest. It took me awhile to scroll down to the end.
2) Kaine is there to reassure and draw White Catholic voters. He may only make a small difference, but 1-2% of the electorate is actually a huge difference. There have not been very many (1?) Catholics in national elective office, so that will work.
3) Many here are reacting to Kaine’s introduction speech that Saturday. It was exhaustively covered by CNN and he gave the performance of his life. And it was about his life, and it was fine. Unfortunately, our society will soon be looking for the and what? and it will be hard to sustain interest for him. Still, he’s in great position for 2020, if things go well (and Hillary goes into a well-deserved sunset).
Three comments:
1) Congratulations on all the commentary and interest. It took me awhile to scroll down to the end.
2) Kaine is there to reassure and draw White Catholic voters. He may only make a small difference, but 1-2% of the electorate is actually a huge difference. There have not been very many (1?) Catholics in national elective office, so that will work.
3) Many here are reacting to Kaine’s introduction speech that Saturday. It was exhaustively covered by CNN and he gave the performance of his life. And it was about his life, and it was fine. Unfortunately, our society will soon be looking for the and what? and it will be hard to sustain interest for him. Still, he’s in great position for 2020, if things go well (and Hillary goes into a well-deserved sunset).
Three comments:
1) Congratulations on all the commentary and interest. It took me awhile to scroll down to the end.
2) Kaine is there to reassure and draw White Catholic voters. He may only make a small difference, but 1-2% of the electorate is actually a huge difference. There have not been very many (1?) Catholics in national elective office, so that will work.
3) Many here are reacting to Kaine’s introduction speech that Saturday. It was exhaustively covered by CNN and he gave the performance of his life. And it was about his life, and it was fine. Unfortunately, our society will soon be looking for the and what? and it will be hard to sustain interest for him. Still, he’s in great position for 2020, if things go well (and Hillary goes into a well-deserved sunset).
He was just afraid to say the dreaded D—– word. At the end of that sentence.
I do like one statement that Russell made: “I’ll thank you not to vote for Trump…” I think that should be the motto of every thinking person for the next three months.
He was just afraid to say the dreaded D—– word. At the end of that sentence.
I do like one statement that Russell made: “I’ll thank you not to vote for Trump…” I think that should be the motto of every thinking person for the next three months.
He was just afraid to say the dreaded D—– word. At the end of that sentence.
I do like one statement that Russell made: “I’ll thank you not to vote for Trump…” I think that should be the motto of every thinking person for the next three months.
that’s a whole lot of insinuation and guilt-by-association and mind-reading.
if there’s one thing her critics have, it’s imagination and bad faith.
that’s a whole lot of insinuation and guilt-by-association and mind-reading.
if there’s one thing her critics have, it’s imagination and bad faith.
that’s a whole lot of insinuation and guilt-by-association and mind-reading.
if there’s one thing her critics have, it’s imagination and bad faith.
from marty’s link:
“Perhaps this is true of everyone in Washington DC”
‘everyone’ is a strong word. i’m betting on ‘most’.
the claim that the Clinton’s have taken advantage of their office to enrich themselves is just not something I’m going to argue about.
unfortunately, that kind of behavior doesn’t appear to be something that the nation wants to address.
go back up thread and read the responses to my suggestion that people sharing a household with national office holders be excluded from working as lobbyists.
we know the way to stop it, but we don’t have the discipline.
my question is what makes Clinton unusual.
where is the bar, and who does it apply to.
from marty’s link:
“Perhaps this is true of everyone in Washington DC”
‘everyone’ is a strong word. i’m betting on ‘most’.
the claim that the Clinton’s have taken advantage of their office to enrich themselves is just not something I’m going to argue about.
unfortunately, that kind of behavior doesn’t appear to be something that the nation wants to address.
go back up thread and read the responses to my suggestion that people sharing a household with national office holders be excluded from working as lobbyists.
we know the way to stop it, but we don’t have the discipline.
my question is what makes Clinton unusual.
where is the bar, and who does it apply to.
from marty’s link:
“Perhaps this is true of everyone in Washington DC”
‘everyone’ is a strong word. i’m betting on ‘most’.
the claim that the Clinton’s have taken advantage of their office to enrich themselves is just not something I’m going to argue about.
unfortunately, that kind of behavior doesn’t appear to be something that the nation wants to address.
go back up thread and read the responses to my suggestion that people sharing a household with national office holders be excluded from working as lobbyists.
we know the way to stop it, but we don’t have the discipline.
my question is what makes Clinton unusual.
where is the bar, and who does it apply to.
The only common thread in every one of those things is Hillary Clinton. The sheer number of questionable things she has been a part of limits her believability.
But some of those things are beyond innuendo. Things like FIFA contributing to the foundation. Really? That doesn’t come close to having an explanation.
The only common thread in every one of those things is Hillary Clinton. The sheer number of questionable things she has been a part of limits her believability.
But some of those things are beyond innuendo. Things like FIFA contributing to the foundation. Really? That doesn’t come close to having an explanation.
The only common thread in every one of those things is Hillary Clinton. The sheer number of questionable things she has been a part of limits her believability.
But some of those things are beyond innuendo. Things like FIFA contributing to the foundation. Really? That doesn’t come close to having an explanation.
there’s a whole lot of quid, but there’s no quo.
bad faith insinuation and guilt by association does not corruption prove.
there’s a whole lot of quid, but there’s no quo.
bad faith insinuation and guilt by association does not corruption prove.
there’s a whole lot of quid, but there’s no quo.
bad faith insinuation and guilt by association does not corruption prove.
how is Clinton unusual.
where is the bar, and who does it apply to.
as far as I can tell, one of the normal perks of holding public office is the opportunity to get really, really rich.
another, apparently, is the opportunity to sleep with attractive young people.
it’s profoundly corrupt. nobody seems particularly motivated to change it. so it continues.
I don’t find the argument that HRC lies too much to be POTUS, or has too many legal-but-weird financial dealings to be POTUS, to be persuasive.
because nobody can tell me what the bar is.
how is Clinton unusual.
where is the bar, and who does it apply to.
as far as I can tell, one of the normal perks of holding public office is the opportunity to get really, really rich.
another, apparently, is the opportunity to sleep with attractive young people.
it’s profoundly corrupt. nobody seems particularly motivated to change it. so it continues.
I don’t find the argument that HRC lies too much to be POTUS, or has too many legal-but-weird financial dealings to be POTUS, to be persuasive.
because nobody can tell me what the bar is.
how is Clinton unusual.
where is the bar, and who does it apply to.
as far as I can tell, one of the normal perks of holding public office is the opportunity to get really, really rich.
another, apparently, is the opportunity to sleep with attractive young people.
it’s profoundly corrupt. nobody seems particularly motivated to change it. so it continues.
I don’t find the argument that HRC lies too much to be POTUS, or has too many legal-but-weird financial dealings to be POTUS, to be persuasive.
because nobody can tell me what the bar is.
“because nobody can tell me what the bar is.”
I suppose if one has no personal measure for integrity then finding a bar could be difficult. Since that is not true of you then I find this argument less than compelling.
I do find it disingenuous and convenient. I could almost accept the sleeping with attractive people, except interns aren’t just people. But the volume of Financial impropriety, IMO, requires one to determine where their bar is. If it’s OK with you then that’s the end of discussion. But, if it’s not OK with you, but everyone does it so we shouldn’t hold her accountable, then I think it’s a cop out.
Keeping in mind that I am, on many things, the first to acknowledge that both sides and most people on both sides take some advantage. At some point the amount of advantage becomes a difference in kind.
“because nobody can tell me what the bar is.”
I suppose if one has no personal measure for integrity then finding a bar could be difficult. Since that is not true of you then I find this argument less than compelling.
I do find it disingenuous and convenient. I could almost accept the sleeping with attractive people, except interns aren’t just people. But the volume of Financial impropriety, IMO, requires one to determine where their bar is. If it’s OK with you then that’s the end of discussion. But, if it’s not OK with you, but everyone does it so we shouldn’t hold her accountable, then I think it’s a cop out.
Keeping in mind that I am, on many things, the first to acknowledge that both sides and most people on both sides take some advantage. At some point the amount of advantage becomes a difference in kind.
“because nobody can tell me what the bar is.”
I suppose if one has no personal measure for integrity then finding a bar could be difficult. Since that is not true of you then I find this argument less than compelling.
I do find it disingenuous and convenient. I could almost accept the sleeping with attractive people, except interns aren’t just people. But the volume of Financial impropriety, IMO, requires one to determine where their bar is. If it’s OK with you then that’s the end of discussion. But, if it’s not OK with you, but everyone does it so we shouldn’t hold her accountable, then I think it’s a cop out.
Keeping in mind that I am, on many things, the first to acknowledge that both sides and most people on both sides take some advantage. At some point the amount of advantage becomes a difference in kind.
It’s dismaying to me that people need to be focussed on Hillary’s supposed corruption when she is the most examined person in the history of presidential campaigning, and she’s running against someone who is boldly racist, sexist and obviously unspeakably corrupt, and can’t even release his tax returns.
If we want to pass laws that russell proposes, we should do so. Clearly, we don’t. (Or even if we did, the Republican Congress is too busy investigating some new fake scandal, that it would never focus on doing so.)
It’s dismaying to me that people need to be focussed on Hillary’s supposed corruption when she is the most examined person in the history of presidential campaigning, and she’s running against someone who is boldly racist, sexist and obviously unspeakably corrupt, and can’t even release his tax returns.
If we want to pass laws that russell proposes, we should do so. Clearly, we don’t. (Or even if we did, the Republican Congress is too busy investigating some new fake scandal, that it would never focus on doing so.)
It’s dismaying to me that people need to be focussed on Hillary’s supposed corruption when she is the most examined person in the history of presidential campaigning, and she’s running against someone who is boldly racist, sexist and obviously unspeakably corrupt, and can’t even release his tax returns.
If we want to pass laws that russell proposes, we should do so. Clearly, we don’t. (Or even if we did, the Republican Congress is too busy investigating some new fake scandal, that it would never focus on doing so.)
There is a reason she is the most examined person, which may or may not be true, in the blah blah. She has questionable ethics which put her in the crosshairs of investigations.
And, like many criminals who manage to evade conviction, the more she gets away with the more they want to get her.
There is a reason she is the most examined person, which may or may not be true, in the blah blah. She has questionable ethics which put her in the crosshairs of investigations.
And, like many criminals who manage to evade conviction, the more she gets away with the more they want to get her.
There is a reason she is the most examined person, which may or may not be true, in the blah blah. She has questionable ethics which put her in the crosshairs of investigations.
And, like many criminals who manage to evade conviction, the more she gets away with the more they want to get her.
And, like many criminals who manage to evade conviction, the more she gets away with the more they want to get her.
Yet they can’t. She has some incompetent enemies, it would seem.
And, like many criminals who manage to evade conviction, the more she gets away with the more they want to get her.
Yet they can’t. She has some incompetent enemies, it would seem.
And, like many criminals who manage to evade conviction, the more she gets away with the more they want to get her.
Yet they can’t. She has some incompetent enemies, it would seem.
“like many witches who manage to evade the stake, the more she casts spells the more they want to burn her.”
FTFY
“like many witches who manage to evade the stake, the more she casts spells the more they want to burn her.”
FTFY
“like many witches who manage to evade the stake, the more she casts spells the more they want to burn her.”
FTFY
In addition, sapient, I’m sure you are dismayed that everyone doesn’t jump on whatever bandwagon you are on this election. Bernie lost? OK then Hillary is awesome and beyond criticism. That used to be Obama when running against Hillary? Well yes, he is perfect and so is she except if she’s running against him, or Bernie.
My head would be spinning except it’s completely consistent. Whoever the Democrat is gets your unchallenged blend support for their perfection.
In addition, sapient, I’m sure you are dismayed that everyone doesn’t jump on whatever bandwagon you are on this election. Bernie lost? OK then Hillary is awesome and beyond criticism. That used to be Obama when running against Hillary? Well yes, he is perfect and so is she except if she’s running against him, or Bernie.
My head would be spinning except it’s completely consistent. Whoever the Democrat is gets your unchallenged blend support for their perfection.
In addition, sapient, I’m sure you are dismayed that everyone doesn’t jump on whatever bandwagon you are on this election. Bernie lost? OK then Hillary is awesome and beyond criticism. That used to be Obama when running against Hillary? Well yes, he is perfect and so is she except if she’s running against him, or Bernie.
My head would be spinning except it’s completely consistent. Whoever the Democrat is gets your unchallenged blend support for their perfection.
There is a reason she is the most examined person,
indeed there is: the GOP (and its attendant media) have built a lucrative industry based on lying about her family. they’ve created a decades-long mythology around the Clintons and all the players want to get a part in the next chapter.
She has questionable ethics which put her in the crosshairs of investigations.
how many convictions have these investigations lead to ?
accused != guilty.
it doesn’t take anything to get some GOP congresshacks to start an investigation. what else do they have to do? it’s not like they do any useful legislating.
There is a reason she is the most examined person,
indeed there is: the GOP (and its attendant media) have built a lucrative industry based on lying about her family. they’ve created a decades-long mythology around the Clintons and all the players want to get a part in the next chapter.
She has questionable ethics which put her in the crosshairs of investigations.
how many convictions have these investigations lead to ?
accused != guilty.
it doesn’t take anything to get some GOP congresshacks to start an investigation. what else do they have to do? it’s not like they do any useful legislating.
There is a reason she is the most examined person,
indeed there is: the GOP (and its attendant media) have built a lucrative industry based on lying about her family. they’ve created a decades-long mythology around the Clintons and all the players want to get a part in the next chapter.
She has questionable ethics which put her in the crosshairs of investigations.
how many convictions have these investigations lead to ?
accused != guilty.
it doesn’t take anything to get some GOP congresshacks to start an investigation. what else do they have to do? it’s not like they do any useful legislating.
Things like FIFA contributing to the foundation. Really? That doesn’t come close to having an explanation.
What’s so unusual about a large sports organization contributing to a prominent charitable organization? What sort of explanation does that require?
Things like FIFA contributing to the foundation. Really? That doesn’t come close to having an explanation.
What’s so unusual about a large sports organization contributing to a prominent charitable organization? What sort of explanation does that require?
Things like FIFA contributing to the foundation. Really? That doesn’t come close to having an explanation.
What’s so unusual about a large sports organization contributing to a prominent charitable organization? What sort of explanation does that require?
Hey Marty, trying to get sapient to kick up a shitstorm because you aren’t getting any traction is pretty weak tea. I’d take a break from Facebook if I were you.
Hey Marty, trying to get sapient to kick up a shitstorm because you aren’t getting any traction is pretty weak tea. I’d take a break from Facebook if I were you.
Hey Marty, trying to get sapient to kick up a shitstorm because you aren’t getting any traction is pretty weak tea. I’d take a break from Facebook if I were you.
Oddly I didn’t get this from Facebook, although it is consistent with the less rabid fb folks.. The only thing I liked about it was the number of links to “credible” sources. Oh and a lot in one place.
I’m not really winding sapient up so much as pointing to people other than me,or fb fanatics, that question this stuff
Oddly I didn’t get this from Facebook, although it is consistent with the less rabid fb folks.. The only thing I liked about it was the number of links to “credible” sources. Oh and a lot in one place.
I’m not really winding sapient up so much as pointing to people other than me,or fb fanatics, that question this stuff
Oddly I didn’t get this from Facebook, although it is consistent with the less rabid fb folks.. The only thing I liked about it was the number of links to “credible” sources. Oh and a lot in one place.
I’m not really winding sapient up so much as pointing to people other than me,or fb fanatics, that question this stuff
how many convictions have these investigations lead to
That was easy: 14.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-in-the-whitewater-net/
how many convictions have these investigations lead to
That was easy: 14.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-in-the-whitewater-net/
how many convictions have these investigations lead to
That was easy: 14.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-in-the-whitewater-net/
Oh … you meant THAT bar:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-rigged-election-voter
Stealing the voting franchise is the biggest slop bucket of intentional Republican corruption nationwide.
Violence-worthy.
They’ve set the bar right right on the floor, so no one can get under it. So Trump decides to make up a new game … tripping over it like Chevy Chase and falling headlong hairpiece over keester into down ticket Republican incumbents and knocking them over like bowling pins.
At least the Kennedy machine was competently corrupt and ENLARGED the franchise by letting those Democrats in heaven vote.
This bar too. Get under that one, break dancer:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVy6yqqRXrIMA7hdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZGc3bnFyBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI1MDRfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Hydrogen+Bomb&fr=mcafee
Drop one here, drop one there. Badda-bing, badda-boom.
Oh … you meant THAT bar:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-rigged-election-voter
Stealing the voting franchise is the biggest slop bucket of intentional Republican corruption nationwide.
Violence-worthy.
They’ve set the bar right right on the floor, so no one can get under it. So Trump decides to make up a new game … tripping over it like Chevy Chase and falling headlong hairpiece over keester into down ticket Republican incumbents and knocking them over like bowling pins.
At least the Kennedy machine was competently corrupt and ENLARGED the franchise by letting those Democrats in heaven vote.
This bar too. Get under that one, break dancer:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVy6yqqRXrIMA7hdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZGc3bnFyBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI1MDRfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Hydrogen+Bomb&fr=mcafee
Drop one here, drop one there. Badda-bing, badda-boom.
Oh … you meant THAT bar:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-rigged-election-voter
Stealing the voting franchise is the biggest slop bucket of intentional Republican corruption nationwide.
Violence-worthy.
They’ve set the bar right right on the floor, so no one can get under it. So Trump decides to make up a new game … tripping over it like Chevy Chase and falling headlong hairpiece over keester into down ticket Republican incumbents and knocking them over like bowling pins.
At least the Kennedy machine was competently corrupt and ENLARGED the franchise by letting those Democrats in heaven vote.
This bar too. Get under that one, break dancer:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVy6yqqRXrIMA7hdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZGc3bnFyBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI1MDRfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Hydrogen+Bomb&fr=mcafee
Drop one here, drop one there. Badda-bing, badda-boom.
From McKinney’s link:
The prime quarry of investigators, who started work in 1994, were President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in November and Mrs. Clinton has not been charged.
Perhaps the question wasn’t properly understood.
From McKinney’s link:
The prime quarry of investigators, who started work in 1994, were President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in November and Mrs. Clinton has not been charged.
Perhaps the question wasn’t properly understood.
From McKinney’s link:
The prime quarry of investigators, who started work in 1994, were President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in November and Mrs. Clinton has not been charged.
Perhaps the question wasn’t properly understood.
Arkansas state and local governments are bipartisan cesspools.
Those would be the ones closest to us.
Their governmental institutions and most of their private sector should be placed under federal receivership and jurisdiction.
Merge them into Texas, make Texarkana the capital, and let the professionals in Austin teach the hicks a thing or do about grease.
Arkansas state and local governments are bipartisan cesspools.
Those would be the ones closest to us.
Their governmental institutions and most of their private sector should be placed under federal receivership and jurisdiction.
Merge them into Texas, make Texarkana the capital, and let the professionals in Austin teach the hicks a thing or do about grease.
Arkansas state and local governments are bipartisan cesspools.
Those would be the ones closest to us.
Their governmental institutions and most of their private sector should be placed under federal receivership and jurisdiction.
Merge them into Texas, make Texarkana the capital, and let the professionals in Austin teach the hicks a thing or do about grease.
Perhaps the question wasn’t properly understood.
oh, i’m sure it was.
but also i’m sure that, being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
Perhaps the question wasn’t properly understood.
oh, i’m sure it was.
but also i’m sure that, being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
Perhaps the question wasn’t properly understood.
oh, i’m sure it was.
but also i’m sure that, being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
“Mr. Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in November and Mrs. Clinton has not been charged.”
Wording is perfect though. Bill is cleared and Hillary, well she hasn’t been charged.
“Mr. Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in November and Mrs. Clinton has not been charged.”
Wording is perfect though. Bill is cleared and Hillary, well she hasn’t been charged.
“Mr. Clinton was cleared of any wrongdoing by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr in November and Mrs. Clinton has not been charged.”
Wording is perfect though. Bill is cleared and Hillary, well she hasn’t been charged.
Whitewater is like the Stairway to Heaven or Free Bird (or, better yet, Dream On!) of Clinton conspiracies.
Whitewater is like the Stairway to Heaven or Free Bird (or, better yet, Dream On!) of Clinton conspiracies.
Whitewater is like the Stairway to Heaven or Free Bird (or, better yet, Dream On!) of Clinton conspiracies.
being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
Don’t remember that guilt by association was one of the crimes I learned in law school, but McTx probably went to a different one.
being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
Don’t remember that guilt by association was one of the crimes I learned in law school, but McTx probably went to a different one.
being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
Don’t remember that guilt by association was one of the crimes I learned in law school, but McTx probably went to a different one.
well she hasn’t been charged.
her perfidy knows now bounds.
well she hasn’t been charged.
her perfidy knows now bounds.
well she hasn’t been charged.
her perfidy knows now bounds.
anymore lose a ‘w’? i seem to have found a stray.
anymore lose a ‘w’? i seem to have found a stray.
anymore lose a ‘w’? i seem to have found a stray.
Ever since Whitewater, the wingnuts have been gunning for Clinton, fueled by the funds provided by rich assholes who simply have more money than they know what to do with.
It is all bullshit.
Let’s go back to Marty’s link to an article by professional Clinton hater Kristi Culpepper. The first item refers to a two year old Inspector General report. Here’s her lead to this item:
Shady Dealings with Government Contractors at the State Department
$6 billion went missing at the State Department during Clinton’s tenure, according to a report from the Inspector General
Oh, my. That sounds really, really bad! But let’s look a bit further. How do you just lose $6 billion? Well, the original Washington Post story can be found here.
But wait, the Inspector General felt the need to provide a written response to the misleading implications of the article here.
So, what’s really going on here? The IG reports that the State Department has been a bit sloppy in it’s paperwork over the last SIX YEARS (report issued in 2014, so Clinton was not Sec of State for two of those years).
My goodness, who ever heard of sloppy paperwork? So, unlike the Bush crime family that actually LOST pallets of actual cold hard CASH in Iraq, the State Department spent some money for actual goods and services, but weren’t too good keeping their files in order.
This is then turned into Hillary having “shady dealings”.
What utter bullshit. The fact that this is reported, without shame, says a lot about Republicans.
As to Russell’s question….when it comes to the Clintons and their rabid dog wingnut accusers, there is no bar. The fact that she draws air into her lungs is seen as a crime.
It is beneath contempt.
And I don’t like her that much either. But jesus fucking Christ….enough already.
OK?
Ever since Whitewater, the wingnuts have been gunning for Clinton, fueled by the funds provided by rich assholes who simply have more money than they know what to do with.
It is all bullshit.
Let’s go back to Marty’s link to an article by professional Clinton hater Kristi Culpepper. The first item refers to a two year old Inspector General report. Here’s her lead to this item:
Shady Dealings with Government Contractors at the State Department
$6 billion went missing at the State Department during Clinton’s tenure, according to a report from the Inspector General
Oh, my. That sounds really, really bad! But let’s look a bit further. How do you just lose $6 billion? Well, the original Washington Post story can be found here.
But wait, the Inspector General felt the need to provide a written response to the misleading implications of the article here.
So, what’s really going on here? The IG reports that the State Department has been a bit sloppy in it’s paperwork over the last SIX YEARS (report issued in 2014, so Clinton was not Sec of State for two of those years).
My goodness, who ever heard of sloppy paperwork? So, unlike the Bush crime family that actually LOST pallets of actual cold hard CASH in Iraq, the State Department spent some money for actual goods and services, but weren’t too good keeping their files in order.
This is then turned into Hillary having “shady dealings”.
What utter bullshit. The fact that this is reported, without shame, says a lot about Republicans.
As to Russell’s question….when it comes to the Clintons and their rabid dog wingnut accusers, there is no bar. The fact that she draws air into her lungs is seen as a crime.
It is beneath contempt.
And I don’t like her that much either. But jesus fucking Christ….enough already.
OK?
Ever since Whitewater, the wingnuts have been gunning for Clinton, fueled by the funds provided by rich assholes who simply have more money than they know what to do with.
It is all bullshit.
Let’s go back to Marty’s link to an article by professional Clinton hater Kristi Culpepper. The first item refers to a two year old Inspector General report. Here’s her lead to this item:
Shady Dealings with Government Contractors at the State Department
$6 billion went missing at the State Department during Clinton’s tenure, according to a report from the Inspector General
Oh, my. That sounds really, really bad! But let’s look a bit further. How do you just lose $6 billion? Well, the original Washington Post story can be found here.
But wait, the Inspector General felt the need to provide a written response to the misleading implications of the article here.
So, what’s really going on here? The IG reports that the State Department has been a bit sloppy in it’s paperwork over the last SIX YEARS (report issued in 2014, so Clinton was not Sec of State for two of those years).
My goodness, who ever heard of sloppy paperwork? So, unlike the Bush crime family that actually LOST pallets of actual cold hard CASH in Iraq, the State Department spent some money for actual goods and services, but weren’t too good keeping their files in order.
This is then turned into Hillary having “shady dealings”.
What utter bullshit. The fact that this is reported, without shame, says a lot about Republicans.
As to Russell’s question….when it comes to the Clintons and their rabid dog wingnut accusers, there is no bar. The fact that she draws air into her lungs is seen as a crime.
It is beneath contempt.
And I don’t like her that much either. But jesus fucking Christ….enough already.
OK?
“….enough already.”
no
“….enough already.”
no
“….enough already.”
no
but also i’m sure that, being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
I answered the question as phrased. If you’d asked, “how many times has HRC been convicted?”, which I now see was the intended question, the answer would have been different.
As for guilt by association, that’s a bipartisan failing. I remember, as just one example, Bush I’s relationship with Ken Lay being treated by the Left as an open and shut case of corruption. That said, I’m pretty sure I haven’t made that argument, at least not in this thread.
HRC’s lack of transparency is a legitimate red flag, IMO. From the text of her speeches to the Clinton Foundation, I’d appreciate transparency. Ditto Trump’s tax returns and all else that is relevant to assessing the integrity of a candidate.
So, if I’m a bad guy for downgrading her in the integrity department and for drawing negative inferences about her character etc, fine by me.
but also i’m sure that, being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
I answered the question as phrased. If you’d asked, “how many times has HRC been convicted?”, which I now see was the intended question, the answer would have been different.
As for guilt by association, that’s a bipartisan failing. I remember, as just one example, Bush I’s relationship with Ken Lay being treated by the Left as an open and shut case of corruption. That said, I’m pretty sure I haven’t made that argument, at least not in this thread.
HRC’s lack of transparency is a legitimate red flag, IMO. From the text of her speeches to the Clinton Foundation, I’d appreciate transparency. Ditto Trump’s tax returns and all else that is relevant to assessing the integrity of a candidate.
So, if I’m a bad guy for downgrading her in the integrity department and for drawing negative inferences about her character etc, fine by me.
but also i’m sure that, being a lawyer, McTx knows that you go with the argument you have, not the one you want.
I answered the question as phrased. If you’d asked, “how many times has HRC been convicted?”, which I now see was the intended question, the answer would have been different.
As for guilt by association, that’s a bipartisan failing. I remember, as just one example, Bush I’s relationship with Ken Lay being treated by the Left as an open and shut case of corruption. That said, I’m pretty sure I haven’t made that argument, at least not in this thread.
HRC’s lack of transparency is a legitimate red flag, IMO. From the text of her speeches to the Clinton Foundation, I’d appreciate transparency. Ditto Trump’s tax returns and all else that is relevant to assessing the integrity of a candidate.
So, if I’m a bad guy for downgrading her in the integrity department and for drawing negative inferences about her character etc, fine by me.
“….enough already.”
Or, a little longer, everyone takes one thing and says that’s utter bullshit. Well, its not, and its not beneath contempt. It is a pattern of behavior that is reflected in actions and results at different times that makes her overall character questionable, and that is as graciously as I can put it.
White water was not the product of wingnuts, Clinton associates and confidants went to jail protecting her. It would be like saying Nixon wasn’t ever convicted in Watergate, although everyone else went to jail and he got a pardon just to get it over with.
There is no reason for the FIFA people to be donating to Clinton except for access and the infamous “quo”.
Not to mention ongoing donations from Qatar et al while she was Secretary of State. These aren’t little fing discrepancies.
And to circle back to the dumbest question: The number of convictions equals the number of things Al Capone was convicted of right up until they got him for tax evasion. Lack of a conviction doesn’t mean you haven’t done anything, it just means the legal system has to treat you like you are innocent.
We are talking about a candidate for President from a major political party and setting the bar at convictions.
“….enough already.”
Or, a little longer, everyone takes one thing and says that’s utter bullshit. Well, its not, and its not beneath contempt. It is a pattern of behavior that is reflected in actions and results at different times that makes her overall character questionable, and that is as graciously as I can put it.
White water was not the product of wingnuts, Clinton associates and confidants went to jail protecting her. It would be like saying Nixon wasn’t ever convicted in Watergate, although everyone else went to jail and he got a pardon just to get it over with.
There is no reason for the FIFA people to be donating to Clinton except for access and the infamous “quo”.
Not to mention ongoing donations from Qatar et al while she was Secretary of State. These aren’t little fing discrepancies.
And to circle back to the dumbest question: The number of convictions equals the number of things Al Capone was convicted of right up until they got him for tax evasion. Lack of a conviction doesn’t mean you haven’t done anything, it just means the legal system has to treat you like you are innocent.
We are talking about a candidate for President from a major political party and setting the bar at convictions.
“….enough already.”
Or, a little longer, everyone takes one thing and says that’s utter bullshit. Well, its not, and its not beneath contempt. It is a pattern of behavior that is reflected in actions and results at different times that makes her overall character questionable, and that is as graciously as I can put it.
White water was not the product of wingnuts, Clinton associates and confidants went to jail protecting her. It would be like saying Nixon wasn’t ever convicted in Watergate, although everyone else went to jail and he got a pardon just to get it over with.
There is no reason for the FIFA people to be donating to Clinton except for access and the infamous “quo”.
Not to mention ongoing donations from Qatar et al while she was Secretary of State. These aren’t little fing discrepancies.
And to circle back to the dumbest question: The number of convictions equals the number of things Al Capone was convicted of right up until they got him for tax evasion. Lack of a conviction doesn’t mean you haven’t done anything, it just means the legal system has to treat you like you are innocent.
We are talking about a candidate for President from a major political party and setting the bar at convictions.
We are talking about a candidate for President from a major political party and setting the bar at convictions.
Trump is currently accused, in a lawsuit, of raping a 13 year old girl.
we know he’s an asshole. we know he’s got a creepy way with his own daughter. we know he’s got a creepy way with women in general.
do we set the bar for this at accusation or at conviction ?
We are talking about a candidate for President from a major political party and setting the bar at convictions.
Trump is currently accused, in a lawsuit, of raping a 13 year old girl.
we know he’s an asshole. we know he’s got a creepy way with his own daughter. we know he’s got a creepy way with women in general.
do we set the bar for this at accusation or at conviction ?
We are talking about a candidate for President from a major political party and setting the bar at convictions.
Trump is currently accused, in a lawsuit, of raping a 13 year old girl.
we know he’s an asshole. we know he’s got a creepy way with his own daughter. we know he’s got a creepy way with women in general.
do we set the bar for this at accusation or at conviction ?
“At some point the amount of advantage becomes a difference in kind.”
I don’t disagree with this, per se.
it may be that my outrage-o-meter has been blunted by living too long in MA. hereabouts, the speaker of the state house can be the brother of a notable murderer and gangster, and it’s no biggie.
we gave the world the Kennedys and knocko maccormack. the Clinton’s seem, by comparison, not so bad.
“At some point the amount of advantage becomes a difference in kind.”
I don’t disagree with this, per se.
it may be that my outrage-o-meter has been blunted by living too long in MA. hereabouts, the speaker of the state house can be the brother of a notable murderer and gangster, and it’s no biggie.
we gave the world the Kennedys and knocko maccormack. the Clinton’s seem, by comparison, not so bad.
“At some point the amount of advantage becomes a difference in kind.”
I don’t disagree with this, per se.
it may be that my outrage-o-meter has been blunted by living too long in MA. hereabouts, the speaker of the state house can be the brother of a notable murderer and gangster, and it’s no biggie.
we gave the world the Kennedys and knocko maccormack. the Clinton’s seem, by comparison, not so bad.
cleek, what does Trump have to do with this conversation. If you want to compare someone just so you can, then go find crap on Gary Johnson. I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.
cleek, what does Trump have to do with this conversation. If you want to compare someone just so you can, then go find crap on Gary Johnson. I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.
cleek, what does Trump have to do with this conversation. If you want to compare someone just so you can, then go find crap on Gary Johnson. I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.
what does Trump, a candidate for President from a major political party, have to do with a discussion about where we set the bar for judging “a candidate for President from a major political party” when it comes to accusations vs convictions?
beats me
what does Trump, a candidate for President from a major political party, have to do with a discussion about where we set the bar for judging “a candidate for President from a major political party” when it comes to accusations vs convictions?
beats me
what does Trump, a candidate for President from a major political party, have to do with a discussion about where we set the bar for judging “a candidate for President from a major political party” when it comes to accusations vs convictions?
beats me
bars, cleek. bars……
bars, cleek. bars……
bars, cleek. bars……
bars, cleek. bars
soon.
it’s only 1:00.
bars, cleek. bars
soon.
it’s only 1:00.
bars, cleek. bars
soon.
it’s only 1:00.
and I am fine setting the bar for Trump at accusation. I might not be if the same accusation were leveled at Romney. But certainly would set the bar for Bill Clinton equal to Trump on that accusation.
and I am fine setting the bar for Trump at accusation. I might not be if the same accusation were leveled at Romney. But certainly would set the bar for Bill Clinton equal to Trump on that accusation.
and I am fine setting the bar for Trump at accusation. I might not be if the same accusation were leveled at Romney. But certainly would set the bar for Bill Clinton equal to Trump on that accusation.
I don’t think anyone has said that Clinton hasn’t done anything wrong. In fact, I’m sure she’s done something wrong. Everyone has. The point is that she’s been accused of doing a bunch of things wrong that no one seems to be able to prove.
But, because lots of people have accused her of stuff over the last 30 or so years, over and over, she must be guilty of some significant percentage of them. It can’t be that her political adversaries, whose fortunes would fall as hers and Bill’s would rise, have been out to get them and would use any bullsh*t excuse to go after them.
And she isn’t Al Capone in Prohibition Era Chicago.
I don’t think anyone has said that Clinton hasn’t done anything wrong. In fact, I’m sure she’s done something wrong. Everyone has. The point is that she’s been accused of doing a bunch of things wrong that no one seems to be able to prove.
But, because lots of people have accused her of stuff over the last 30 or so years, over and over, she must be guilty of some significant percentage of them. It can’t be that her political adversaries, whose fortunes would fall as hers and Bill’s would rise, have been out to get them and would use any bullsh*t excuse to go after them.
And she isn’t Al Capone in Prohibition Era Chicago.
I don’t think anyone has said that Clinton hasn’t done anything wrong. In fact, I’m sure she’s done something wrong. Everyone has. The point is that she’s been accused of doing a bunch of things wrong that no one seems to be able to prove.
But, because lots of people have accused her of stuff over the last 30 or so years, over and over, she must be guilty of some significant percentage of them. It can’t be that her political adversaries, whose fortunes would fall as hers and Bill’s would rise, have been out to get them and would use any bullsh*t excuse to go after them.
And she isn’t Al Capone in Prohibition Era Chicago.
To put it another way, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it’s still absence of evidence.
To put it another way, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it’s still absence of evidence.
To put it another way, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it’s still absence of evidence.
To put it another way, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it’s still absence of evidence.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
Unless, of course, by doing, legitimate questions are raised. For example, if she said one thing to Wall Street for a fee and is saying something else now, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?
To put it another way, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it’s still absence of evidence.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
Unless, of course, by doing, legitimate questions are raised. For example, if she said one thing to Wall Street for a fee and is saying something else now, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?
To put it another way, absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it’s still absence of evidence.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
Unless, of course, by doing, legitimate questions are raised. For example, if she said one thing to Wall Street for a fee and is saying something else now, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?
“I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.”
I would.
“I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.”
I would.
“I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.”
I would.
I left that one for you.
I left that one for you.
I left that one for you.
I would.
At a minimum.
I would.
At a minimum.
I would.
At a minimum.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
her critics have been inventing reasons to hate her since at least 1991.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
her critics have been inventing reasons to hate her since at least 1991.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
her critics have been inventing reasons to hate her since at least 1991.
For example, if she said one thing to Wall Street for a fee and is saying something else now, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?
Such evidence would go toward substantiating an accusation of “clientism” or “flip-flopping” or “poor character”, but the accusation here is corruption, with a clear implication of criminal corruption on her part.
Or is this another one of those “everybody knows OJ did it” things?
The bars are open here. I’ll take a double Manhattan, please.
I’d piss in the cup, too, but I’m so old, I’d most likely miss.
For example, if she said one thing to Wall Street for a fee and is saying something else now, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?
Such evidence would go toward substantiating an accusation of “clientism” or “flip-flopping” or “poor character”, but the accusation here is corruption, with a clear implication of criminal corruption on her part.
Or is this another one of those “everybody knows OJ did it” things?
The bars are open here. I’ll take a double Manhattan, please.
I’d piss in the cup, too, but I’m so old, I’d most likely miss.
For example, if she said one thing to Wall Street for a fee and is saying something else now, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?
Such evidence would go toward substantiating an accusation of “clientism” or “flip-flopping” or “poor character”, but the accusation here is corruption, with a clear implication of criminal corruption on her part.
Or is this another one of those “everybody knows OJ did it” things?
The bars are open here. I’ll take a double Manhattan, please.
I’d piss in the cup, too, but I’m so old, I’d most likely miss.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
Oh, yes, I do. I think (and can’t possibly know) that she at least sometimes takes the position, to her own political detriment, that she’s not going to do anything she doesn’t absolutely have to in response to her accusers. I think she’s basically saying, “F*ck them. I’m not playing.”
I also think she could give a bit more on the email thing. She could at least say she didn’t know at the time that any of her emails were classified. The very few that were classified at the time they were sent, rather than after the fact, weren’t marked clearly or properly according to protocol.
But I also think the email thing was blown out of proportion.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
Oh, yes, I do. I think (and can’t possibly know) that she at least sometimes takes the position, to her own political detriment, that she’s not going to do anything she doesn’t absolutely have to in response to her accusers. I think she’s basically saying, “F*ck them. I’m not playing.”
I also think she could give a bit more on the email thing. She could at least say she didn’t know at the time that any of her emails were classified. The very few that were classified at the time they were sent, rather than after the fact, weren’t marked clearly or properly according to protocol.
But I also think the email thing was blown out of proportion.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
Oh, yes, I do. I think (and can’t possibly know) that she at least sometimes takes the position, to her own political detriment, that she’s not going to do anything she doesn’t absolutely have to in response to her accusers. I think she’s basically saying, “F*ck them. I’m not playing.”
I also think she could give a bit more on the email thing. She could at least say she didn’t know at the time that any of her emails were classified. The very few that were classified at the time they were sent, rather than after the fact, weren’t marked clearly or properly according to protocol.
But I also think the email thing was blown out of proportion.
But I also think the email thing was blown out of proportion.
Just about everything about the Clinton’s is blown out of proportion, including Bill’s bl%wj@bs.
You remember when they impeached a sitting president about a harmless sex act, but buried their heads in the sand when GW Bush lied us into a stupid and costly war and winked at torture as a public policy?
Move along….nothing to see here!
But look! The Clintons! Blow jobs!!!!! EEEk.
But I also think the email thing was blown out of proportion.
Just about everything about the Clinton’s is blown out of proportion, including Bill’s bl%wj@bs.
You remember when they impeached a sitting president about a harmless sex act, but buried their heads in the sand when GW Bush lied us into a stupid and costly war and winked at torture as a public policy?
Move along….nothing to see here!
But look! The Clintons! Blow jobs!!!!! EEEk.
But I also think the email thing was blown out of proportion.
Just about everything about the Clinton’s is blown out of proportion, including Bill’s bl%wj@bs.
You remember when they impeached a sitting president about a harmless sex act, but buried their heads in the sand when GW Bush lied us into a stupid and costly war and winked at torture as a public policy?
Move along….nothing to see here!
But look! The Clintons! Blow jobs!!!!! EEEk.
“At a minimum.”
I demand separate cups.
“At a minimum.”
I demand separate cups.
“At a minimum.”
I demand separate cups.
I’d like another go at this:
“I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.”
If you were a Russian Olympic athlete that excuse (and the cup) wouldn’t hold water because you, my friend, are guilty of something.
I’d like another go at this:
“I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.”
If you were a Russian Olympic athlete that excuse (and the cup) wouldn’t hold water because you, my friend, are guilty of something.
I’d like another go at this:
“I wouldn’t piss in a cup if Trump were dying of thirst.”
If you were a Russian Olympic athlete that excuse (and the cup) wouldn’t hold water because you, my friend, are guilty of something.
Really bobbyp, blow jobs in the Oval office with an intern? Move along? There is no CEO of any company that wouldn’t resign immediately. And people wonder why there are those of us who want them caught, fing arrogance.
Really bobbyp, blow jobs in the Oval office with an intern? Move along? There is no CEO of any company that wouldn’t resign immediately. And people wonder why there are those of us who want them caught, fing arrogance.
Really bobbyp, blow jobs in the Oval office with an intern? Move along? There is no CEO of any company that wouldn’t resign immediately. And people wonder why there are those of us who want them caught, fing arrogance.
those of us who want them caught
they were caught.
and, what did Mrs Clinton do again ?
those of us who want them caught
they were caught.
and, what did Mrs Clinton do again ?
those of us who want them caught
they were caught.
and, what did Mrs Clinton do again ?
Trump is merely that last beer detected in the Republican Party’s meth saturated five-decade-long accumulated urine sample:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a47375/end-of-republican-party/
Trump is merely that last beer detected in the Republican Party’s meth saturated five-decade-long accumulated urine sample:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a47375/end-of-republican-party/
Trump is merely that last beer detected in the Republican Party’s meth saturated five-decade-long accumulated urine sample:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a47375/end-of-republican-party/
and, what did Mrs Clinton do again ?
She enabled him. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
Keep up.
and, what did Mrs Clinton do again ?
She enabled him. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
Keep up.
and, what did Mrs Clinton do again ?
She enabled him. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
Keep up.
OK, let’s summarize:
Nobody here has a high opinion of Trump. Some people may end up marking their ballot for him, but it will because they think Clinton is worse, not because they think Trump would be good.
Everybody agrees that Clinton is flawed. There is disagreement about how badly flawed, and whether certain allegations about her are accurate, but nobody thinks she is really wonderful. Some will vote for her because they think Trump is out of comparison worse; others will be voting Libertarian (or maybe Green?), or just not voting for President because they can’t stand either of the major party candidates.
At this point, nobody is succeeding in convincing anybody else that they should be voting differently, come November.
We do occasionally (frequently) find new examples of just how bad/insane/whatever one or another of the candidates is.
That about cover it?
OK, let’s summarize:
Nobody here has a high opinion of Trump. Some people may end up marking their ballot for him, but it will because they think Clinton is worse, not because they think Trump would be good.
Everybody agrees that Clinton is flawed. There is disagreement about how badly flawed, and whether certain allegations about her are accurate, but nobody thinks she is really wonderful. Some will vote for her because they think Trump is out of comparison worse; others will be voting Libertarian (or maybe Green?), or just not voting for President because they can’t stand either of the major party candidates.
At this point, nobody is succeeding in convincing anybody else that they should be voting differently, come November.
We do occasionally (frequently) find new examples of just how bad/insane/whatever one or another of the candidates is.
That about cover it?
OK, let’s summarize:
Nobody here has a high opinion of Trump. Some people may end up marking their ballot for him, but it will because they think Clinton is worse, not because they think Trump would be good.
Everybody agrees that Clinton is flawed. There is disagreement about how badly flawed, and whether certain allegations about her are accurate, but nobody thinks she is really wonderful. Some will vote for her because they think Trump is out of comparison worse; others will be voting Libertarian (or maybe Green?), or just not voting for President because they can’t stand either of the major party candidates.
At this point, nobody is succeeding in convincing anybody else that they should be voting differently, come November.
We do occasionally (frequently) find new examples of just how bad/insane/whatever one or another of the candidates is.
That about cover it?
95 days left, wj
95 days left, wj
95 days left, wj
This is just practice for all those people I am going to convince to vote Libertarian in my door to door.
This is just practice for all those people I am going to convince to vote Libertarian in my door to door.
This is just practice for all those people I am going to convince to vote Libertarian in my door to door.
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming
YES, indeed. She could start by releasing all her tax forms, so we could see where she earns her money. Oh wait, she did. It was some OTHER candidate that didn’t.
and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
About a femtometer, because said critics are not motivated by stuff like “truth” and “honesty”; in fact, applying the same standard of “proof” that said critics apply to the Clintons the critics a bunch of notorious goat-fnckers.
Plenty of stuff to complain about with Hillary, why do they pick the stupid stuff?
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming
YES, indeed. She could start by releasing all her tax forms, so we could see where she earns her money. Oh wait, she did. It was some OTHER candidate that didn’t.
and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
About a femtometer, because said critics are not motivated by stuff like “truth” and “honesty”; in fact, applying the same standard of “proof” that said critics apply to the Clintons the critics a bunch of notorious goat-fnckers.
Plenty of stuff to complain about with Hillary, why do they pick the stupid stuff?
Don’t you agree, though, that she could be a bit more forthcoming
YES, indeed. She could start by releasing all her tax forms, so we could see where she earns her money. Oh wait, she did. It was some OTHER candidate that didn’t.
and that would go some distance to quieting her critics?
About a femtometer, because said critics are not motivated by stuff like “truth” and “honesty”; in fact, applying the same standard of “proof” that said critics apply to the Clintons the critics a bunch of notorious goat-fnckers.
Plenty of stuff to complain about with Hillary, why do they pick the stupid stuff?
At this point, nobody is succeeding in convincing anybody else that they should be voting differently, come November.
You expected some other outcome?
The importance of changing the balance of power on the Supreme Court is, by itself, enough to make me vote for Hillary…despite her alleged flaws.
Those on the right should be thinking along the same lines when it comes to holding your nose and voting for Drumpf.
But gop base hocked a luggie.
So I thank those who will be pounding the pavement for the Gary Johnson, the purity conservatives’ answer to Ralph Nader, and hopefully there won’t be an opportunity for a nakedly partisan Supreme Court to step in and steal the presidency from the rightful winner.
But of course, bl&wj+bs! Way more important.
Sheesh.
At this point, nobody is succeeding in convincing anybody else that they should be voting differently, come November.
You expected some other outcome?
The importance of changing the balance of power on the Supreme Court is, by itself, enough to make me vote for Hillary…despite her alleged flaws.
Those on the right should be thinking along the same lines when it comes to holding your nose and voting for Drumpf.
But gop base hocked a luggie.
So I thank those who will be pounding the pavement for the Gary Johnson, the purity conservatives’ answer to Ralph Nader, and hopefully there won’t be an opportunity for a nakedly partisan Supreme Court to step in and steal the presidency from the rightful winner.
But of course, bl&wj+bs! Way more important.
Sheesh.
At this point, nobody is succeeding in convincing anybody else that they should be voting differently, come November.
You expected some other outcome?
The importance of changing the balance of power on the Supreme Court is, by itself, enough to make me vote for Hillary…despite her alleged flaws.
Those on the right should be thinking along the same lines when it comes to holding your nose and voting for Drumpf.
But gop base hocked a luggie.
So I thank those who will be pounding the pavement for the Gary Johnson, the purity conservatives’ answer to Ralph Nader, and hopefully there won’t be an opportunity for a nakedly partisan Supreme Court to step in and steal the presidency from the rightful winner.
But of course, bl&wj+bs! Way more important.
Sheesh.
So back to Kaine. I haven’t seen anything in my email asking me whether I can enter a lottery about having dinner with Tim and Anne, but I would totally do that. Those two are amazing, lovely people, and I have so many questions to ask them about their lives in Richmond. I hope everyone read this about her. I actually had a couple of minutes of face time with her when I was doing work for Legal Aid in Richmond in the ’90’s. Wow. What a good pick Hillary made.
So back to Kaine. I haven’t seen anything in my email asking me whether I can enter a lottery about having dinner with Tim and Anne, but I would totally do that. Those two are amazing, lovely people, and I have so many questions to ask them about their lives in Richmond. I hope everyone read this about her. I actually had a couple of minutes of face time with her when I was doing work for Legal Aid in Richmond in the ’90’s. Wow. What a good pick Hillary made.
So back to Kaine. I haven’t seen anything in my email asking me whether I can enter a lottery about having dinner with Tim and Anne, but I would totally do that. Those two are amazing, lovely people, and I have so many questions to ask them about their lives in Richmond. I hope everyone read this about her. I actually had a couple of minutes of face time with her when I was doing work for Legal Aid in Richmond in the ’90’s. Wow. What a good pick Hillary made.
If Gary Johnson were to get enough electoral votes, it would be Congress deciding who the next president would be.
If Gary Johnson were to get enough electoral votes, it would be Congress deciding who the next president would be.
If Gary Johnson were to get enough electoral votes, it would be Congress deciding who the next president would be.
CharlesWT, the old or the newly elected Congress? That would make a potentially huge difference.
CharlesWT, the old or the newly elected Congress? That would make a potentially huge difference.
CharlesWT, the old or the newly elected Congress? That would make a potentially huge difference.
The new Congress. As it stands Republicans control 33 delegations to the Democrats 14, with 3 evenly split. Democrats would need to gain 12 delegations, which would be close to impossible. Just getting a majority of the members is unlikely, and that would not be enough. Would Republicans have the stones to elect Johnson president if he came in a distant 3rd in the election?
The new Congress. As it stands Republicans control 33 delegations to the Democrats 14, with 3 evenly split. Democrats would need to gain 12 delegations, which would be close to impossible. Just getting a majority of the members is unlikely, and that would not be enough. Would Republicans have the stones to elect Johnson president if he came in a distant 3rd in the election?
The new Congress. As it stands Republicans control 33 delegations to the Democrats 14, with 3 evenly split. Democrats would need to gain 12 delegations, which would be close to impossible. Just getting a majority of the members is unlikely, and that would not be enough. Would Republicans have the stones to elect Johnson president if he came in a distant 3rd in the election?
If Gary Johnson were to get enough electoral votes, it would be Congress deciding who the next president would be.
It’s certainly a theoretical possibility. But I think it’s rather more likely that, if Trump has cratered to the point the Johnson is winning electoral votes, Clinton will have more than enough to win.
Consider, where might Johnson win a state? My best guess: Utah. In short, compared to what we expect now, it would be a loss for Trump, but not for Clinton. Would there be a similar case where Clinton would lose a state to him? (I can’t see here losing any states to the Greens.)
If Gary Johnson were to get enough electoral votes, it would be Congress deciding who the next president would be.
It’s certainly a theoretical possibility. But I think it’s rather more likely that, if Trump has cratered to the point the Johnson is winning electoral votes, Clinton will have more than enough to win.
Consider, where might Johnson win a state? My best guess: Utah. In short, compared to what we expect now, it would be a loss for Trump, but not for Clinton. Would there be a similar case where Clinton would lose a state to him? (I can’t see here losing any states to the Greens.)
If Gary Johnson were to get enough electoral votes, it would be Congress deciding who the next president would be.
It’s certainly a theoretical possibility. But I think it’s rather more likely that, if Trump has cratered to the point the Johnson is winning electoral votes, Clinton will have more than enough to win.
Consider, where might Johnson win a state? My best guess: Utah. In short, compared to what we expect now, it would be a loss for Trump, but not for Clinton. Would there be a similar case where Clinton would lose a state to him? (I can’t see here losing any states to the Greens.)
She sounds terrific, Sapient.
Nobody here has a high opinion of Trump. Some people may end up marking their ballot for him, but it will because they think Clinton is worse, not because they think Trump would be good
Jesus, wj, I know Marty and McKT have been notably unable to see Hillary as anything other than execrable, but they’ve been clear that they wouldn’t vote for Trump under any circs. Who else here has ever indicated they might vote for Trump?!
She sounds terrific, Sapient.
Nobody here has a high opinion of Trump. Some people may end up marking their ballot for him, but it will because they think Clinton is worse, not because they think Trump would be good
Jesus, wj, I know Marty and McKT have been notably unable to see Hillary as anything other than execrable, but they’ve been clear that they wouldn’t vote for Trump under any circs. Who else here has ever indicated they might vote for Trump?!
She sounds terrific, Sapient.
Nobody here has a high opinion of Trump. Some people may end up marking their ballot for him, but it will because they think Clinton is worse, not because they think Trump would be good
Jesus, wj, I know Marty and McKT have been notably unable to see Hillary as anything other than execrable, but they’ve been clear that they wouldn’t vote for Trump under any circs. Who else here has ever indicated they might vote for Trump?!
In that scenario, since the senate selects the vice president, Tim Kaine could be selected regardless of who is selected president.
In that scenario, since the senate selects the vice president, Tim Kaine could be selected regardless of who is selected president.
In that scenario, since the senate selects the vice president, Tim Kaine could be selected regardless of who is selected president.
States Johnson might have a chance of wining: Alaska, Colorado, Montana, N/S Dakota, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
States Johnson might have a chance of wining: Alaska, Colorado, Montana, N/S Dakota, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
States Johnson might have a chance of wining: Alaska, Colorado, Montana, N/S Dakota, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
Johnson at 14% in N.M., 10% in Colorado and Utah.
Johnson at 14% in N.M., 10% in Colorado and Utah.
Johnson at 14% in N.M., 10% in Colorado and Utah.
So, in a ripely populist election, Congress and perhaps the Supreme Court will decide who leads the country?
In that case, if Johnson is elected President, he will have the honor of being not only the first Libertarian President, but also the distinction of being the first Libertarian President who is forced to declare, with governmental blunt force, a national state of martial law because there will be a lot more burning than the business end of his blunt in the bunker below the White House.
We’ll burn the fucker to the ground.
So, in a ripely populist election, Congress and perhaps the Supreme Court will decide who leads the country?
In that case, if Johnson is elected President, he will have the honor of being not only the first Libertarian President, but also the distinction of being the first Libertarian President who is forced to declare, with governmental blunt force, a national state of martial law because there will be a lot more burning than the business end of his blunt in the bunker below the White House.
We’ll burn the fucker to the ground.
So, in a ripely populist election, Congress and perhaps the Supreme Court will decide who leads the country?
In that case, if Johnson is elected President, he will have the honor of being not only the first Libertarian President, but also the distinction of being the first Libertarian President who is forced to declare, with governmental blunt force, a national state of martial law because there will be a lot more burning than the business end of his blunt in the bunker below the White House.
We’ll burn the fucker to the ground.