From the Sublime to the Political
You haven’t heard from The New Moderate in a while, and that’s no accident. You see, I recently returned from an exhilarating trip to Alaska — a week cruising the spectacular fjords and islands of the panhandle, followed by an inland journey that took us all the way up to Fairbanks. And I have to confess that after glimpsing Alaska’s primeval wilderness with its snowy peaks and midnight sun (actually midnight sunset, since we stopped just short of the Arctic Circle), I’ve found it difficult — even distasteful — to muster an interest in our ongoing political squabbles.
Yes, we still have a borderline loonie in the White House and rabid partisans firing upon each other from the trenches, but maybe that’s my point: why do we insist on ruining this paradise of a planet with our accursed need to create discord? Why the knee-jerk factionalism, the mutual suspicions, the overheated accusations, the malicious lies and slanders? Why the increasing need to take refuge in boutique identities that separate us from those despised others?
Let me tell you something about the demographics of that Alaska cruise. I quickly noticed that the majority of our fellow-cruisers belonged to that much-maligned subset of humanity known as Middle Americans. I overheard the twangy Southern, Midwestern and country-boy accents, and I knew we weren’t in Philadelphia anymore. Frizzy-haired, sandal-shod coastal progressives seemed to be an endangered species here.
Although I like to think of myself as an all-embracing, non-discriminatory moderate, I dreaded having to sit down to dinner with these strangers from Trump Country. Shame on me! Almost without exception, they turned out to be friendly, decent, convivial tablemates. One kind-faced older man confessed that he had to be hospitalized after he retired because he couldn’t get accustomed to being idle. (He later found salvation as a volunteer.) A jolly married woman from Hawaii brightened the conversation with her outgoing warmth and humor. Finally, as we were about to part company, the inevitable “What do you do?” question circled around the table. I told them about my ups and downs as an author and blogger. Others chimed in with their past and present exploits. An unassuming gentleman from Spokane casually replied, “I used to run Kaiser Aluminum.”
Political squabbling was something we left behind in the Lower 48. After all, we were just fellow humans thrust together on the adventure of a lifetime. And maybe that’s the key: we related to each other as individuals enjoying a common experience, not as abstract representatives of this or that sociopolitical group. We humans love to generalize about people we haven’t actually met, and that unfortunate penchant has always been our undoing. We could all benefit from venturing outside our social bubble-domes now and then.
This past week we marked the 200th birthday of Henry David Thoreau, that cranky, enigmatic Yankee evangelist for the independent life. I started to wonder how we’d peg him politically. He was an ardent abolitionist, a proto-hippie and a pioneer of the peaceful protest. He railed against the compulsive pursuit of profit. So would he be a progressive Democrat today?
Not so fast. Thoreau was also a staunch individualist, a believer in minimal government and a bit of a misanthrope. It’s hard to imagine him engaging in mass demonstrations or any other collective pursuit. He always listened to the beat of that different drum.
What we’re left with, once again, is a bona fide individual. Thoreau would never whittle down his rough edges to fit a mold, and neither should we. Neither should we whittle down other people’s rough edges so they fit our preconceived molds — or scorn them when they don’t fit a mold we personally endorse.
If we’re going to survive as a unified nation (and it’s probably in our best interest that we do), maybe we need to do away with molds altogether. I know those molds help us make sense of a complicated universe, and I confess I’m guilty of resorting to classification-by-mold when I generalize about our political factions. But we all need to bridge that divide and find common ground with the people we currently think of as adversaries.
What common ground? Love of family and friends. The appreciation of beauty. The pursuit of fun and self-fulfillment. Respect for ourselves and others. And of course, our shared identity as Americans, humans, and fellow-residents of a magnificent planet. We’re like instruments in an orchestra: we might produce vastly different sounds as individuals, but we can vibrate to the music of common chords and produce pleasing harmonies.
Yes, my Alaska adventure made our political animosities seem distant, petty and Lilliputian. Once we dispense with the categories and start waking up to the humanity in our fellow-humans, we might stop labeling others as “the other.” Maybe that’s the real essence of being a moderate.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate and author of the recently published Lifestyles of the Doomed, available wherever e-books are sold.
All material in The New Moderate copyright 2007-2017 by Rick Bayan. (But feel free to share.)
THE NEW MODERATE 
Great post.
Americans – nearly all of us, are very decent people as individuals.
We do not always agree with our neighbor, but as long as they do not try to run our lives we still get along regardless of our differences.
We thrive as individuals and as a nation – without strong institutions forcing us to conform to some concept of the norm.
We only require those institutions sufficient to protect us from the very few who will harm their neighbor absent force.
In all else we can take care of ourselves. Despite our individualist streak – we are not only capable but excel at voluntarily cooperating with each other for our own benefit.
We are mostly social creatures – by individual choice.
We are not ants in a colony or wolves in a pack.
Thanks, Dave. I think that balance between individualism and genuine community spirit (as opposed to “my community vs. your community”) is the key to a healthy society.
We are expanding the discussion.
A free society and a healthy society – might not be the same thing.
Or the latter may be the consequence of the former.
Regardless, though we will not likely agree narrowly on what is a free society.
It is unlikely we can agree at all on what is a healthy society.
“my community” – meaning any of the voluntary associations I might make are extensions or supplements to the individual.
Individuality does not preclude voluntary cooperation.
All free exchange is just one form of voluntary cooperation.
Regardless, as Prof. Haidt and many others have noted one of the characteristics of humans is tribalism.
my family, my neighborhood, my community, my city, my state, my country, my world.
These tribal constructions are neutral but can act for good or bad or both.
Individual liberty requires us to include or exclude ourselves freely.
According to John Locke government too is a voluntary group. We can include ourselves or exclude ourselves.
Except for essentially anarcho-capitolistc groups such as the UN, we do not have much in the way of voluntary government.
Government as most of us know it is not voluntary. That and the fact that it can use force legitimately narrowly dictate its scope.
At the top of my favorites of your posts because in this case the advice truly can be taken and would help.
I just came back from a trip to Montana and experienced the same myself everywhere. Aside from one half naked girlie with a diamond in her navel who did not believe that standing at the end of a long line to get on an airplane was for her and why not just go immediatly to the front of it with her diamond, I did not encounter one boorish person and did encounter kindness, good humor, helpfulness, enthusiasm, cheerfulness, etc.
Politics is poison. The less I drink the better. As well, when I got myself down to none at all for a several week spell I did amazingly productive things with my time.
We agree.
What I do not understand is we we can not get from agreement that politics is poison,
to understanding that we need to reduce the political part of all of our lives to the bare minimum so that we have the largest portion of what we are nearly all good at.
I do not think there is a single person on this board that could not get along famously outside the context of politics.
We would not agree on everything – but that would not matter so long as we left each to their own way in their own life.
Glad you liked it, Roby. Without politics to poison the communal water, I have to agree that Americans are a mostly decent lot. I didn’t mention it in the essay, but I was especially charmed by the spirit of the Alaskans I met in stores and as tour drivers, They’re truly like our last pioneers.
It’s a shame that the Internet has promoted such bitter factionalism, though. Here’s a medium with the almost unprecedented power to bring us together, and it’s been doing just the opposite. (Well, I guess it’s been bringing special-interest groups together — at the expense of national unity.)
We have been prone to both factionalization and evil long before the internet.
Rwanda, The Great Leap Forward, the Gulags, the Nazi’s are among many examples of violent factionalism absent the internet.
Overall I think the internet is a strongly net positive force.
But freedom is not always pretty.
One of my arguments with the left (and moderates) is this utopianism.
Libertarianism is NOT utopian. It can and does work in the real world.
But it most definitely is NOT utopian. Free people make poor choices, and sometimes even die from them.
If Dave and Roby agree, I must be losing my touch. 😉
We all share nearly the same values.
but values do not relate to one another randomly
They fit into a framework that is/should be structured by our principles.
I think we mostly share the same principles – all principles are values, all values are not principles.
But most of us do not give any thought to the way our values fit into a structure with principles at the base.
As a result we do not recognize that efforts to acheive one value come at the expense of others. We pretend we can make those choices in a vaccuum.
That we can have universal healthcare without losing something else.
Or that our neighbor does not – and need not share the same relative weight to their values as we do.
So long and we are free and respect the freedom of others, then nearly all the nasty conflicts that factionalize us go away.
Most everything we angrily divide over is one group of us trying to impose their relative values by force on the other.
Apart of what I find offensive in both the left and some moderates here, is trying to wish that away.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all get along – i,e, you should smile while I abridge your rights”
We get upset often violently when government abridges the rights of blacks or women, or homosexuals.
We all have the same rights – whether christian bakers, transexual blacks. or wealthy white dudes.
Beautiful country and one that would be lovely to live in, until winter sets in and the sun don’t shine for long each day, if at all.
I don’t know if I’d enjoy those long, dark winters, but the locals say they try to socialize more — and they probably do a lot of cross-country skiing. Many of the inland folk still get around by dogsled.
One local guy who used to live in Virginia said that he actually prefers 40 below in Fairbanks to 15 or 20 above back East. (Less dampness to chill your bones.) My son and I did the “40 below” challenge: we stepped into a special room at that temperature dressed in our street clothes — just for a minute or so — and it was surprisingly tolerable. We just felt our nostrils get frosty.
Seems like 40 below is like 90 with 60% humidity (south and east) to 110 with 10% humidity (west). I hate the summers in North Carolina. I walk outside and 10 minutes later I am beginning to get dripping wet from sweat doing nothing. Went to Utah to visit daughter, went hiking at a state park, was over 100 degrees and after the 3 hours hiking, felt fine, dry and willing to do more. Humidity at any temperature cold or hot temp is bad.
I spent 2 years in college at Georgia Tech – the winters were miserable – it snowed once 2″ shutdown atlanta for 2 weeks. Otherwise it rained. Cold and wet is horrible.
After that I spent 2 years at Renselear Polytechnical Institute.
Several feet of snow in the winter. It was so cold that the snow did not melt on your cloths. It was easy to keep dry and much more pleasant.
Rick, this reminded me of an article I read about Bret Easton Ellis, the author and Hollywood screenwriter, in which he basically says he’s swearing off all political discussion, because people have gone crazy. The final straw for him was being called a “Trump apologist” for saying, in one of his podcasts, that, although he didn’t vote for Trump, he was bothered much more by anti-Trump hysteria than by the reality of what Trump is doing. He said that it was time to accept that Trump was elected this time around and not continue to let politics define your life, which is absurd.
My daughter, who did vote for Trump, is in South Africa right now, working with orphaned and at-risk children in Soweto. She says that it breaks her heart to hear these kids talk about America, because they so want to come here and experience the freedom and opportunity that we have ~ but, it also burns her to hear the whining and virtue-signaling from her fellow Americans on this journey, who act as if having Trump is the second coming of Hitler. What upsets her the most is that she knows that if she were to reveal herself as a Trump supporter, many of these people would shun her, despite knowing her to be an intelligent and good hearted person. It’s insane.
Politics has always been a dirty business, but we can’t let politicians and politics define us, or we risk losing all of the common ground that we share.
Great post. (And I link a video that my daughter took of part of a talent show that the children of Tehobo Trust performed for their visiting American teachers, just because some of these kids are pretty damn good. And, because Roby and I have already linked all of the good cockatoo videos)
Unlike your daughter I did not vote for Trump.
I think he is a reprehensible person – I fully understand those republicans – such as Goldberg, Will. McCarthy, … that can not support him.
I do not “support him” per say.
I did in real life defend the KKK’s right to march in my town many years ago.
And I was part of the protest of that march.
I understand as an example the queeziness that many have over Trump Jr.’s meeting to get dirt on Clinton. I could not personally conceive of seeking out the dirty laundry of anyone else. I can not think of a job I would want badly enough to seek dirt on others.
But Trump Jr.s conduct was legal, and no more reprehensible that pretty much every other politician.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this anti-trump nonsense is that it is destroying the reputation of others in politics that I had previously respected.
Early in the campaign I thought Trumps attack’s on John McCain were completely bile.
McCain was not even in the election. I still think that.
But as this has moved forward it becomes increasingly clear that McCain is extracting his own revenge. The Russians that met with Trump Jr. apparently have been meeting with McCain for a couple of years. McCain is tied to fusion GPS and to the Steele Dossier and walked the dossier to the FBI.
I do not think that Obama was a good president. But until after the election I thought he was a good person. But every new attack on Trump supplies more dirt on the Obama administration.
I would guess that Moogie, Roby, Jay, Rick and Ron are disgusted with government right now – aren’t we all. I understand fully.
What I do not understand is why any of us would ever place high trust in government.
All of this – Trump’s conduct, McCain’s, Clinton’s and all the rest.
Ilegal ? Immoral ! Vile! Ugly!
It is just politics. To the extent I depart from the rest of you it is that I do not think it is unusual.
Trump just fired a boatload at the VA. I would think – even without knowing them, that many of us have sympathy. The VA has F’d over our veterans. Left, Right, that is not how it is supposed to be. I do not have a perfect libertartian answer to the VA.
If we send soldiers to fight for us – and defense is a legitimate role of the government even if I would severely reduce it, then we are obligated to take care of them when they are harmed as a result. Certainly we owe them more that the worst government medical system on earth. Nor is this “tribal” – Obama F’d up. Bush F’d up. I can not remember a time the VA was good. I doubt it ever was.
But the VA is not unique in government – just as aside from his in your face style and coarse rhetoric, Trump is not unique as a president or politician.
Where I differ from most of you and mostly aggree with Madison, is that the democratic process is not even close to sufficient to protect us from ever worsening government.
BTW in different language John Stuart Mills said the same thing in “on liberty” – that democracy ultimately becomes more authoritarian that totalitarianism.
We are not going to elect “good people” routinely – our government is not even likely to employ average much less better than average people.
We must design our system to work even if bad people end up in power.
That is what our founders intended – I think they understood their own weaknesses.
But that is not what most of us today, or must here understand.
Well, here is a Dave post that I can take reading and even mostly enjoy. But no, I do not believe that the level of presidential badness, or basic rottenness of character is uniform among politicians, there are a different flavors of bad and different levels. Bush I was not at the level of lying as or personal lack of scruples as trump or Clinton, neither was Ford and neither was Eisenhower. In fact neither were any of them in my lifetime other than Nixon. This administration is unique in its flavor. I can’t say its the worst in history in terms of bad decisions leading to physical harm, they had not had time yet. As far as the assault on our national dignity (yes I believe that exists) this is by far the worst according to my taste, in my lifetime and probably in my parents lifetimes.
I firmly believe that there are a huge number of people who are claiming that trumps character is nothing unusual, nothing to get worked up about and even needs to just be accepted who would have complete melt down if trump was exactly what he was and had done exactly what he did, but he was a liberal. I think its damn near 100% of trump apologists who have gone ballistic over democratic politicians lying in the past and who will go ballistic again in the future, while complaining bitterly about the supposed mistreatment and over reaction to trump and his administration and allies.
This is a terrible president, to me unacceptable. Give me a democrat with policy ideas I like but trumps character, behavior and methods and I will be just as upset. And, I think many here will believe me when I say that.
I have not proposed that the evil of politicians is homogenous.
I think based on evidence that Johnson “trump” Nixon significantly in “evil”.
Nixon is an incredible enigma.
He was likely essential to extracting the US from Vietnam.
He was instrumental in improving relations with the USSR and China.
domestically he was possibly the most progressive president except possibly FDR.
After 40 years of bad taste resulting from disasterous new deal regulations, Nixon reverted to federal regulation in a huge way.
I am not claiming Trumps character is normal.
I revel in our differences – and trump is quite different.
There is a separate issue of whether his character is bad of good and how bad and does that even matter.
I am not sure I can coordinate good character with good presidents.
I would like to have both.
I tend to vote based on character.
National dignity is something we deal with at the polls.
I think Trump is selling national dignity and I think that sales pitch is working.
But his audience is not you Roby.
There is about 25% of this country that absolutely loathes Trump and will never have even an mildly bad view of him – to them he is the antichrist.
There appears to be about 35% of the country that thinks Trump is god, that he can do no evil.
That leaves the 45% of us that determined the outcome of the election.
Most of them do not like Trump.
Most of them liked Clinton even less.
Trump is unique.
Someone somewhere recently noted that this is the first president since Nixon (mostly through Agnew) to litterally go to war with the press.
That is always been Trump’s MO.
I do not like it – but it was not a determinative factor in my voting.
But alot of Trump’s supporters love it.
I seperately was following a journalist progressive who is calling on the left to chill because they are harming themselfs more than Trump (and I think he is right).
Who noted that like I – he thought Trump was dead in 2015 when he attacked McCain.
Trump completely ignored the conventional political wisdom.
Trump’s view is DO NOT APPOLOGIZE Ever.
And it is working for him.
Further his attacks on the media are working.
The right has been bitching about bias in the media since I was a child.
Alot of people – myself included are taking pleasure in the public humiliation of major media outlets.
I do not see CNN as any better than Alex Jones Infowars.
I do not like either.
Regardless, I am a big supporter of freedom – including in the press.
That includes the right of the press to be biased.
And for each of us to decide what we think about that through our choices.
I do not watch Alex Jones, and I rarely watch CNN.
Fox has taken on a huge position in the media – BECAUSE most other major outlets lean left and Fox has little competition on the right.
I have noted before that my recent introduction to twitter was shocking.
Major respected figures – law professors, etc. Tweet like stupid 13 year olds.
Twitter is not a universal cesspool, but it still seems to bring out the inner 13year old in everyone on it. Right wing moderate start sounding like Milo Yanopolis. Respected Left Wing Pundits come off as nasty petulant children.
Regardless, I think that Trump’s use of Twitter is going to be as big a change as FDR’s fireside chats. Trump has found a way to speak directly to people unfiltered.
There is all kinds of fighting going on over the whitehouse press corp.
That will continue for a while – but I think that the Whitehouse press in particular and journalism as a whole are im the midst of a massive disruption.
In their traditional role – the press is becoming irrelevant.
I think most of the changes that the internet has brought us are GOOD.
Including changes to the press and media.
But AGAIN freedom is NOT always pretty.
I would legalise heroin – even if a few more people died of overdoses.
The benefits of most freedom significantly outweigh the costs.
But I am not blind – the costs are real.
The anti-thesis is regulation.
On net the benefits of regulation do not outweigh the costs.
The left only sees the benefits – many of which would occur regardless.
I have vocally criticised many of the attacks on Trump.
Just to be clear – I do not have a problem with those attacking Trump.
I am NOT criticising attaching Trump.
I am merely pointing out the weaknesses in the specific attacks.
Or my disagreement with them.
I think CNN can run its business however it thinks works for it.
If it wishes to transform itself into the equivalent of the national enquirer – that is fine by me.
I would separately note as a strategy issue that the attacks on Trump are not working.
They appear to be slowing down his agenda – but not even close to stopping it.
More importantly they are destroying the left.
Even if the left should crush and impeach Trump
Clinton lost the election to a pretty unappealing candidate.
There are alot of reasons for that and some are unique to clinton.
But some reflect changes in the country.
As I have previously noted the left is more homogenized than the right.
That is BAD not good. It is dragging them slowly further left and alienating the middle.
The country is changing. Reason likes to keep trying to call this the “libertarian moment”.
I do not think so – but I do think that there is a general shift in the right and left towards mild libertariansim.
But the evidence is quirky and odd.
More people today SAY they prefer socialism over capitalism. Particularly young people.
But on a policy by policy basis Gen Xers are the most (policy) libertarian that has been since we started scoring this.
And remember ALL age cohorts get more conservative as they age.
You and I likely strongly agree on the character of politicians.
While I do share some of the glee in watching Trump give the “fake news” its well deserved comeupance.
Still that is not my idea of “presidential”
They are not exactly the same – but I will compare Trump to Bill Clinton.
Bill is far more pleasant. but he is a far worse mysoginist than Trump.
Frankly but for the fact that Hillary enables and participated in Bill’s mysogyny I just might have been able to hold my nose and vote for her.
Not because I like her at all – but because Trump is that bad,
But Bill Clinton was MOSTLY an effective president – he had a very poor foriegn policy record. From the Balkans to Rwanda, to botched mideast efforts, to North Korea.
I think Bill Clinton was a BAD person and a good president.
That troubles me alot.
I think that good people should make good presidents.
But I think both Bush II and Obama were good people – but bad presidents.
Maybe Reagan was both. Before that you have to go to Coolidge.
I would suggest looking into “public choice theory”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
Politicians are not going to be uniformly horrible people.
But the incentives in politics are similar to those in markets except for two things:
In politicas there is FAR less self regulation.
Markets offer a vehicle to wealth.
Politics is a vehicle to power.
There is overlap – you can rent power with money.
And you can lease power to get money.
But power is still the greater danger.
All the evil things the rest of you here think about free markets I think about government.
Markets need little if any regulation – the incentives are right, the freedom of buyers rapidly self regulates the misconduct of sellors.
Government needs highly regulated – and more importantly needs to be nearly impotent.
It is more dangerous in reality than business is in your worst fantasy.
Think of the most vile business person you can recall.
Remembering that the number of business people throughout the world dwarfs the number of politicians by several orders of magnitude.
Now thing of the top 100 worst politicians.
The most evil business person is lightyears less evil that the top 100 most evil politicians.
Roby, I do get that you absolutely detest and disdain Trump. And you are in good company, as millions of people do. I am not one of them, but I certainly know many of them, and many are people that I admire, people that I like, and often agree with politically. I never hated Trump the way that you do, but there was certainly a time when I was somewhat horrified at the possibility of him becoming president. Not as horrified as I was at the possibility of Hillary becoming president, though, and that is, in large part, the reason why I began looking at Trump as someone for whom I could vote.
Of course, I could have abstained from voting for president, and just voted down ballot, I could have voted for a third party candidate, or I could have written in my choice. I think that I’ve been clear in past comments why I simply don’t see the point in voting for someone who realistically has no shot to win ~ I have no particular problem with protest voting, I just don’t see the point in it. But I think that that is a personal choice, and that there are many people who cannot, in good conscience, cast a vote for someone that they consider unfit for the office. I considered Obama unfit for the office, due both to his extreme inexperience and due to his close association with people like Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright ~ not to mention his willingness to lie about those associations. So I get that kind of “horrified.”
My decision to support Trump was influenced by a number of factors: 1. he was the GOP nominee, and I have, for now, given up on the Democratic Party, which is way, way too far left for me, so Trump was my only viable option, other than a protest vote, 2. I grew to like the idea of a true outsider coming in to Washington as president, and knocking a few heads together 3. I never believed, and I still do not believe that Trump is corrupt, certainly not as corrupt as the average Washington politician. 4. I came to believe, and still do believe, that Trump speaks for himself, not for his donors, or for lobbyists, or for any foreign power.
Do I like everything he says or does? No. Do I agree with his basic policy positions, his overall philosophy of what makes America great and why he believes that we have been headed in the wrong direction, both economically and as a world power? Yes, in the main. Do I think that he is a person of bad character, an inveterate liar and con-man? No. Do I think he’s a bit strange, with a somewhat too-fragile ego, and a tendency to respond impulsively to attacks and setbacks. Yes, but I’ll qualify that by saying that I believe that most of our modern presidents have had some big flaws, and that Trump’s flaws are often off-set by his honesty, outspokenness, and his political bravery. There’s an old saying “The line between bravery and stupidity is so thin that you don’t know you’ve crossed it until you’re dead.”
Do I think his presidency will be a success? I don’t know. Things don’t look so good right now. And, while Trump is battling the Democrats, many (if not most) Republicans, the media, many NATO leaders who liked the easy ride that they were getting with Clinton, Bush and Obama, etc…..he is also battling his own tendency to often make certain bad situations worse. We may not know whether he is brave or stupid until he’s politically dead.
Those of us who you derisively call “Trump enablers,” are often less foolish and more clear-eyed than you think. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I would ask that you keep that in mind.
Sorry this was so long.
We vote for our own reasons.
That is part of the problem with this “russia” meme.
With respect to voting things that concern me.
Hacking voting machines.
Other misconduct involving the handling and counting of votes.
various forms of in person voter fraud.
If Russia hacked the DNC email server and leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks.
1). Nothing to be done.
2). If that effected voters – that is life, do not write stupid emails, or better do not engage in conduct that voters will abhor if they find out about.
If Campaign Trump actually collaborated in efforts to Hack the DNC email server before – NOT the release of the emails once they were hacked – that I have a problem with.
Any other interactions with the Russians (or really anyone else) that is not a crime – is news, and a reason for people to think about their 2018 and 2020 vote. It is not a basis for impeachment, it is not the basis for a government investigation.
I have a VERY serious problem with any investigation that is NOT of a crime that is not done publicly by congress. The FBI or special prosecutors should never be investigation people over political rather than criminal conduct.
That is little different than what nixon wanted to do with the FBI.
It does not matter if it is done openly and publicly.
Mueller can investigate if there is credible evidence of a crime – todate there is not.
I do not beleive there should be a special prosecutor.
If Russia was planting news stories, creating Clickbait or bashing Clinton on RT.
So what ? Again that is life.
More generally – communicating with voters – even lying to them is not a crime and not something our government should be permitted to interfere with.
If one candidate lies about the other – directly or by proxy – including through a foreign country, and that demonstrably alters the outcome of an election – so be it.
It is the job of the news media, the other candidate and ultimately the voter to sort truth from lies. Government should not even be investigating the credibility of political expression.
So if Russia influenced the election by changing peoples minds – I do not care.
There is nothing there.
Thus far I think Trump’s presidency has been relatively successful.
He is shrinking government.
He is slowing down the regulator process.
THUS FAR I beleive he is doing well in the mideast.
He committed to militarily destroying ISIS and then getting our military OUT.
He appears to be doing that.
He has “reset” our relationships in the mideast.
Which is key to offesting the increasing power of Iran.
There are some hints that some arab israeli deal may occur – more than we have seen in decades.
I do not think that the issues regarding Nato and the rest of the world are going badly.
There is a huge difference between Trump and Obama (and Bush I II)
Trump is not a multilaterist. That is merely tactics, but it is effective.
He is persuing nation-nation deals – not big muli nation deals.
He has a volatile relationship with China – but he appears to have them more involved in dealing with North Korea than any prior president.
I am disappointed that he did not move quickly for a US-UK really free trade deal.
That should be a no-brainer, and I think even US protectionist voters actually understand that Trade with the UK is a win-win. But there are atleast rumblings.
He is pushing on nato countries to up their military spending, and they are doing it.
Contra the left – he has given Russia nothing so far.
If this is Trump the Putin pupet – “please sir can I have more”
Leading economic indicators look good – particularly after a dim and threatening 2016.
The GOP budget is predicting 2.6% growth. I do nto think we will get there by 2018, but it will be insight. I expect to exceed 3% by 2020.
If that occurs – Trump would have to start a nuclear war to lose.
If he gets to 3% growth by 2020 I will probably hold my nose and vote for him.
“Do I think that he is a person of bad character, an inveterate liar and con-man? No. ”
I am sorry Priscilla, nothing in this world will convince me that you and millions of conservative/GOP voters like you would not have the opposite opinion if trump were a liberal whose political positions you disliked or worse. You would see through a liberal version of trump and be enraged. I am 100% sure of few things in this world but I am 100% sure of that.
Roby….Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roby;
I think that Trump is relatively liberal. More importantly I disagree with him on a number of issues. Thus far he has made progress primarily in areas I support and failed to accomplish much or even try on those I do not.
Further I opposed Obama on policy issues, but until all this stuff about his administration’s political corruption has come out after the election – I thought he was a good person.
Political antithapy is more complex that your simple model.
Nixon had to be destroyed by the left because he was probably the most progressive president since FDR.,
The hatred of the right for Clinton was atleast in part because he was mostly politically conservative.
Har Cruz won instead of Trump – it is entirely possible the result of this election would have been reversed – Cruz would not likely have won the Rust belt, and likely would have lost a close electoral college vote.
However Trump did very badly with southern voters outside of Florida – this did not matter because though it has taken 4 decades republicans now have an enormous lock on the south.
Cruz could well have picked up 2-3M more republican votes in deep red states, beaten Clinton by popular vote and still lost the election.
Trump won atleasts in part because he is NOT a republican. He essentially ran as a clinton democrat on the republican ticket.
And that is a part of why he has poor support among republicans and is hated by the left.
Priscilla: Good point about our increasing tendency to let politics define who we are. I agree that left-wingers are much more likely to ostracize good people who aren’t on their political team… even those who simply confess that they don’t swallow the entirety of progressive “scripture.” I know I was dropped by a few FB friends after a couple of those “Why a nice guy like me can’t wholeheartedly embrace progressive values” posts. It’s that unfortunate tendency to view people as representatives of a hated “other” group instead of seeing them as individuals with free minds.
It’s a shame that your daughter has to keep mum or risk losing friends. (I imagine Republicans in Hollywood have the same problem.) By the way, those South African kids could easily pass for Americans. They’d be right at home here, except that I wouldn’t wish it on them.
I think political intolerance – particularly from the left is MUCH worse today.
I recall in high school and college vigorous debates on a wide variety of issues with views across the spectrum absent turning everything into character assassination of those who disagree.
I would suggest that feelings that your ideology is about saving the world make it far easier to tirade about the “hate” of those who disagree.
Even in college most of my professors leaned left – but outright marxists were rare and even the left was a spectrum of views.
The progressive left today is more ideologically homogenous. Dissent is not tolerated.
A significant portion of the campus nonsense – such as at Evergreen occurs when one leftist professor says “wait a minute – left value X is not absolute and conflicts with left value Y”
As a young adult I noted that christian fundimentalists had more conflict with those closest to them Small churches could fight bitterly over whether you baptize someone by dunking them once forward and twice backward – condemning the other to hell for slight differences. That is where we are with the left today.
I would note that there is an argument that the polls were wrong about Trump and brexit for much this reason. The left cows those who disagree into silence.
Many Trump voters would not admit to voting for Trump even in polls.
http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=http://americanart.si.edu/images/1997/1997.37_1a.jpg&max=460
Rick, Dave, what concerns me most about the continuing intolerance and violence from the left, is that this sort of thing generally continues to worsen, unless there is clear sign from leadership that it will not be tolerated. And by clear sign, I don’t mean “tut, tut children, we shouldn’t do that,” I mean “pull that shit again, and you’ll be expelled from school and/or thrown in jail.”
Ironically, while liberals fume over “Trump enablers” and “Trump coddlers,” as if it’s somehow unpatriotic to accept the election of a president whom they don’t like (okay, they hate him), we see very little in the way of condemnation of riots against free speech or demands for racially segregated housing for black students (imagine if white students were to demand this). safe spaces and trigger warnings.
The increasing tendency to define oneself as a member of a politically defined identity group, rather than as a member of a large heterogeneous society is tearing the country apart. Open and civil debate has become secondary and subordinate to obstruction, demands and protest, sometimes violent protest.
Even more concerning, I think that the right, after witnessing the continued success of certain left wing thuggery, is beginning to advocate that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” and to encourage the adoption of some of these strategies. For sure, this will not end well. To an extent, Donald Trump embodies this attitude of “punch back twice as hard,” (an Obama era quote) and the defense of that attitude will continue to grow, whether or not he is a successful president, because it is perceived to be the way that the left prevails. Some on the right now believe that the only way to respond is by “fighting fire with fire.”
People on both sides need to dial it back about 10 notches and take some time to consider the ultimate ramifications of shouting down civil debate, refusing to accept the results of elections, and/or using violence to achieve political or cultural aims. Extremists on both sides will continue to advocate extreme strategies, but the rest of us need to stop enabling them. It’s not Trump who is the enemy ~ if anything, he is a result of what’s happening, not the cause.
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
James Madison Federalist 51.
We seem all agreed – human nature is mostly good, but politics brings out the worst in us.
That is why the constitution was written with all the complexities and constraints that it has.
Why removing them has allowed our worse nature to run amuck.
Dave: The Constitution is a masterpiece of wisdom and balance. But how have we removed its constraints? (Inquiring minds need to know.)
One example would be that all legislation and regulation is the domain of congress.
The constitution did not empower congress to delegate that task to the administration.
Yet we do that all the time.
Worse this is a cheap political trick. It allows congress to pass legislation with a bunch of clauses – each of which implies something different from the other, and then let regulators in the administration sort out the contradictions using their own personal preference.
This allows a congress critter to self righteously and hypocritically rail that was not the law/regulation they voted for.
But there are many others.
A major one was evident in the Gorsuch nomination hearings.
Those on the left rant about originalism, but a narrow form of originalism is the only means of interpreting law and constitution that is consistent with “the rule of law not man”.
Ideology can drive our laws. I ideology can drive the enforcement of our laws.
but the interpretation of law really should be as close to rote textual understanding, with ambiguity always resolved in favor of individual liberty.
If we do not like the meaning of a law or constitution – when that meaning is near mechanistically established – then we can amend the constitution or change the law and be sure of how the court will read it.
When constitutional interpretation is influenced by ideology
we have the law of man not law.
Even when the outcome is desireable the rule of law is still harmed.
Go ahead, Trump coddlers, let’s hear the rationalizations for this sneaky hour long meeting.
From BBC: ( 14 minutes ago)
“The second meeting happened during the meal at the summit in Hamburg. President Trump left his seat and sat at an empty chair next to Mr Putin, the Washington Post reports.
The US president was alone, and Mr Putin was attended only by his official interpreter, the report adds, saying that these talks lasted for almost an hour.
The White House confirmed this meeting after media reports revealed the encounter.”
This is the kind of deceptive devious Dunce we have as President. Two like-minded fascists with their foreheads together, and no record of what they promised each other, and NO ANNOUNCEMENT of what transpired between them.
The fact that the president meets people in secret bothers you ?
Or is it only that he meets russians in secret ?
If Trump is meeting Putin – that is a good thing.
what is it that the left actually wants ?
War with Russia ?
Personally I think he should drop the Russia sanctions – and the cuba sanctions and the Iran sanctions and all other sanctions.
But right now if Trump smiled at Putin the left would have an anurism and scream collusion.
If he secretly met with Theresa May – would that whig you out ?
Do you understand this kind of Trump hysteria makes you look nuts ?
More consensus from Conservatives that Trump supporters have degenerated morally.
http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/449644/donald-trump-character-flaws-supporters-russia-collusion-investigation
I like Shapiro but he is not even close to representing the “concensus”.
And if you had read the article – rather than fixate on the fact that Shapiro is “sort of” critical of Trump, you would grasp that even he says he is not part of the concensus.
While there are a few points I would disagree with.
Mostly Shapiro is correct.
I do not agree that the ends justify the means.
I do not agree with him that any significant portion of those on the right beleive that.
Conversely the ends is all that is important to the left. The means NEVER matters.
Nor do I think that any significant portion of Trump supporters would not be upset with actual “cheeting”.
Beyond that ALOT of what Shapiro says is correct.
Trump supporters – and some of us who did not support him would NOT be happy if Trump was replaced with Pence and Republicans were able to advance Platform goals.
This election was NOT mostly about policy – though it was more so on the right than the left.
Nor was it mostly about character – Trump and Clinton were both vile.
We can fight over who is worse.
Van Jones “sort of ” got it right on election night when he called it “whitelash”.
This election was definitely about “backlash”. The left has been following Alynski’s rules for radicals for decades – they have been getting more and more overt about it.
The left continues to paint everyone who is not with them as “hateful, hating haters”.
Those of you on the left are completely clueless as to how dangerous that is.
Particularly when you atleast tepidly beleive that 51% of the people makes truth.
I keep constantly harping here over things like is slavery moral if 51% of the people support it
You will not answer. when you define right and wrong democratically – evil literally becomes good if most people support it
Regardless, the left has told most of this country that they are evil hateful hating haters.
The expanding breadth of left identity politics have been such that a tipping point was eventually going to be hit.
In 2016 that tipping point was hit.
Trump voters are gleeful that the left is getting a huge dose of its own medicine.
“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” – 2009 Obama Whitehouse.
Trump has taken that to heart.
Shapiro is correct Trump’s supporters do not care that much whether his tweets are perfectly accurate. He is punching back at the left and their media lapdogs.
As far as Trump’s supporters are concerned he is punching back for them,
for all the times they were badgered into silence or made affraid to say what they beleive for fear of being called a “hateful, hating hater” by the left.
Shapiro might be right that they will stay with Trump if evidence of actual collusion was found. I do not think he is right about that.
But I am not worried – because it will not be.
Even Alan Derschowitz pointed out – long before the Trump Jr. meetings.
That not only is this entire mess a nothing burger – but it can never become more than a nothing burger.
Prior knowledge of Russian hacking of voting machines – would be a crime, and would get Trump impeached.
Prior involvment in the hacking of the DNC – no matter who did it – would be a crime – and would get trump impeached.
One of the reasons that the Trump Jr. meeting nonsense is tanking is because people are starting to grasp that the democrats are not saying Trump did something wrong.
They are saying that anything he did that beat us is wrong.
People are not stupid. The left has hyped up this “Trump/Russia” collusion.
They have made it a monsterous evil conspiracy to take from them and the american people what the left thinks is rightfully theirs.
While people were a bit troubled by the Trump Jr. meeting – at the same time that meeting made it clear that there would be nothing had Trump himself “secretly” met with Putin to get dirt on Clinton.
Shapiro was “sorf of” correct that the Trump Jr. incident made it clear that Trump loyalist would support him no matter what. I think more accurately they realized that this media meme was NOT about Trump and Putin conspiring to hack voting machines.
That what it really was about was the left criminalizing efforts to demonstrate that Clinton’s shit sticks too.
It is not that Trump Jr. met with a non-entity and got nothing that is killing the left and it is that people are not thinking – if Trump had met with Putin and gotten dirt on Clinton that would be a “nothing burger”
It actually got worse when Trump then had a 2nd “secret” meeting with Putin at G20.
Really ? The left is frothing at the mouth because two world leaders met secretly ?
And from what I can tell it was not even a “meeting” – it appears they set next to each other at dinner.
I could not personally be a politician. I can not conceive of going out to get “dirt” on someone else. I do personally have moral problems with that.
But that is why I have not run for office.
At the same time I fully accept that as the norm of politics, and that it is legal.
Nor is this new – our founders were throwing dirt at each other
Further – even if we are offended by the moral issues of slinging mudd at your opponent.
Clinton, her campaign and Democrats were so deep in the shit slinging in 2016 that Trump and supporters look like angels by comparision.
Though there is one big difference, that is unique to this election.
The conventional wisdom todate has been that parties and proxies can sling shit at each other, but to be elected, the candidate has to “appear” above that.
Increasingly it is evident that clinton was heavily involved in slinging shit at Trump – through proxies and the media – and worse that much of her dirt was false.
Conversely Trump went after his opponents personally and directly.
The Trump Jr. meeting actually shows the rest of the Trump campaign FAILING to get dirt on Clinton. None of what Trump used against Clinton was the result of OPO research.
It all came from the very reluctant news. Trump did not pay spies to find Clinton had seriously risked national security – the government did that. Trump did not pay spies to dig up the Clinton Cash – the New York Times did that. Trump’s OPO research came from the Media, the FBI and the government.
Clinton’s came from MI6 agents soliciting false information from Russian spies.
If there is a morality contest here – the left loses horribly.
And separately I have been telling you that this is likely how things would be.
I know those of you on the left think business person and sleazy criminal are the same thing. But all free exchange depends on Trust. Nearly every business person on the planet know that if they have a reputation for dishonesty that those they intend to exchange with beleive – no one will deal with them. Trump’s success is prima fascia evidence of his honesty. Real honestly – can I trust this person to do what they say they will. Not the fake honesty of the left – can I trip them up in some kind of self contradiction in their remarks.
So contra your assertion what is actually being proven by all of this is the moral depravity of the left.
Trump and his supporters are no saints. But the more the left pushes this the more obvious it becomes that in comparison to those on the left – the Clinton’s and the Obama administration – they are the “good guys”.
Trump is coming accross as “Rambo” – a basically honest guy, who responds to corrupt efforts to smear him, by “punching back twice as hard”.
Do you not understand how obtuse are your observations about Trump/Putin/Russia ?
On his own volition, Trump, seated far diagonally ACROSS the table from Putin, crosses over to sit next to him, for close to an HOUR. This conversation is shared only with Putin’s translator. No US translator, no US aides, no notes taken by Trump. No way to verify what either said, promised, agreed on between them. And no announcement from either that they spoke for that length of time, or at all.
And you’re comfortable with that? Knowing what you know about Putin’s character, Trump’s character? Or lack thereof?
Other reports from attendees at the dinner say Trump was in animated conversation with Putin ( think he was sharing his Groping technique?); neither of them bothered to speak with any of the other guests at the table during their hour long palaver. And you’re dismissing that as innocent dinner chat, between two swell guys engaging in harmless Locker Room style talk, is that it?
Judging the potentional innocence or treacherousness of a private conversation between two players requires assessments and situational analysis of their character and history. If Putin had been in an hour length private dinner conversation with Bashar al-Assad would you be inclined to dismiss it as mere dinner chatter? What if Obama had spent an intimate hour in close head to head with Raul Castro, or Iran’s Hassan Rouhani; you saying that should have been immune from critical scrutiny?
I don’t think the Left wants war with Russia; historically the Right has been far more threatening militarily against Russia; as a moderate-centrist I would like the US to be more assertive/pugnacious with Russia over their meddling interference in our elections. You seem to want to reward them for it, with your dropping sanctions plea.
Humm. Think this could have been discussed at the Trump-Putin tête-à-tête?
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/342772-trump-shuts-down-cia-program-to-arm-syrian-rebels?amp
And if it was ?
Arming Syrian rebels has not done all that well for us.
Though again. I would get govenrment completely out of the selling arms business.
I would allow US weapons manufacturers to sell to whoever they pleased.
Commerce – even in weapons is not the business of government.
Arming anybody is interventionist.
Trump is a type of non-interventionist.
His campaign promise was to destroy ISIS – because they are really at war with us.
And not to use US forces except where it is clearly in our interests.
I do not like Assad. But ultimately his people have to get rid of him – not us.
And they have to choose the government they want – not us.
Rebels are free to buy arms wherever they can.
But our GOVERNMENT should not be selling arms.
Just to be clear. I am not saying Trump shares my views on Trade or arms or ….
Just that Trump stopping arming of Syrian Rebels is consistent with his campaign and its promises.
Do you understand that you are making an absolutely insane claim to have a right to know what other people talk about ?
And FDR met with Stalin.
World leaders meet in secret – not a crime. Not unusual. Something we actually want to occur.
Yes, I am comfortable with that.
Do you think that Obama never met privately with anyone ?
But this is not even a “secret private meeting” this is sitting near each other at a dinner.
No I do not care if world leaders sometimes talk without Translators.
I am pretty sure there were a few private meetings between FDR, Churchill and Stalin at Casablanca and that Stalin understood english and could badly speak it.
With respect to what you say about verification – yup, that is correct – and often the point.
An agreement that no one knows about and that is not put into effect – is not an agreement.
If Trump agreed to do X for Putin and leaves the meeting and never does X – who enforces the “agreement” ?
Agreements – even secret agreements, are words that to have meaning lead to actions.
How does Trump “secretly” effect this private agreement ?
Trump could possibly “secretly agree” with Putin to put 10M from A Trump offshore secret bank account into A secret Putin account in return for say dirty pictures of Clinton.
But if he “secretly aggreed” to Give Putin a couple of nuclear weapons – Trun would still have to tell someone to have that happen.
Trump has the ability to move US assets arround. He does not have the ability to do so without involving others.
Unless you think he had the Churchill Bust from the Oval Office under his cumberbund ?
You so not seem to understand I do not care what they talked about.
but then the left constantly confuses words with actions.
This is just another lefty delusion that you are entitled to know everything that everyone else says or thinks.
Lets say they extensively discussed how to proceed in Syria.
No matter what they said, no matter what they agreed to,
at some point it has to convert to action – or the conversation is meaningless.
And maybe Putin can act somewhat secretly – but Trump can not.
If Putin had a 1hour dinner conversation with Assad – so what ?
Now you seem to think you have the right to know what foreign heads of state talk about to each other ?
I am sure that if Putin and Assad had a secret conversation the CIA would be desparate to know what is said. Finding out what foreign nations do secretly is called spying.
We do it all the time. But most of the time we do not succeed in finding out.
Historicially the Right has been more hostile to Russia.
And Yet Reagan met with Gorbachev – probably in secret.
Historically the right was probably more likely to provoke a violent confrontation with Russia.
At this moment – that has changed. The logical end result of the claims of the left are war with Russia.
I would drop the sanctions. I would drop all sanctions against every nation in existance.
We have the most positive effect
“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.”
George Washington FareWell address.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Washington goes into this at great lenghts.
I would commend Obama for trying to normalize relations with Cuba and condemn Trump for reverting on that.
Historically sanctions have been a failure. They are litterally the cause of Pearl Harbor, and were deliberately intended to do so.
With respect to Russian “interference”
I do not care what Opo Research Russia provides anyone.
I do not care if they secretly buy advertisements that favor one candidate over another.
I am generally an advocate of free speach – but there is another factor when we are dealing with another sovereign nation – short of war, you can not stop it.
I am disturbed that they purportedly tried to hack voting machines.
But there will always be some force seeking to hack our voting machines, and we should presume we much secure them.
Regardless, the punishment for Russia didling in our elections – is that we have been didling in theirs.
Again short of war we can not stop this.
I have a similar view regarding the DNC hacks.
While I do not beleive Russia did them. I actually beleive the CrowdStrike data proves that it was not Russia – it is unlikely that Russia would have used old rather than current Russian tools AND left the evidence lying arround the presence of evidence of the hack pretty much means it was NOT Russia.
Regardless, I expect that hackers all over the world will target high profile targets,
And in reality even though hacking is criminal the responsibility to protect your data unfortunately rests with you.
If you can catch hackers – arrest them.
With respect to nations hacking – again are you going to war ?
I would not drop sanctions against Russia to reward them.
I would do that because sanctions are a bad idea.
And I would drop all sanctions against anyone.
And Conservative reservations about DungBat Donald’s unsuitability to govern continue:
Max Boot: “Can’t believe I’m saying this but we have POTUS whose loyalty to USA is suspect. Bet some of his own aides wonder.”
Max Boot is a neocon.
The thought of any relationship to Russia that is not an eyelash short of nuclear war is unacceptable to NewCon’s.
In the election NeoCon’s mostly voted for Clinton – regardless of their party affilation.
You and I and everyone else had their opportunity to make our assessment of Trump’s fitness to be president on Nov. 8 2016.
Absent an anuerism, the only review of that before 2020 is impeachment, and that is unlikely unless congressmen beleive their will be no political consequence for doing so.
Regardless, Boot’s claim is nonsense.
You really beleive that Trump’s “loyalty” to the US is suspect ?
Trumps net worth is about 1/4 of Russia’s yearly budget.
What does Putin have to lure Trump ?
Would you trade being President of the US for being an underling to the President of Russia ?
Trump is driven by two things power and fame.
He has about as much of those right now as any human can have.
What Trump is not “loyal” to is YOUR vision of the US.
He is loyal to his own.
I think that a lot of irrational Trump-hatred is driven by the fact that Trump is an unbelievably successful asshole. People want to believe that guys like Trump “get what they deserve,” and they don’t believe that he deserves to be a billionaire, a TV celebrity and the President. They just can’t stomach the fact that a guy that they see as a shallow jerk could be successful beyond his wildest dreams.
I also think that Trump is driven to do this ~ to succeed, or “win”~ because he knows how he is perceived, and he wants or needs to prove his detractor wrong. Armchair analysis for sure, but I tend to agree with those who consider Trump to be Jay Gatsby on steroids ~ or, perhaps in Trump’s case, Big Macs.
I think that he believes that he can identify common ground with Putin, and work with Russia on those areas where our interests overlap. I don’t know if I believe that he can, because Putin is always the scorpion, and he is always looking to make his adversaries the frog. But I don’t fault Trump for trying, and he has surrounded himself with people who do not trust Putin.
I just finished reading “Shattered,” the book about Hillary’s failed campaign,written by 2 sympathetic reporters who had embedded with the campaign, with the understanding that their book would not be published until Hillary won, and “shattered” the glass ceiling. I
It specifically talks about the fact that, within 24 hours of the election, “Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters, to engineer the case that the election wasn’t on the up and up…already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”
This is all BS. Not the fact that Russia is trying to de-stabilize our democracy ~ that’s certainly true. But the whole collusion business is a way to keep the liberal base revved up until 2018 in order to win the House, and bring impeachment charges. If the GOP cannot get their act together, it will likely succeed, and then they will go after Pence, who is probably not even using Russian dressing on his salads these days.
The left has forever thrived on hate and envy – from the french revolution through the rise of russian communism and then chinese, and cuban, … all left revolutions everywhere are focused on envy of those who have become wealthy.
A central tenant of marxism is that communism will arrise from the hate and envy of workers for the wealthy.
Posters here – and not all from the left constantly repeat that actors in the market – which requires no more regulation that enforcement of the three principles that I keep stating as the basis of the rule of law – are inherently untrustworthy greedy and evil, and must be regulated. Yet history clearly teaches us that whether that claim is true or not a society that punishes the “greedy” is a misserable one.
There is no example anywhere in the world of any government that has striven to reign in greed – rather than just enforce the rule of law, that has not harmed the welfare of its citizens.
With respect to your observations regarding Trump finding common ground to work with Putin.
I have no idea whether Trump can do so. Regardless, isn’t that what we would expect from ANY president ?
If Clinton had been elected – wouldn’t we expect her to work with Putin in our common interests ?
I find this bizzarre Russia, Russia, Russia meme regarding Trump ludicrous – as Clinton has far more ties to Russia.
I think the Trump/Russia meme is incredibly politically dangerous for the left.
This is just my crystal ball view, my sense of how things are likely to play out.
The left is hyping the public towards burnout on the issue.
Absent uncovering something of actual substance it is my suspicion that 2018 is going to prove a very bad election for the left.
Another 15 months of Trump/Russia – without adding substance will demoralize voters on the left. There is little evidence it is effecting Trump voters.
Further the meme itself has a serious flaw. Trump/Russia collusion is only egregious in the abstract. That should be the lesson of the recent Trump Jr. revelations.
If you voted for Trump – think about what he would have to have Actually done to lose your vote ?
I do not like moral or legal relativism, I would prosecute everyone who violates the law – even Bad laws that I do not like. The most effective way to get rid of bad laws and to get people to grasp why law must be narrow is to convict absolutely everyone who violates the letter of the law.
Regardless of my antipathy to moral relativism – less than 8% of voters chose NOT to vote for the “lessor evil”
For most voters the standard of conduct is not the law or some high standards of morality – but that of the other party.
What is evident regarding Trump and his campaign’s conduct is that they did nothing that Clinton and her campaign did not do and order of magnitude worse.
Those on the left – who are incapable of seeing the world objectively and are certain that their shit does not stink are trying to persuade those on the right who essentially share the same view of themselves and their tribe.
If you are of one tribe and you are seeking defectors from the other tribe you must not only persuade the defector of their tribes error, but your own tribes virtue.
I think that Clinton lost in 2016 – because in a few specific democratic demographics Trump succeeded at that. Since the election democrats have done nothing to persuade those voters to return. They have done everything to keep them alienated.
I keep harping on the error of this “hateful, hating hater” identity politics.
The most consequential shift that effected the election was that of blue collar white voters.
Those rust belt voters left the democratic party for Trump in 2016 in numbers large enough to give trump the election. Those voters left DESPITE the left calling Trump supporters “deplorables” – racists, misogynists. You do not get voters back by calling them names.
While I do not beleive the hate labeling is correct – that would still be irrelevant.
If you want those voters to return you have to appeal to them, not insult them.
The left is striving for ideological purity – that is not an appeal that will win elections.
The left is becoming more and more homogenous. It is becoming a solid block of nearly perfectly uniform voters making up between 20 and 25% of the electorate.
That is a recipe for power in a multiparty parlimentary system – not ours.
At the same time the Republican party is becoming less strident, and less homogenous.
Increasingly the only attack the left has on its opponents is “hateful, hating haters”.
The left has one (self contradictory) set of ideas. The right has a breadth of different perspectives – with consensus on nothing but that the left is wrong.
That is not a platform for big government accomplishment or programs.
It is one that can win elections.
Dave,
“You really believe that Trump’s “loyalty” to the US is suspect ?
Trumps net worth is about 1/4 of Russia’s yearly budget”.
What one believes and what may be true can be two totally different points of view. On one hand, I think all this Russia, Russia, Russia crap is just that. And then I read articles like this one and have to question, “is there something there?” You ask about Trumps loyalty to the US. I would say off hand, that is a dumb question for anyone to ask, then I see where he owes his empire to Russia for the most part since dirty money kept his empire from crashing down during its financial crisis. So then I have to ask, “would someone like Trump want to pay back the very people that saved him from financial ruins and allowed him to maintain his status where he then became president?” My thinking is some in that position would be loyal to there financial supporters and others would cut the rug out from under them in a heart beat. Some people, like myself, have just enough knowledge of crime syndicates that provides us with information that individuals associated with crime syndicates like the mafias have an unbreakable loyalty to that organization for one reason or another to allow us to question his loyalty.
So you, me, Roby, Jay, Priscilla and everyone else can support or criticize Trump, but when information comes out like this information, most anyone would have to read it and wonder if the smoke in DC today is due to the fire from his actions years ago. There may be something there or not, but I am taking up two positions on this issue. One, I would not criticize nor support Trump right now as there is not enough information for either on this issue and two, I would not be surprised at either finding, good or bad, that comes from this investigation.
However, I do criticize Trump and his decision making currently that has nothing to do with past Russia involvements. I have to agree with those that say Trump is an unstable individual, but is he unstable enough that would lead to impeachment. I doubt it. But when he says something like he said about Sessions and undermines anything Sessions is about to do, his leadership is totally lacking. Would you risk anything in your career or personal life for Donald Trump? His comments about Sessions just shows he is trying to hide something since he wanted Sessions in place to block any investigation and Sessions undercut him by taking himself out of the Russia issue all together. Anyone in congress has to be nuts to risk political capital on anything Trump wants to do if it is not in their best interests as tomorrow you may be on the wrong end of the stick stirring the Trump cesspool of dirty tricks. One thing for sure in my mind, Trump will never be viewed as anyone someone could look up to due to their personal behaviors. Even as bad as Carter was president, there was nothing in his personal life that would make anyone not want a kid to grow up to be like him.
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
Would someone like trump want to payback those who saved him ?
That is pretty easy – No!.
First the meme is wrong. No one “saved” Trump.
They Bet on him. And they both won that Bet.
Trump succeeded. No one “saved him”. People with money bet that Trump could make them even more money – and he did.
Trump owes them nothing, they owe him nothing.
I would suspect that each is happy with the other, and they are likely to be willing to work together for their mutual benefit in the future.
But there is no debt or obligation on either side.
The above is not merely the way things actually work – something that the left does not grasp, but it is also the way Trump thinks.
One of the fundimental issues is that for the left nearly everything is zero sum – if someone wins – someone else must loose. If we use a resource – then it is gone forever.
None of those are true. All economic exchange is expected to be win-win and actually is win-win 99% of the time. The buyer and the seller are each better off than they were before the exchange.
All resources are infinitely recycleable. Those resources that we have in abundance and can acquire at low cost are typically not recycled today.
But Iron mining in the US has nearly stopped – because we get most of the steel we need through recycling. It is more cost effective to recycle steel than to mine it.
Regardless, the point is Trump was not “saved” by russians or anyone else.
He “saved” himself. He persuaded people with money that he had something of value to offer in return. They agreed and invested money – and they have gotten back more than they provided.
Contra the left the type of “debt” the left is talking about does not exist in free markets.
Those types of debts are found primarily in politics – I contributed to your campaign therefore you OWE me something in return.
Dave I am beginning to think you would defend the unions, waste management companies and all the other New York crime operated businesses as being “honest and above board”.
How do you launder money and not have someone owing someone else a “favor”?
“Dave I am beginning to think you would defend the unions, waste management companies and all the other New York crime operated businesses as being “honest and above board”.”
Have dome unions at some times done something criminal – probably.
But I do not presume Unions are criminal because they are unions.
For the most part I have problems when Unions resort to violence, or fraud.
Beyond that they are legitimate voluntary organizations.
If they are corrupt – that is between them and their members
Same is basically true of waste management.
Again if they engage in violence or fraud – go get them.
The vast majority – if not all of organized crime is the result of bad laws.
While this nonsense preceeds prohibition – it is essentially the same.
When you criminalize commerce – you get a black market.
The thing I would note is that despite the absence of government – criminal black markets actually operate fairly well.
That shoudl be eye opening to you – because criminal black markets are by definition unregulated.
Yet those engaged in vice, gambling, drugs do a very good job of serving their customers and making them happy. People do not gamble if they never win.
Criminal gambling rackets return a far larger portion of what they collect to gamblers than do state lotteries.
How do you launder money and not have someone owing someone else a “favor”?
The typical money laundering operation is:
You give me X+1 of “dirty” money, and I give you X back of clean money.
I.E. I make a percentage on the deal.
There are no “favors” involved.
Separately money laundering should not be illegal.
There is no difference between ill gotten booty and that from normal exchange.
Prosecute the crime – if you rob a bank prosecute the bank robbery.
I beleive it is already understood here that I am opposed to criminalizing voluntary exchange between consenting adults – i.e. Vice, gambling. drugs.
Why do you think that is going to change
This pretty much addresses your argument.
What is the “cesspool of Trump dirty tricks” ?
As best as I can tell Trump is straightforward. He does not conspire behind your back.
He says what he is going to do or what he wants out in the open and then tries to do it.
Trump did not use shills and cutouts to go after Hillary (or any of his opponents). He did not plant stories.
He looked his opponents right in the eye and called them Crooked, or whatever.
He might be wrong about that. His accusations might be offensive.
But they are not Tricks or secrets.
If the GOP cannot get their act together, it will likely succeed, and then they will go after Pence, who is probably not even using Russian dressing on his salads these days.
Ha, I like the last line.
Dems will not win much in 2018, they may even lose ground, because of the structural advantages. Any liberals who are counting on that are going to be wildly disappointed. 2020 is the year of the swing back to the other side.
Mostly I agree.
Further 2020 will likely be determined primarily by state of the country – not any of the ranting of the left.
If we are still at sub 2% growth in 2020 – trump is toast – as is the GOP as a whole.
If we are at 3.5% or above – absent a nuclear war, Trump and the GOP are going to have total control of government.
I do not think Congress is particularly relevant. The things that Congress needs to do, there is no possibility it is going to do, and even if it does – it will do them badly.
Republicans have wasted the past 5 months and consumed political oxygen over replacing PPACA.
They never should have been suckered into Repeal and Replace. That was stupidity from the get go. What is necescary to improve healthcare beyond returning to the mess we had before is outside Republicans current power, and with few exceptions no republican is talking about anything but some form of ObamacareLite.
That is not an answer.
Here is an excellent article by John Tamny
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2017/07/20/why_would_republicans_repeal_what_is_already_dying_102794.html
We learn from failure – that is how markets work.
It might sound good to say we should not allow millions to suffer from the fallout of PPACA’s failure. But that is actually Totally wrong.
Unless we allow it to fail and unless people actually experience the consequences of that failure we will not stiffle the impetus to do such stupid things again.
What we need to learn is that government does nto have the ability to non-destructively influence free markets.
When we bail out failure – we get more failure.
PPACA was a democrat inflicted disaster.
We need to let it fail, If that means suffering – that means learning.
I have no problems standing idly by as millions get screwed as PPACA fails.
Hopefully those so screwed will understand that those who imposed PPACA are the ones who screwed them.
because of the structural advantages… of the GOP.
I am presuming by “structural advantages of the GOP” you are refering to the fact that the demographic distribution of voters leads to a large number of pink congressional districts and states and a small number of dark blue ones ?
I agree that is the case.
It is not a problem and it does not require fixing.
I would note that one consequence of this is that Democrats have near total control of nearly every city in the country.
That provides them with a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate that they have ideas that work.
I think it is quite reasonable for voters to judge the parties based on the results in the areas that each controls.
As an example Democrats had near total control of the south prior to GoldWater,
It took 7 decades for republicans to turn the south from Blue to Red.
Republicans are nearing the end of that transition.
Which BTW is an important reason why Republicans are likely to slowly gain more control in the senate, and why the volatility of midterms is likely to decrease.
We have had sharp swings over the past 70 years because we have been in the midst of the “great reshuffling”. That appears nearly complete.
I could be wrong but I think we are approaching a period where the control fo the house and senate becomes more stable – i.e. both remain weakly republican.
“Regardless, isn’t that what we would expect from ANY president ?”
Yes, and this highlights the insanity of the political world right now. Just think of the way that Mitt Romney was mocked and derided for calling Russia our geopolitcal foe.
What’s most discouraging to me is not that there are those in the D.C. swamp and the media that continually perpetuate this hypocrisy and sensationalism, but that there are so many millions of young people who are not being educated in a way that encourages critical analysis of what they read, hear and watch.
It doesn’t bode well for America’s future…….
I think that we live in somewhat dangerous times.
At the same time – the education we failed to get in HS in history and civics we are getting today from life.
Trump’s numbers are very near their all time low – and I very recent Bloomberg Poll still has trump defeating Clinton.
This war on Trump has destroyed the reputations of politiicians, parties, the media and government.
And I think that is a good thing.
Government is a necescary evil – but we should never forget that it inherently bends towards evil, but for continuous vigilance and defense of individual liberty.
I my crystal ball is cloudy, but I mostly have faith that the future will be better than the present. That is going to be because of what we do that is NOT government.
If we learn from this that big government is not to be trusted, that it does not and can not work – then our future is bright.
Discussions elsewhere have lead me to note that there is a contradiction in my position on issues like Voter-Id and on Gerrymandering.
Most of my core arguments remain unchanged, but there is still a fundimental issue with gerrymandering that is the same as that behind Voter-ID
The most critical aspect of elections is the faith of voters in the inegrity of the outcome.
With respect to voter ID and even the purported election manipulation by the russians.
Whether the Russians actually atlered the results of the election or not, the fear that they could have – in any way EXCEPT changing peoples minds is a threat to the legitimacy of government.
When we complete an election – it is less important who won or lost than that the people have confidence int he result – even if their candidates lost.
We do not have that regarding our electronic voting machines.
I have consistently argued a problem their since 2002.
The 2000 election raised the issue of election confidence to the fore.
But HAV if anything made problems worse.
Electronic voting machines – particularly as they are today are a significant problem, not an answer.
Voter-Id is similar. It does not matter whether in person voter fraud is rampant.
It matters that many people beleive it is.
But exactly the same it true of Gerrymandering.
However there is one very substantial difference.
There are clear solutions to technical issues of voting and vote counting.
Those solutions are effective and do not have premises that have any ideological component.
There is no argument that our voting should as accurately as acheivable reflect the actual votes cast. That hacking. manipulation, ballot stuffing, or counting games like hanging chad or misplaced ballots should be resolved – that regardless of the debate over the emans there is a universally accepted right outcome.
The same is true of Voter-ID.
But that is not True of gerrymandering.
So my question to those upset about gerrymandering is:
Given that I accept that your loss of confidence is a justification for change to improve faith in the results of our election.
What is an objectively better way to define districts ?
But before you start I am going to address some likely objections that you will have to overcome.
The choice of voters to congregate as they choose must be respected.
People live in cities for reasons.
They live in suburbs for reasons.
They live in rural areas for reasons.
Some of those reason include the politics. You can not force republicans into democratic districts or democrats into republican districts because of some misguided view that individual districts should reflect the party distribution of the state.
Similarly you can not make districting choices based on race, or any other such factors.
Without a constitutional amendment you can not apply any changes you seek nationwide without each state reaching that choice on its own.
This is also true of Voter-ID and any other voting related changes.
I am not going to accept that “independent commissions” are actually independent.
There is a strong argument for a rigid rules based method – but even that is problematic because any set of rules is going to have political consequences.
Part of the point I am trying to make is there is not an actual right or wrong way to create districts that we all universally agree on.
While we can universally agree that outside hacking of votes is wrong, or votes by people who are not citizens or alive, or have already voted are wrong.
Anyway accepting that “gerrymandering is a problem – because confidence in the legitimacy of the results is undermined.
What is the answer.
Because I do not see one.
I can not see any solution that is not atleast as much of a problem as the problem being solved.
With the current scheme – we atleast get to hold politicians accountable for their choices.
I do not as an example beleive judges should rule on redisticting absent clear rules.
As there are few existing rules – the courts should not be passing judgement on choices of politicians outside of violating those few rules that exist.
Our judiciary is supposed to be insulated from political corruption.
Asking them to weigh in on congressional districts without clear rules – and not rules determined by the judiciary is corrupting.
Now this is something that I think everyone could get behind and send their elected officials demands for changes from top to bottom at the VA. How long do they have to continue getting screwed until the public and media gets as upset about this as we are about Russia?
Yes, this is horrible.
It is also pretty normal for government.
Dave: “It is also pretty normal for government.”
And that’s a lot of the problem. to many just say something like that and move on accepting nothing will ever change.
Please let your elected officials know this is unacceptable.
The VA is specifically troubling, because the most effective solution to this type of problem is to remove it from the scope of government.
But repairing the harm done to veterans is inside the legitimate scope of government.
As to reporting it to our politicians – they already know, and their likely solution as always will be to throw money at it – which is more likely to make things worse than better.
At the same time I would note, that VA Medical care for all is the goal of the left.
Does this look like a system that all of us would be happy with ?
BTW I do not move to accepting nothing will change.
I am here arguing with all of you to move towards the only change that will work – getting government out of as much as possible.
No insult intended, but I would be surprised if you have contacted your elected representatives as frequently as I have.
Regardless the solution to systemic abuse of power in government is to reduce the power of government.
Power corrupts.
Trump seems to be on the VA’s ass. There have been lots of firings – something that never happens with government.
If congress gets involved they are just going to throw money at the problem.
That is what happened last time.
Government always beleives the solution to govenrment failure is more money.
Mike Hatcher here, I am a bit of a gambler. I like to play poker and such. Given the opportunity, I would wager a huge sum that Dave sends more communications to his elected representatives than any of the others that regularly post comments here. I lack that behavior which I think I should do.
I should. I don’t.
Dave, Dont waste your time writing your congress person if they are like mine. Safely in a conservative district, hardly has to advertise, easyv reeletion, all correspindence is answered with form letters. She will either die or retire as hervway of leaving office.
I know my congressmen personally.
We were friends before he ran for office.
His campaign headquarters for his first run for state office was from a building provided by my father. We had to charge minimal rent to avoid running afoul of contribution laws.
I wrote him occasionally when he was a State Senator.
I have not written him since.
Though he is republican we are at odds on many political issues.
If I talk to him – which I do occasionally – it is not about politics.
And his seat is about as safe as it could possibly be. He will get re-elected forever.
CBO and budgets – tomorow never comes.
https://fee.org/articles/the-cbos-budget-projections-are-worse-than-useless/?utm_source=FEE+Email+Subscriber+List&utm_campaign=bd2916f6f1-MC_FEE_DAILY_2017_07_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_84cc8d089b-bd2916f6f1-108353125
Andrew McCarthy on the special council statue and the necesity of a crime.
I find this interesting. I never understood why Nunes temporarilly resigned,
It was quite clear that he acted to acquire classified information PROPERLY from a witness, and that he did not REVEAL any classified information.
Conversely as noted his cochair Schiff revealed classified information.
Yet we have nunes temporarily resigning, having been promised an expedited ethics investigation that is now bogged down without reason, while a more substantial claim against shiff is ignored.
I also note that Nunes’s unmasking investigation – now that it is out of his hands is similarly bogged down. Witnesses continue to stall for time.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/top-dems-slow-rolling-ethics-probe-delay-investigation-obama-leaks/
I have repeatedly attacked the special council investigations.
The executive may no investigate persons without probable cause that a crime has been committed. That does not preclude congress from what are essentially political investigations of “political crimes” Those are done relatively differently – which is why Congress must do them. They are mostly done publicly and they have a potential political price for all parties.
“Slow-rolling” appointments and investigations has become an effective tactic for stonewalling anything that could help get us past the incredible gridlock that has essentially put Congress on ice. Nunes was on to something, so he had to be sidelined. While I fault the Democrats for their dishonesty and hypocrisy, the real fault lies with dishonest and hypocritical Republicans, who could break through the log jam, with a concerted effort.
I have a feeling that, at some point, Trump will issue executive orders addressing the health care crisis, due to the inaction of the GOP. At that point, we’ll hear all kind of squealing from the Dems, about tyranny, etc. The same thing that we heard from Republicans when Obama issued his executive amnesty. These people are shameless. (Shameless, I tell you!)
I am not generally opposed to gridlock.
I am not opposed to democrats using legitimate tactics to choke republican legislative efforts – even ones I agree with.
Voters weight the tactics a party uses in their choices in elections.
Congressional investigations of political crimes are legitimate.
Special Council investigations of non-crimes is lawless.
I do not blame republicans. Groups in the Senate (and the house) each have different values and perspectives. They are not and should not be obligated to abandoned their values and principles for the purported good of the party.
Republicans NEVER should have been suckered into any commitment to “replace” PPACA.
That is like saying that because Democrats wish to play russian roulette with 5 cylinders loaded, that republicans are obligated to choose a different form of Russian Roulette.
Not playing is an option.
I beleive Trump has done what he can through executive orders.
I would note that though Obama pushed them past their limits, EO’s are generally about government – they are not a substituted for law.
Dave, just add this to the daily drip drip drip. My bucket of Trump crap seems to be getting closer to being filled as each day passes.
If nothing happened and there was no “crime” why are all these idiots lying and creating one?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/22/sessions_discussed_trump_campaign_with_russian_ambassador_according_to_intelligence.html
Ron, I doubt that Sessions said anything that would give the Russians any sort of leverage. Chuck Grassley, who’s seen the entire transcript, is calling on the leakers to release it all, to show that Sessions did nothing wrong. He could have answered a simple question like, “Are those DNC hacks helping Trump?” Even if Sessions gave a polite, but meaningless answer, such as “I don’t know.” it could be reported that he “discussed the trump campaign.”
This sort of lawyerly parsing and gotcha games are what the drip, drip, drip is all about. I agree that it is likely that it will bring Trump down, simply because it could bring anyone down, and Trump is becoming increasingly isolated, as many Republicans fear that backing him will put them in the line of fire.
Priscilla, it could be nothing at all and anything discussed was something like “good luck in the election and then some further discussion like polling, platforms, etc, all info that is out for anyone to read.
But the problem is Sessions said he did not meet with the Russians. Then that was shown to be untrue, he did meet with the ambassador. The sessions said he did not discuss the election with the ambassador. Now the ambassador said they did discuss the election.
The problem in this whole mess is not the actions that took place, it is the constant apparent lying in Trumps inner circle that keep getting outed in lies they are telling. It is never the actual issue being investigated that brings one down, it is the cover-up that is tried and identified that always leads to the final negative outcome. Sessions, with his background should no full well this will happen.
I would be careful. We are floating allegations of perjury here.
You want to get there, you need to know PRECISELY what question was asked,
PRECISELY what answer was given,
To be perjury the answer must not merely be wrong but it had to be known to be false at the time of the testimony to the person testifying.
There are also other factors involved
SOMETIMES not remembering or inaccurately remembering can be perjury – even when there was no clear intent to deceive – but generally only when the witness knows ahead what the subject of the questioning will be and is expected to be prepared.
If Sessions had good reason to expect he was going to be questioned about all contacts with Russians no matter how small during some explicit period.
Then it is perjury for him to not remember or inaccurately recall.
I beleive the Franken question in his confirmation hearing was unanticipated and extremely ambiguous.
If you want sessions for Perjury I think you need to look very carefully at his most recent Testimony.
I am not sure what he was asked – but he responded with a clearly prepared statement regarding his contacts with Russia. He actually attacked the Senators that were trying to disparage him on that.
Regardless, that statement needs to be near perfectly true.
Anything short of a minor error in emphasis would be perjury.
At the same time that statement would still have to be parsed carefully.
Discussed as an example would mean BOTH of us talked about it.
Kislyak saying something about the election without a substantive response from Sessions is not a disccusion.
This also matters relative to the collusion claims.
Collusion requires more than that a topic is mentioned.
It requires even more than both parties discussed it.
You have to have an agreement and that agreement must be to do something illegal.
Ron – if this is your standard for criminal lying – then the entire Obama administration should be in leavenworth.
If you want to beat the crap out of Trump for imprecision in language – whatever.
I find it odd that we are hysterical over relatively inconsequential misstatements of Trump and his administration, when we have had very serious misrepresentations from the past 3 presidents.
But the object of this is to convert this into a criminal conspiracy.
You can not get from imprecise language to a criminal conspiracy.
As I addressed in a prior post – there is ZERO evidence of a consequential criminal agreement.
There is no quid, there is no quo and there is no enforcement mechanism.
The hype is that there is something huge hear – big enough to alter the outcome of the election. What Huge thing did Russia do for Trump ?
What huge thing did Trump do in return ?
How is it that Putin can enforce that agreement ?
If someone alleged that Hillary was selling Cocaine out of the state department – we would expect to find some evidence of cocaine somewhere.
We could not convict – and probably would not even bother to try Hillary solely because she met with someone who might sell cocaine.
We could not prosecute her – even if she failed to recall the meeting.
In my lifetime I can think of only one corrupt political conspiracy that MIGHT have altered the outcome of an election – that would be lying about Benghazi.
I doubt it did. But it is clearly a lie. All those who repeated it new it was a lie.
It was immediately before a close election, and it is credible to beleive that had it been accepted that a US ambassador was murdered during a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 people might have voted differently.
I would also ask you what constitutes a serious lie ?
The administration is huge, Trump’s campaign is fairly large, do you actually expect that everything will be done in perfect agreement ?
BTW no administration has lived up to the kind of perfection you expect.
There are as many of these type of “lies” with respect to the Obama administration,
but most were not vary widely reported – because they are not consequential.
Dave, it is not what I consider a lie that is important, it is what the voters believe that is important. And if they change their vote based on “what was not, on sorry, yes it is” situations with his inner circle, then that is the important problem.
If the standard is voters even a recent poll of a head to head against Clinton has Trump winning by slightly larger margins than before.
I have no doubt that Trump has been seriously harmed by all of this – both the attacks by others and his own misrepresentations.
But most of the “polls” I am seeing is that as low as his approval is that of
Clinton
Government
the media
the left
democrats
republicans
congress
are ALL lower.
Trump has taken everyone down with him.
In that I think he is doing a tremendous service to the country.
Contra the left our founders thought government was a necescary evil, not a force for good.
That is where we need to be today.
If Trump gets us there – great.
We both accept that some government is necescary.
We part ways because you beleive that free people engaged in non-violent free exchange are more dangerous that the use of force by government.
There was a book when I was a teen called the devil’s advocate.
(not the movie). In a totalitarian dystopian society a freedom fighter infiltrated the government. He rose to a position or great power and contributed greatly to bringing that totalitarian regime down. How ? By enforcing the edicts of that totalitarian regime absolutely.
Trump is destroying our faith in government.
Our unearned faith in government is our achilles heel.
Destroying that is good.
If everyone both right and left ends up deeply skeptical of government as a consequence of all of this – Trump has done us all a great good.
Dave, in many cases concerning Government we agree. Where we disagree, I suspect we could reach some agreement acceptable to both to get some of what both of us want. Getting nothing and having the status quo as it is today is the worst outcome.
You say “That is where we need to be today”….. (Getting a more limited government)
“If Trump gets us there – great.”
I really hope he can, but with the current situation, his political capital ( or influence)is being wasted as there a few career politicians that will be willing to go out on a limb for any of his agenda now unless they are secure in there districts and face little opposition.
You think the big fight is in the congress.
I do not. Even though the GOP controls the house, senate and presidency.
They do not have what they need to enact significant legislation.
Trump has nothing to do with that problem.
Gridlock is the state of congress.
I think that the republican congress should focus on SMALL things.
Big change in congress is not possible at this moment.
What can be done now is in the executive – and Trump is doing it. (and somethings I disagree with),
I do not think he is doing enough. I do not think he can do enough.
I think draining the swamp is hard.
The aligators fight back.
I would agree with any hear who say that if they Trump/Russia story every gets real legs.
Trump and the GOP are toast in 2018.
at the same time the noise is distracting everyone. Most of the changes Trump is doing – do not make big news – because Trump/Russia stories displace them.
You keep worrying that the drip drip drip will work.
You do not seem to think – and what happens if it does not.
Trump’s aproval will rise fast if this dies.
But that of the media, government, the left congress, … will not
I think the odds of another backlash against the left in 2018 are greater than the opposite.
Absent something far more egregious than has come out thus far politically Trump is safe and this will eventually burn out.
But think about it – when that occurs Trump’s approval will rise.
But that of his attackers will likely drop further.
The only serious danger to Trump is Mueller.
I have no expectation Mueller will find actual evidence of real collusion with Russia.
Or more accurately actual evidence of some crime that constitutes that.
At the same time I expect Meuller will draw this out forever.
And there will be regular leaks.
These leaks do not even have to come for Meuller or his team.
As with many of the recent “leaks” – they are just frauds. Someone who knows nothing telling a reporter willing to print anything some made up story.
Even Comey trashed most of what was reported in the press.
Dave: “But think about it – when that occurs Trump’s approval will rise.
But that of his attackers will likely drop further.”
So how long do you think the Democrats will stretch this out? I suspect this will go on longer than the Benghazi investigation that took about 18 months and never really came to a conclusion other than clinton getting defeated.
Benghazi was able to go on forever because:
A US ambassador died.
Because there was substance.
Because Republicans not only loved it but remained interested.
Because the story actually grew.
Benghazi lead to the Clinton Email Server.
Clinton’s email server was PUBLIC misconduct.
If the Trump stuff leads to something – then Trump is in trouble.
Mueller broadening into Trump’s finances is a huge danger for him.
I am not sure what happens if Mueller comes up with a financial issue not related to the election.
My guess is that will hurt republicans in the midterm.
But will not result in Trump’s impeachment.
Much as sex did not do in Clinton.
It is also possible that BOTH the leak and Sessions testimony are correct.
If Kislyak raised a number of issues,
and Sessions declined to address them or did not respond.
Then Kislyak can report to Moscow that issues were raised,
and Sessions can say he recalls no substantitive discussions of the campaign.
Regardless, the article is full of breathless innuendo but missing any evidence.
I was unaware Grassely had seen the purported transcript.
But I am expecting that even if some record of this communication actually exists it is innocuous and we are going to be dropped in another round of trying to parse out meaning that just is not there.
I would note:
There is no reason to beleive the sources actually have Kislyak communications.
We went through this on the comey memo’s.
They did exist – but mostly confirmed Trump – not press leaks.
There is no reason to beleive this communications actually exists.
I think it does but we do not know.
There is no reason to beleive it says what the story claims.
There is no reason to beleive that whatever it says it is accurate.
The most meaningful statement in this was:
“Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” Justice Department spokesperson.
Presumably you know what hearsay is.
The slate story is something like tripple hearsay.
We know only one thing:
That if the leaker actually had access to Russian interecepts then they are violating numerous laws.
Regardless, if there is the slightest merit to this story at all,
Mueller as well as house/senate hearings will eventually see and review the communications intercepts of Kisyak – if they even exist.
But finally I would ask you to think about it – what hypothetically could Kislyak and Sessions have said that would pose a problem ?
I would note that the article does not provide any actual evidence of the substance of the converstation. It just speculates.
Lets discard the “revealed classified information” nonsense.
The speculation makes the article look stupid.
Do you think Sessions turned over the operational specs for the F35 ?
What classified information do you think Sessions as a senator had access to that he would actually have given Kisylak ?
But lets look at the next possibility ?
“talked about deals like lifting sanctions if the Russians were interested in investing in the U.S. or had dirt on Secretary Clinton,”
How would either of those be an actual crime ?
Need I remind you that Obama was having discussions about post election policy with russians during his 2012 campaign ?
I would further note that: Presuming these intercepts actually exist and actually have any substance.
Kisylak has multiple reasons to misrepresent the meeting:
To appear to be doing his job to his superiors.
To be participating in the russian scheme we actually know exists to delegitimize our elections.
I expect this story to get a small amount of hyperventilating and then die – because there is not and can not be anything there.
I would further note. I am at odds with sessions on issues more than perhaps anyone else in the Trump administration. He is just plain wrong about nearly everything he seeks to do as AG. BUT Sessions has a stellar reputation for integrity. I think the likelyhood of this being true is practically negative.
I also think that if I was Jeff Sessions I would find the leaker and send them to jail for a long long time.
I think this story is actually a huge mistake for the left.
There have been some stories recently about strain between Sessions and Trump.
This story puts Sessions back in Trump’s camp whether he likes it or not.
And quite effectively makes Trump’s argument for why it was a mistake for Sessions to recuse himself.
Sessions is now in the same position as Trump as a consequence of his recusal and the appointment of Mueller. He is under attack and as a consequence of his own honorable choices unable to defend himself.
Which raises a final significant reason this story is false.
Because people who perjure themselves, do not recuse themselves depriving themselves of the opportunity to prevent the discovery of the perjury.
It also makes clear a mistake that Sessions and Trump have made with regard to this Russian nonsense.
The right answer to “Did you collude with Russia ….” is no, but as the ordinary course of my job as senator and whatever role I had in the campaign I communicated with Russians – because that is what senators, and political campaigns do. The communications were infrequent and not substantive, they did not break any laws,
I do not beleive Sessions asked Kislyak for dirt on Clinton, that makes no sense with respect to who Sessions is or his role in the campaign.
But what if he did ?
All right – so you buy this nonsense that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with the russians.
How so ? I am not asking for what we have evidence of. I am asking what is it – that is consistent with the rest of the election, that Russia could have provided Trump – that would be improper or illegal ?
And what is it that Trump could have offered Russia – that was possible and improper or illegal ?
And what would the mechanism for enforcing this agreement be ?
The big election altering facts that Tanked Clinton are:
The secret email server
The DNC leaks
Her Health
Her failure to seek rust belt voters.
Her policies
Her lack of accomplishments as Senator or Sec. State.
Her unsavory past
Questions about the Clinton Foundation
Am I missing something ?
So which of these could the Russians have had an impact on ?
The only one that I can see at all is the DNC email leaks.
So unless you can identify another factor that substantially influenced the election, the only possible “quid” you could have is the DNC hacks.
Can we agree on that ? Or do you have some other means that Russia could have had an effect ?
——————————–
Now lets look at the other side.
What is it that Trump can give the Russians ?
Is there anything that Trump can provide to Russia prior to the election ?
I do not think there is anything that Trump can give to Russia in exchange for whatever it is that you think Russia gave Trump.
But again – if you have some ideas, I am all ears.
That means that Trump had to promise Russia something AFTER the election.
Now you have an agreement that no one is going to enter in.
You give me what I want now, I will give you what you want later – trust me.
Either Putin has to trust Trump to an incredible degree – or there must be an enforcement mechanism.
But before we go to that – if there was an agreement – and some enforcement mechanism – that would mean Trump has likely giving Putin something that he wanted in the past 5 months – what would that be ?
As best as I can tell US Russia relations are MORE hostile than during Obama.
Trump approved the KeystoneXL
Approved fracking on federal lands
Expedited DAPL.
Expanded the oportunity for offshore drilling.
Backed out of Paris
is reigning in the EPA.
Destroyed 1/3 of Russian Ally Assad’s airforce
Brought US and Russian aircraft very close to firing on each other.
Putin has been moving more air, naval and land forces to the Mideast to counter Trump.
So what is it that Putin has gotten from this deal ?
So lets address enforcement.
An enforceable agreement if Putin is unable to Trust Trump requires Putin to have something on Trump
So what is that ?
And if Putin has something on Trump – then why is Trump pretty close to walking all over Putin ?
What I see is that Trump might have colluded with Russia to get no help from them and agreed to nothing in return.
Dave, you seem to think there are only two ways of looking at this issue. I say there is a third way and that is what is pissing me off with these idiots!
That is nothing happened, but they keep lying about no meetings, then yes meetings, but we did not discuss XY or Z, but oops, yes we did discuss XY and Z.
These are the things that make individuals a one term president. Can’t you understand that this can happen again?
I will agree with what you are calling “the third way”
With one caveat.
We generally do not hald people to high standards over rhetorical precision in matters without substance.
Nothing happened at the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya
From all accounts – Kushner and Maneforte were not even paying any attention.
There is no reason for them to remember a 20min meeting.
I am still trying to get a grasp of the Sessions claim – because there are several claims that Sessions had secret meetings that have been thoroughly debunked.
I am pretty sure at this point that what has been established is that Sessions on one or two occasions attended large functions that Kislyak was also present at and that Sessions MIGHT have spoken with Kislyak for 5-10 minutes with one or two US Military officers present. In otherwords they were part of a group standing together at a party having drinks.
Do you honestly beleive that Sen. Sessions conspired to hack the DNC with Kislyak in that 10 minutes in public in front of two US military officers.
My Guess is Kislyak may have said something about sanctions – and Sessions said – we can talk after the election.
BTW My Guess is that the conversation with Flynn went much the same way – i.e. Kislyak raised the sanctions with Flynn who dismissed them by saying something like we can talk after the inauguration.
I have very little doubt that Kislyak raised issues that the Russian Government wanted every single time he had a conversation with any person of any power or influence at all.
That would be his job.
I would be totally shocked (and (I think he would too) if anyone committed to anything before the inauguration.
Do you beleive otherwise ?
Natalia Veselnitskaya as an example came to Trump to discuss something that she personally considers very important. And that many arround her do, and that Russia does.
If Trump had personally met her and after hering her story said I think this is very important and if I am elected I will make this a priority – that would not be a problem for me.
But it would surprise me if Trump would do that. It is bad business.
I do not care alot of Trump is a one term president.
But I do not think this will be the thing that does that.
The greatest danger to Trump on this issue is not the press or the left, it is the Mueller investigation.
Partly because Mueller can expand the investigation far enough to find something that he can pretend to be a crime.
Basically Trump could end up getting “scooter libbyed”
Except mostly for Trump there is a difference.
Trump’s nepotism has pluses and minus’s.
On the plus side – he can trust his family more than anyone else.
The family is going to be entirely on the same page legally,
There are not going to be deals that if Trump Jr. Rat’s on Trump Sr. he goes free.
It is a very standard prosecutorial tactic to threaten small fish – often with bogus charges that will destroy them to get them to turn on big fish.
Go watch the Howard Root youtube video again.
That does not work on family.
On the negative side – there are no human sacrifices – no scooter libby’s
One of the things about this latest story is that it drives Session back into the Trump fold.
Sessions has been trying to separate himself from this. I do not like him but I do think he is a man of integrity.
But at this point he has not only been forced back into the Trump fold – but he has actually lost his fight with Trump over whether he should have recused himself.
Trump can trivially tesl Sessions “I told you so” right now.
Sessions may resign – but I do not think so, He might have last week, but today, he is now committed to defending the no collusion claim to the bitter end.
Worse Sessions is not family – so he is the closest thing to a scape goat.
Worse – the left and the media hate sessions – possibly as much as trump.
Ron, the problem as I see it is that these two men in particular had reason to be speaking with Kislyak ~ Flynn as the incoming NSA, and Sessions as a US Senator on the Armed Services Committee. And, particularly in Sessions case, the question he was asked did not seem to be a global one, as in “Have you ever spoken to anyone who is a Russian?” but a very specific one, which was “There is a dossier that says that Trump surrogates have been colluding with Russians and do you know anything about this?” To which Sessions answered that he was a surrogate and had not been talking to the Russians. I watched that hearing live, and I did not interpret Franken’s question to be “have you ever spoken to a Russian in your role as Senator?” yet that is apparently how Sessions was supposed to answer.
Now, if you’re saying that Sessions, to be absolutely clear, should have said something along the lines of “I have met with the Soviet Ambassador in the context of my job as a US Senator, but have never met with any Russians as a campaign surrogate.” then, perhaps, in this highly charged political atmosphere, and in retrospect, perhaps he should have. But Franken brought the question up as “breaking news,” ( I think he may have even used that phrase, or something similar) specifically referenced the dossier, and Sessions answered that, no, that would not have been referring to him.
Sessions is an honorable man, but he is dealing with dishonorable people. I understand Trump’s frustration with Sessions’ recusal, because it has essentially left Trump without an AG who could manage this legal war being waged against the administration. But I hope that he stays in the role, because it has become painfully obvious that there are very few honorable men – or women – in Washington.
The Franken exchange is not going to get Sessions.
The question was too unclear, the response not specific enough and Sessions was not expecting the question. All those factors would make a perjury conviction 100% impossible.
The testimony Sessions must worry most about was the more recent one in which Sessions Choose the revisit the issue under oath.
In that instant Sessions prepared. He essentially wrote his own question and provided his own answer.
There is going to be very little wiggle room if there is much of an error in his response.
I beleive that Sessions was truthful.
He and I are at odds on nearly all DOJ policy.
But he has a reputation for integrity.
People without integrity do not recuse themselves.
This is also why I beleive the post story is “fake news”.
Because Session has bet his reputation and his freedom on the accuracy of his more recent testimony.
Priscilla, what I keep trying to point out to Dave and he seems to be incapable of understanding what my position is, is each of these no-yes answers by themselves would register about a 1 on the media interest scale after a day or two. But when they keep popping up over and over again, many begin to think there has to be something there.
As for Sessions, he has been in Washington long enough to know how the Gotcha game is played. I suspect he has played it himself many many times during his term in office. When you know how the game is played, you have to be prepared for questions concerning past, present and future situations that have or will come up for most any issue that is being discussed or investigated. So did he lie, I do not know. Does it matter, I doubt it. Does the public care, yes, to the opposition and independents swing voters, And therein lies the problem with this whole issue. After Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Clinton’s tarmac meeting with the AG and many other issues during the Obama administration, people voted for change and expected change to happen and now many of those swing voters are just seeing the same thing over and over again.
(For all ***********PLEASE no comment about what happened during Obama and Trump not being the same, that what happened during Obama WAS illegal and what is being investigated in Trumps inner circle is not. I KNOW! But MANY swing voters do not and they are who counts during an election and right now I do not want another Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Pelosi, Shumer or any other far left Democrat in the Presidents chair in 2020 and do not want a Dem controlled house in 2018, And what is happening today in DC is not making that outcome easier!!!!)
Ron;
I do not miss your point.
You seem to miss that it works BOTH ways.
Clinton lied to the american public and under oath.
I remember when he was forced to admit to that that nearly everyone was predicting resignation in days if not hours.
Clinton bet that the allegations repeated over and over and over would eventually lose their effect. And he bet right.
Trump is in a more complex situation.
So long as we are confining ourselves to the actual Russia Collusion story.
It is possible there will be a few more contact stories that have some basis in fact.
But Trump will survive that.
But I would look at the Russian Lawyer story and consider how fast that died.
It had several problems:
If nearly everything the left hoped for with it had proved true – i.e. that Trump Jr. had met with an actual Kremlin agent to get dirt on Clinton and gotten it.
The story still would have died after a week.
Because we may not like that, but we understand it is not a crime.
At the same time every single Trump “drip” results in multiple democrat drips.
Natalia gets tied to Fusion GPS, and numerous democrats, and then we end up with a highly questionable visa – pushed through State and DOJ,
And then the fact that Bill Clinton got 500K for a speach to the very bank that Natlia is indirectly lobbying for, and that as Sec State Hillary worked to try to Kill the Magnavinsky act.
Every drip against Trump that does very little, adds lots and lots of tiny wounds to the left.
Further they leave us wondering – where was the press when all this left wing nut malfeasance was going on ?
Dave “Every drip against Trump that does very little, adds lots and lots of tiny wounds to the left.”
And this is where you are TOTALLY missing my point. I am not a Trump supporter. However, I would rather have him in office than a Democrat (other than a Manchin Democrat which will never happen). When you say every drip does very little, that is where you are wrong in my opinion. Trump did not win the popular vote. It would not take many to change their minds in Penn, Mich and a couple other states to change a future election outcome and we end up with a Warren Presidency or someone just as far left as she is,
So you keep wearing your rose colored glasses looking out at the current political environment believing that another Republican will get elected after the mess that is being created by this administration. You keep believing that few people will change their minds about the need for a more conservative government. And I will keep believing that not until exposing everything that has taken place,INCLUDING releasing tax returns, will a clean slate be created so Trump “Can Make America Great Again”. There is only one way to solve the continuing liberal media anti-Trump issue and that is to go on the offensive and release information so it is no longer an issue where someone can keep looking for dirt and finding some smidgen of sand that is made into a huge mud ball by the press.
And going on the offensive is not creating crap on Twitter every morning so we hear about how he posts “X” number of tweets. That only shows his lack of intelligence as to how to get something done. It may have worked in his private organization and people may have jumped 10ft high everytime he posted a directive, but it does not work that way in Washington D.C.
So this is my last comment on this subject as I have made myself completely clear for most people to understand my position on Trump, Russia and his administration.
What it would take to change peoples minds is your or my judgement.
In reality – it gets decided by Trump voters.
Todate they are not abandoning him and if anything he is getting strong.
He beat Clinton in November. At this time he would likely defeat her even worse.
That is what matters.
The right of the losers – the left. Is the right to address their claim that the election was basically fair and honest.
You are not going to get anywhere trying to claim that voters should not have been allowed to know truthful dirt about Clinton – no matter where is came from.
Particularly where Clinton was spreading FALSE dirt about trump from the SAME sewer.
You do not seem to get that you need to convince trump voters – not that they made the wrong choice – but that they were criminally deceived into making the wrong choice.
If you manage that – Trump will fall fast.
If not – anything that you do will reflect badly on you.
Again get your point – but remind you that Hillary’s approval rating – and that of the press and left and democrats is going down FASTER than Trumps.
Trump is dead if somebody every comes up with meat on the Collusion story.
But I do not think that is even possible.
I think the worst that could possibly come out – will get initial gasps and then die.
You have to persuade people that Trump succeeded in changing the outcome of the election improperly using Russian help.
That thesis has a problem because people can only be angry about it in the abstract.
The likely real world examples just can not reach the level needed.
Right now I think if video showed up that had Trump and Russian prostitutes peeing on Obama’s bed in moscow – that Trump would survive it.
You have to come up with conduct that those who voted for him (and are now bought in) find more offensive than Clinton.
You are right that this is ultimately about what the majority of people think.
But it is NOT about his approval rating.
What is it that you think voters who voter for change are seeing happen all over again ?
Do you think Trump voters thought he was going to run a positive campaign ?
Do you think they thought he was not going to take dirt on Clinton wherever he could find it.
The WWE Trump/CNN meme should give you a clue.
Trump voters WANT him to dish it out.
Did you vote for Trump ? I didn’t.
He could gain my vote – he can not lose it.
That is how you need to be thinking.
It does not matter how convinced the people who voted against Trump are that he should be impeached.
Briefly after the election there were stories about the fact that the Press and the left lost touch with the people who were trump voters.
That has not changed.
With respect to your last paragraph.
I think you are wrong. I do think that voters are quite capable – particularly in agregate of grasping not only what is illegal but what is not.
And this is why this remains a nothing burger.
We get a Trump Jr. met with story, and briefly people go Oh no! Trump is toast.
and a few days pass and the same people go – no wait a minute – there is nothing wrong with this.
I also got that you do not want another Clinton …..
But I am pretty sure you did not want Trump.
Alot of the people who voted for him DID.
In the unlikely event the left manages to take out Trump.
His voters will STILL want “Trump II”.
I can hope for a miracle and that in 2020 Trump Voters grasp that they should have voted for Gary Johnson or Rand Paul.
Very early in the election I had very high hopes for Rand Paul.
But he does not have the “fire in the belly” and it just was not happening.
And it will not in 2020.
Absent some new Trump II arrising the most likely successor to Trump is probably Cruz.
If he can somehow manage to get the Trump voters he could not get last time arround without losing his personal base – you essentially have Trump II.
I am not sure that Trump did not make a mistake not nominating Cruz as VP.
He needed a VP the left hated as much as they hate him.
I would remind everyone that the left took out Agnew BEFORE they took out Nixon.
When Donald Trump really censors people rather than using his own bully pulpit to counter their message, you can count on my opposing him
In the meantime, my wife does the cooking – because she loves it.
I fix the cars – because someone has to. My son cooks – because he loves it, my daughter takes care of her own car – because someone has to.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/21/be_very_worried_about_the_future_of_free_expression_134534.html
Ok, Ron, I do get what you are saying, and the frustration that you have, over the Trump administration’s missteps.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have an outsider, elected president precisely because he is an outsider, trying to negotiate a mine field that has been laid by the insiders ~ of both parties and the media. No matter how careful he and his loyalists are, odds are they’re going to step on a mine sooner or later. I think that Trump has always understood this, and that’s at least one of the reasons that he has gone against the advice of many, and appointed his family members as close advisors. Nepotism is a two-edged sword, though. While he can trust them, they also become his Achilles heel. Same with Sessions….although he’s not family, he was the only senator to endorse Trump during the primaries, and he never wavered in his support. I believe that Trump always intended to make Sessions the AG, but it never occurred to him that Sessions might be compromised by his own “Trump insider” status.
I tend to agree with those who say that Trump and Mueller are headed for a disastrous showdown. Trump’s base has not abandoned him. Far from it, most polls seem to show that the vast majority of his voters want him to continue to do exactly what he’s doing (possibly with less tweeting). Mueller is a prosecutor in search of a crime, and, as Dave has pointed out, he will almost certainly find one somewhere, Mueller’s problem is that he is also very compromised, and everyone knows it. This is a political war which could potentially cause an already divided nation to crack ~ maybe through mass civil disobedience, maybe through outright violence. We’re not talking Watergate here. By the time that Nixon resigned, the vast majority of Americans were glad to see him go. Most of Trump’s supporters feel that he is being railroaded and that the political class is betraying the will of the people.
It’s a dangerous situation that most in Washington seem oblivious to……
There is a pretty good Carlson/Turley interview on exactly this.
Where it is noted that you can not even buy a pack of cigarettes in Moscow without a credible allegation of money laundering.
I do not actually think Mueller is as “compromised” as is argued.
His biggest problem is his relationship to James Comey.
That can be handled by “recusing himself” informally from the processes involving Comey.
The issues raised regarding his hirings are disturbing – but have no legal strength.
The same issues were Raised regarding The Starr investigation.
The most fundimental problem is that the whole appointment of a special counsel creates the expectation that he will come home with scalps.
And they ALWAYS do.
The next major issue is the scope of mueller’s investigation.
Rosensteins brief was just plain stupid.
The investigation had to be of a crime.
The Special Counsel is an executive branch member – he still serves under the president and can be fired by him – though probably not directly.
Regardless, he is therefore bound by the rules governing criminal investigations and prosecutions.
Ken Starr was an Independent Council – he was answerable to Congress – not the president.
I think that was a mistake and unconstitutional.
That said the Congress CAN investigate things that are not crimes.
Mueller’s problem is that he is also very compromised, and everyone knows it. ”
By ‘everyone’ you mean Partisan Trumpanzees (like you) who want to pervert and undermine his investigation with BS innuendo.
Just two months ago Mueller, after a LONG widely praised career in law enforcement, was met with bipartisan enthusiastic support, with comments from REPUBLICANS as well as Democrats that he was “a great selection,” “a solid choice” in “a fantastic person.”
Wormy Chaffetz when he was still around called Mueller “a great selection” with “impeccable credentials.”
Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he “has a strong reputation for independence, and comes with the right credentials for this job.”
Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado said Mueller had “an incredible reputation.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.: “I’ve been pressing the DOJ to take this step for nearly 3 months because the Americans deserve nothing less than the truth. I have faith that Robert Mueller will provide the independence necessary to be sure this investigation is conducted with the trust and confidence of the American people.”
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.: “Robert Mueller is an exceptional public servant — from his days as a decorated Marine, through his years as a federal prosecutor, to his time as head of the criminal division and then as Acting Deputy Attorney General, and then onto his twelve years of principled leadership as the Director of the FBI. His record, character, and trustworthiness have been lauded for decades by Republicans and Democrats alike.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.: “My priority has been to ensure thorough and independent investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead. That is what we’ve been doing here in the House. The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice. The important ongoing bipartisan investigation in the House will also continue.”
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine: “The Deputy Attorney General made an excellent choice in selecting former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel. He has sterling credentials and is above reproach. ”
What’s changed in the those few months is the realization by Trumpanzees that he WILL DO HIS JOB.
Rather than a full investigation to exonerate or condemn Trump and/or his family or close advisors of playing a part in the Russian intrusion, Trump and his minions are intent on discrediting Mueller, so that even if Trump isn’t able to fire him (that still seems to be in his game plan) the results of his investigation will be pre-judged as discredited as well.
For Trump enablers it’s no longer Party over Country; it’s Trump Uber Allis.
I am troubled by issues regarding Mueller – particularly those involving Comey.
There are two issues.
First Comey is both a witness and a legitimate target of this investigation at this point.
My guess is the Muellers past relationship with Comey will prevent properly dealing with Comey as either a witness or a target.
In theory that is a fixable problem.
The second is not a clear conflict.
It is that we have been saying for several years that Comey was this white night.
Now it is clear he is a political hack – even he claims he has no polical courage.
Comey is Mueller’s protege. I am concerned about that apple tree thing.
The bigger problem is not that Robert Mueller is corrupt.
But that pretty much all people at this level are stroking their ego.
You do not send out a lion hunter to catch chickens.
The concern is Mueller will come back with something – whether there is something or not.
If the leaks are true – which is not certain.
Mueller has discredited himself.
Prosecutors investigate crimes, not whatever they please.
Just to be clear – I do not automatically beelive the Mueller leaks.
Calling Trump supporters Trumpanzee’s perfectly demonstrates the problem.
Lets say you get your way. Do you think the “Trumpanzee’s” are going to toe the line ?
The left purports to beleive in the will of the people – but apparently not some people.
If you can not figure out how to make peace with Trumpanzee’s – then we are facing political warfare.
Lets say you take out Trump.
If you do so without the agreement of the Trumpanzee’s all that means is that you have won a skirmish in an ongoing war.
At the moment I am more affraid of violence from the left.
But if you remove Trump in a way those who voted for him do not accept – you are near certain to see an escalation of violence from Trump supporters.
With one fundimental difference.
They will be justified.
BTW the purpose of an investigation is to determine if a crime has been committed and prosecute the criminal. That is all.
It is no about exonerate or condemn.
Both Prof. Turley and Pat Buchannon noted recently – Trump absolutely can firm Mueller.
The fallout could be nuclear, but he can still do it.
One of them noted that an awful lot of the whitehouse rhetoric is just efforts to get Mueller to behave himself.
When Trump essentially draws lines in the sand – if the people buy those lines – and Mueller crosses them – the cost of firing him will be less.
Further Mueller has to weigh whether he will conform to those constraints or risk a constitutional crisis.
We have leaks that purport to tell us what Mueller is up to.
If those leaks are True – then Mueller has a huge problem.
Not just overreach, but the leaks themselves.
Trump has only nominal control of the executive branch.
He needs to resolve that. He needs to do what is necescary to get control of the Intelligence Community, the DOJ and FBI.
If he acheives those – then he has ALOT that he can do.
He can have the FBI start investigating the leaks from the Mueller investigation as an example.
My advice after the election was to Pardon Clinton and her cronies.
That has not happened.
Now I think Trump’s own best interests is to reopen the broadest investigation of Clinton and the left he can.
Even news story he can get about miconduct on the part of Clinton that is more egregious than what is alleged about the Trump campaign helps him enormously.
It diminishes the Mueller investigation and tempers the GOP defectors in congress.
Further it plays to his base. These people WANT investigations.
They WANT clinton and CO in jail.
I have fixated on rules.
The current mess should create an appreciation for why “the rule of law” – that means rules based on principles – bright lines that are followed, it means strongly respecting the rights of individuals.
These are all important – whether it is Trump or Clinton or Bush. or Obama.
We just had an election. Many of us are disappointed in the results.
The legitimacy of the government rests on the perception of the people that the outcome reflected the choices of the voters.
Whether we personally agree with the outcome.
It is important that those on the left do not perceive the election as having be altered as a result of Russian meddling.
But there is a flip side to that. The efforts to determine if there is any merit to the perception of the left that the Election was “hacked” also require respect for the perception of those who voted for Trump.
We can have an outcome where many of us feel the wrong person won.
But if the results do NOT reflect the will of the people – then whatever the outcome – we have anarchy – the authority of government derives from the consent of the governed.
This is why we need to tighten our elections.
It does not matter whether in person voter fraud is likely small, or voting in two states, or non citizens voting, or voting machines getting hacked.
or …..
It matters that people trust the outcome – especially when they do not like it
Or government has no legitimacy.
This is also why government must be of laws – few laws, clear laws, that are for the most part easily understandable for all.
It is why we can not engage in this nonsense of confusing motive and intent with crimes.
Crimes are acts – not thoughts. This is not 1984. Though there is such an uncanny resemblance.
If an act is legal – it is legal regardless of the intent or motive of those committing it.
Generally the law also requires intent – guilty mind – that the doer KNOWS they are doing something wrong.
I can not seem to find the link but there is a recent article from some politico ranting how wonderful Kid Rock would be as senator.
The gist of the article is that Kid Rock would be another ass kicker like Trump.
My point is – we can not like Trump’s style, but he was elected BECAUSE of it.
“The problem, as I see it, is that we have an outsider, elected president precisely because he is an outsider…”
Pure Nonsense. trump was the first choice of about 35% of republicans. Republicans are about 35% of the voters. That makes about 12% of the voters who themselves make up about 55% of the voting age population and 40% of the total population. Clearly the true forever trumpies are a small minority of us. I am supposed to care if they are going to have a violent fit if they can’t impose their will on the country as a whole? CMAR, get in line. You can’t always get what you want. They will get about the same level of support if they turn violent that BLM activists get when they riot. And those supporters will be just as screwed up as those who support BLM violence.
The percentage of people who want, really want, this outsider business and want in particular trumps version is a distinct minority. Most people who voted for him were voting against hillary first, any democrat second and not truly for trump and his movement. They would have voted for Romney, Bush, any GOP candidate, or Felix the Cat. Apparently they would have voted for julian assange before hillary, but perhaps I go too far. trump still lost the popular vote by millions. So, he has very very limited power, not the power of some giant popular movement. trumpism will dissipate in the end and go the way of William Jenning Bryan and free silver except that history will regard him far less benevolently than Bryan, unless he suddenly becomes presidential.
trump cannot get his “overthrow the status quo routine” going because it would take a powerful majority of supporters for that agenda to make that happen, and he obviously does not nearly have it. As Dave always says, it takes a decided majority to make a change stick and I cannot believe that even you and Dave have gone so far into your alternate realities that you believe that trump has such a majority behind him.
Then there is the obvious fact that he is unfit to be POTUS and that fact that there are more people who believe he is unfit for office than who believe his is fit for it. Then there is the fact that he and his chaotic group of wingnuts in his campaign did actually seriously play with Russian fire during the election, which is not a mirage and should certainly have serious consequences so it does not become the new standard of acceptable behavior. You and Dave accept this behavior, but you are in a minority. It still boggles my mind the that you are willing to twist yourself in knots and waste your credibility trying to justify it.
So here we are.
“Mueller’s problem is that he is also very compromised, and everyone knows it.
Everyone? Really? Purest Bullshit. It would be closer to the truth to say that Everyone knows trump is unfit for office. These kind of transparently spinning “everyone” narratives are feeble spinning and never change actual minds.
“This is a political war which could potentially cause an already divided nation to crack ~ maybe through mass civil disobedience, maybe through outright violence. We’re not talking Watergate here. By the time that Nixon resigned, the vast majority of Americans were glad to see him go.”
trump will be successfully thrown out of office if and only if the GOP base significantly leaves him. Not the trump base, who make up maybe 12% of Americans, the GOP base, who make up 35%, So your whole narrative rests on an obvious error. He will go when he has been abandoned by a strong majority. There will be no civil war and those that turn violent will be treated with appropriate contempt by decent people. As we have all agreed with Rick the vast majority of Americans are still decent people. So, any future forever trumpies who turn violent will be put down, hard. Anyone who supports them, at all, even with caveats, will be worthy of contempt.
As of the present trump is a clearly unfit and mostly incompetent president who is making a stink that will haunt GOP efforts for years. “Everyone” knows that. There are these Americans called young people, whose political ideas about party and ideology are being formed watching this ugly fiasco.
I cannot believe you waste your time spinning this spin Priscilla. Sad.
Less than 20 mostly delusional posts from Dave to my one post will be a serious departure from the norm. And, I ain’t gonna spend much time reading them, Ready, set, Go! Dave!
“Not the trump base, who make up maybe 12% of Americans, the GOP base, who make up 35%,”
I should have also multiplied those numbers by .55 to reflect the percent of the VAP who vote, and .4 to reflect the percentage of Americans who vote, to arrive at even much smaller numbers. In then end you actually have a small percentage of Americans who are completely in with the trump revolution. Which fact fits in nicely with the most Americans are decent theme of Ricks post.
You are still buying into the tyranny of the majority.
Blacks only make up 12% of the country – can we enslave them, and disregard their rights ?
We did so in the past – and ended up with a civil war over infringing on the rights of a small portion of the population.
It is also true that you only have a tiny portion of the population supporting the extreme left.
I keep trying to get you to bring your principles to the fore – as that is really how we resolve these conflicts.
But all you bring forward is majoritarian arguments.
Is that your core principle ?
It is not what the majority want that is relevant.
Our revolution had the support of only about 1/3 of the population.
One of the differences between voting and markets, is that in a market preferences have weight. You vote with money so you say I want X and I want it X amount.
Our values are the same in politics, but they system does not work the same.
This is a serious flaw in democracy.
At the moment we have a large core of Trump supporters who – absent some compelling development, that you hare highly unlikely to get, are going to stick with Trump to death.
And you have a violently anti-trump group that is approximately the same scale that is atleast as likely to resort to violence.
Contra majoritarians – those in the middle with weak preferences do NOT get to decide for everyone.
This is also why principles matter.
We have to decide who gets what they want – the minority on the left or the Trump minority.
Further we have to decide on fundimental princples.
We can not decide based on the law as an example – because the legitamacy of the law rests on the legitimacy of the government which is the issue being decided.
We may have one or more constitutional crisises coming – but we also have a supra constitutional crisis already upon us.
For the sake of argument – lets assume that the Trump side legitimately won the election.
And that absent atleast the begrudging acceptance of the left we have no legitimate government
For this argument is does not matter if you invert the conditions and have Clinton winning with about 1/3 of the country unwilling to accept that outcome.
Then we have an impasse – how do you resolve that ?
Though I think that principles always apply.
They are the only means of resolving this impasse.
Individual liberty is the core principle that matters.
What resolution does not infringe on anyone’s natural rights ?
Accept that – and it now does nto matter whether Trump or Clinton is the president.
Neither can have the power to infringe on the natural rights of an angry minority.
Limited govenrment works – regardless of who controls government.
There is a right not to have your rights infringed on even if you are a minority.
There is not a right to infringe on the rights of a minority even if you are the majority.
This is also the difference between “the rule of law” – abiding by clear rules to secure our rights, and rule by lots of laws which really has no meaning at all.
Virtually all recent violence is from the left.
You seem to think “level or support” is important – you can not seem to escape an affliction with the tyranny of the majority.
I do not want to predict what Trump supporters are going to do if they fell they have been disenfranchised.
But there is ample evidence they are not stopping.
The sea change in US politics since 2009 is driven generally by that group.
That has resulted in flipping hundreds of elected offices accross the country red.
You do not seem to grasp – this is not going away.
You had better figure out how to make this group satisifed or one way or the other they are taking you out.
Start thinking about governing according to least common denominator principles rather than majoritarian ones.
Ultimately that is the only way to make government work.
The left has already engaged in violence and is by far the most rhetorically violent.
Mueller is NOT investigating russian influence on the election.
There was no need for an SC for that, further that is a counter-intelligence and no criminal investigation.
He is specifically investigating the Trump Campaign ties to russia with respect to this election.
These distictions are important.
The rules for counter intelligence investigations are far more relaxed.
And criminal and non-criminal investigations by the government must be conducted not merely by different departments – but with a firewall between them/
If Mueller engages in a counter-intelligence investigation, then he can not conduct a criminal one.
Regardless the SC is there for criminal investigations of political appointees.
Lets try some logic here.
Russian buy homes. Therefore Mueller can investigate Russian’s buying homes.
The rule of law – the 4th amendment, procedural due process requires more than some plausible assertion of logic to broaden an investigation.
It requires that EVIDENCE already in hand creates probable cause to beleive another related crime has occurred.
A memo is one persons oppinion on the law.
I would note Starr with not indict clinton.
And no one indicted Nixon.
Mueller would be stupid to do anything unusual.
Whether you think it is legal or not.
I also get tired of people who say – see I can find one person who agrees on my view of the ;law.
The rule of law means law that ALL of us essentially agree on.
Political Slang Definition: Trumpanzees – persons who voted for Trump, and blindly continue to support him, contrary to evidence he is an incompetent, deceptive, divisive cancer on America. ( Also applies to those who swallow Trump Family ambiguity as gospel)
Maybe money laundering for Russian Mobsters?
“But even without an investigation by Congress or a special prosecutor, there is much we already know about the president’s debt to Russia. A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, and even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money. Some ran a worldwide high-stakes gambling ring out of Trump Tower—in a unit directly below one owned by Trump. Others provided Trump with lucrative branding deals that required no investment on his part. Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics. “They saved his bacon,” says Kenneth McCallion, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration who investigated ties between organized crime and Trump’s developments in the 1980s.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
Your not going to get anywhere with me on money laundering.
I do not think it is a justifiable crime.
I do nto think the government has the right to track our money.
If I think you should be allowed to sell Heroin, why would I think you should not be able to spend the money you make selling it.
More left wing nut nonsense about free exchange.
Outside of maybe friends and family – no one gives someone else money to “save their bacon”. They give money for something of value they get in return.
Successful exchanges tend to push those involved to exchange with each other again in the future – it is about trust.
But all transactions when complete leave one with no future obligation.
I was starving, I went to Wendies and ordered a double Baconator meal with bacon fries.
I paid and sat down with my meal.
Wendy’s litterally saved my bacon.
Tomorow I am eating at McD’s.
What Mueller will be telling Trump after examine his financials
You lost an election atleast partly by insulting voters.
You think doubling down is wise.
And Moderates, Independents, NeoCons, Progressives are still asking: Why is Trump freaking out about his Taxes becoming public?
What is in there that’s so embarrassing to him?
Can it be this?
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Sunday that President Trump is “clearly worried” that the special counsel investigation could include his finances in the Russia probe.
“The president is clearly worried,” about accusations that Russia laundered money through the Trump Organization, Schiff told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“What concerns me the most is anything that could be held over the president’s head that could influence US policy,” Schiff added.
No Jay for the most part they are not.
Where is your tax return posted ?
Schiff seems to think he is the president’s boss.
He isn’t.
Here is a left leaning article noting that the democrats are in deep political trouble.
Voters beleive they stand for nothing – except opposing Trump.
And there is a 7 point advantage to Republicans in likely 2018 voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/22/donald-trump-stands-democrats-who-knows
A different analysis with much the same conclusion.
Democrats are in bad shape with respect to the Senate,
and even in the house their losses could be greater than their gains.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/655719?unlock=MLMBP8ASTTYW02DT
Dave, you’ve brought up some good points regarding Mueller. Technically, the glaring conflict that he has is his close personal and professional relationship with James Comey. I didn’t even realize until this week that their families have even vacationed together. It’s a conflict that is so obvious and so blatant, that it’s extremely curious that Mueller has not addressed it.
The whole situation is so rife with problems and conflicts, that, regardless of how this plays out, historians will puzzle as to how things got so out of hand, so quickly.
Just a few questions that spring to mind:
1) Why did Trump nominate Rod Rosenstein? He was confirmed with overwhelming Democrat support, despite none for Sessions.
2) Why didn’t Sessions tell Trump upfront that he believed that his role in the campaign obligated him to recuse himself from any investigation?
3) Why did Rosenstein cave to demands for a SP almost right away, and before there was any allegation of criminal wrong doing? And why did he appoint Mueller, knowing, as he must have known, the close relationship between Mueller and Comey?
4) Why has Trump not named a SP to investigate Hillary’s emails, the Uranium One Deal, the many pay-to-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation, Comey’s accusations of impropriety and illegality by Loretta Lynch, and/or the leaking of classified information?
5) If the Gang of Eight has seen evidence of illegal surveillance and subsequent leaking, why have no allegations been made?
One of the problems is that so much of what we read and hear in the news on a daily basis, is just flat-out inaccurate, and that the anonymous sources that are feeding information to the news media don’t really know what’s going on. For example, we heard, repeatedly, from CNN that Comey would deny that he ever told Trump that he was not under investigation. And then, surprise! He said exactly what Trump had asserted ~ that he had assured the President 3 times that he was not under investigation. Why was CNN so sure and so wrong.
Another question bubbling up in social media today is this: Why doesn’t Trump just go ahead and fire Mueller, especially if the whole Saturday Night Massacre thing is going to happen eventually anyway? Both sides seem to be playing a high stakes game of chicken with each other. Trump says “don’t you dare look into my financial dealings from decades ago,” Mueller says “don’t you dare threaten to fire me.”
It’s almost as if they’re both bluffing.
Pricilla where did you pull up that ‘decades’ assertion?
That’s you, distorting theTrump tax time frame, right?
The years Trump claims are under audit are from 2009 to the present.
Those are the years Trump is hiding, where evidence of his duplicitiousness are lurking.
And your claim there’s something improper about the Comey – Mueller personal relationship is nonsensically skewed by your surrender to Trump worship – your current sniping about them reminds me of OJs lawyers disparaging the cops who investigated the murder scene, undermine them personally to undermine the evidence
It’s really sad to witness how completely you’ve been consumed by the FOX mindset, and the more insincere and dishonest seem your proclamations during the campaign about Trump’s deficiencies, notably in light of your admittance recently in a comment that you were going to vote for him anyway if he was the nominee: party loyalty over common sense.
The only way you or the media are going to get to see Trump’s tax returns is if somebody leaks them.
Mueller may or may not get his hands on them.
Congress may or may not.
I will fully support jailing anyone who leaks Trump’s or anyone else’s tax return.
Trump needs to keep his tax returns away from the media – not investigators.
Trump is audited by and army from the IRS every year. He has an army preparing his returns. I doubt he has anything to do with most of what is in them.
I doubt Mueller will find anything in Tax returns.
What would be more problematic would be if the press got them.
They we would be fighting over whether his investment in chik-a-fila
is some totally sordid anti-gay thing.
You do not seem to understand what a conflict of interests is.
There is nothing improper about Mueller’s relationship with Comey.
There is a great deal unethical about prosecuting a case where he is a significant witness or target.
Comey has issues in that he has confessed voluntarily under oath to leaking government documents that are classified.
Worse he just completed an almost 2 year investigation involving classified documents.
He can not conceivably claim ignorance. He can not claim he did not know what he was doing, nor that he knew it was against the law.
If Mueller does not charge him – Mueller shoots his own credibility.
Regardless, just as session recused himself from the Russia/Trump election matter, Mueller must recuse himself from all matters involving Comey.
It is called ethics.
OJ probably was guilty. Mark Furman is a bad cop.
Sometimes things are black and black.
You should listen to Derschowitz on the Trial.
He says the defense team did well, but fundimentally the prosecution blew it.
It is the job of defense attorney’s to do everything legally possible to undermine the prosecutions case.
In the real world – most defendants are guilty of something, though quite often not what they are charged with.
Most cops are decent but have a very expansive view of their role and the law, and mostly the courts let them get away with that. there are a few rotten apples in the barrel.
The rotten apple vary from a few worms to thoroughly rotten.
They are nto the majority of police but they are more than enough to be a big problem.
Further the culture encourages agression and overreach.
This is the system as it is – how WE made it.
I do not mostly blame the cops.
The right seems to think that police should be storm troopers and the left seems to think that using them to police peoples cigarette purchases is a good idea.
Regardless, I personally resent your attacks on defense attorneys.
The constraints that defense attorney’s have to operate under are egregious.
And the standards are far lower for prosecutors.
If as an example a prosecutor fails to turn over exculpatory material in a case,
that error is ALWAYS blamed on the defense attorney. It is littlerally the job of the defense attorney to make sure that the prosecutor does his job
So now you are offering the “fox” fallacy.
I do not know about Priscilla, but I do not watch Fox.
1). I do not know. My guess is that Sessions wanted him.
Trump has had some problems filling posts.
He has a lot of business connections. But there are myriads of posts he must fill.
Trump has to this point rejected most people who pissed on him during the campaign.
That is ALOT of the republicans that would otherwise be in line for positiions.
Republicans also have enormous control of state governments.
This means there are not alot of well qualified republican politico’s looking for work.
Trump is also deliberately trying to reduce apointments.
It has actually annoyed the GOP with him.
2). Sessions was blindsided by this. everyone was.
There is really nothing more to this Russia/Trump story than there was on election day, I think most republicans thought it would blow over fast – because Clinton has far more russian ties than Trump. It was thought the left would be unlikely to go to strongly into Russia for fear of self immolation.
3). I do not know Rosenstein but his handling of the SC is probably the worst political choice of all time. The decision was stupid. The SC letter is infinite.
Trump was also blind sided – he was interviewing Mueller to head the FBI (again).
And I think he was the lead candidate.
4). You do not need an SP to investigate Clinton.
An SP is for situations where the people being investigated exert political control of those investigating them.
5). These things move slow. Trump only nominally controlls the executive.
If he ordered an investigation of Hillary the FBI would likely ignore him.
We do not actually know what Mueller is up to.
What portion of leaks have been true so far?
I think that Trump is deliberately drawing lines in the sand to sell his supporters.
When he thinks he can survive it, he will fire Mueller.
To survive a large enough portion of people need to believe Mueller overstepped.
At the same time though if Mueller is actually doing the things the leaks claim – which I am suspicious may not be true, then Trump is likely at serious risk.
But the left should contemplate the possibility Miller will find nothing – or nothing that he can actually sink his teeth into.
Within the US Trump’s deals are likely to hold up.
I am sure Mueller can find some technical issues – but those will likely just involve some fines. I would also expect that Trump is particularly well protected in the US.
I would imagine that there are layers of corporations and Trump’s actions will mostly be as a manager and not as an owner. That there will have been lawyers and accountants signing off on everything. And that will make it harder to spin.
I am not saying there will be nothing.
Starr spent years digging into WhiteWater – which almost certainly was a corrupt deal done by rank amateurs with no expectation that it was going to have to hold up to scrutiny of the Independent counsel.
Trumps deals in Russia are likely less well done – because the country is lawless and corrupt. But with few exceptions US laws do not apply to Transactions in Russia.
Nor do I think that Mueller will get anywhere claiming Trump violated Russian laws.
Further though the recent Kislyak story could be a deliberate effort to goose Trump.
I think it is highly unlikely that the Russians are going to cooperate that well with an investigation into financial activities in Russia.
I will admit that there is large risk once Mueller jumps the shark.
But the left should also start thinking about what happens if he comes up with little or nothing.
What happens when you decide to go after someone you portray as the most corrupt business person on the planet – and you do not find corruption ?
I would further note that while Trump – like all business people is secretive,
he has been investigated before, he has run his life for decades expecting to be investigated.
Thanks, Dave, fair point on all answers. Particularly with regard to the ongoing Russia-Russia-Russia investigations, I think there may be more to it than meets the eye.
In particular, the speed with which Rosenstein appointed Mueller intrigues me, and the fact that, as you say, the scope of the investigation is infinite. There will likely be hundreds of millions of dollars spent investigating everything that the president has ever done ~ if nothing else, it will be great opposition fodder for the 2020 election, should Trump choose to run.
There may also be ongoing FBI investigations that we don’t know about, as you say. The media relies heavily ~ almost exclusively, these days ~ on leaks that have often turned out to be inaccurate and untrue, but they are so obsessed with destroying Trump that they jump all over any scrap of information from any source, and interpret Trump’s tweets as if they are protestations from a guilty man.
While Trump is undoubtedly at risk, as any president would be in this situation, there may be others at risk too, not all of them Republicans.
I am trying to resolve with myself what arguments matter.
I think the so called drip drip drip is ludicrous.
The vast majority of the “stories” regarding Trump ultimately boil down to taking ordinary things and slathering them with lots of negative adjectives to make the story sound like an actual crime.
Trump secretly walked his corrupt russian dog across the street to Putin – that MUST be a crime!!
——————–
But separately there are issues fundimental to what constitutes the rule of law and legitimate government.
Roby continues to make arguments that implicitly assert a majoritarian core principle.
I wish he would come out and accept the principle he advocates by implication.
In many of my arguments I have been trying to get acceptance that it is not the majority that matters – but our near univerally shared values.
We can use the force of government to secure ourselves against murderers – not because a majority passed a law against murder, but because all but a tiny minority of us accpect that murder is wrong.
I do not sometimes support Trump because I Iike him, or think he is a good person.
But because to a significant extent he is removing from government cruft – added sometimes by a majority, and sometimes merely a powerful minority and moving us back towards govenrment actions that have near universal support.
Recently some talking head observed something that sort of tied my observations of how Twitter was a very nasty place.
Through the bush and obama administrations the left was happy.
While they opposed Bush – John Stewart, Colbert and myriads of other left comics had fun.
The right was not happy.
Today – to a large extent the Trump supporters are having Fun.
While the funny people on the left are Dour.
The comedy of the left right now is nasty and mean and not funny and no really making anyone laugh.
While those on the right – particularly those supporting Trump are practically joyfull and mischevious.
CNN went after the creator of the WWE/Trump/CNN meme, CNN self righteously and idiotically struck back and there are Trump/CNN clips of all kinds all over.
The same person pointed out that Trump is having fun too. That that is part of what his tweeting is about, that he seeks to poke fun at his critics.
Some of this speaks to how this may play out.
One of Alynsky’s rules is to employ tactics that your people enjoy.
That when your people are not having fun, their support will wane.
The media and the left have spent – really the better part of the past two years predicting Trumpocalpse – it has come, we have survived and still they are force feeding hysteria about it.
The world is not coming to an end. We have been served by far worse presidents.
The last two immediately come to mind.
Remember when loudmouth liar Donald Trump with braggadocio promised he would do whatever was necessary to keep Carrier from laying off ANY employees at that Indiana factory and shifting those jobs to Mexico?
To quote one of the 338 Carrier employees who were laid off last week (another 300 to soon follow):
“Trump came in there to the factory last December and blew smoke up our asses.”
You haven’t heard a word of apology or commiseration to those fired from #DufusDonald, or any followup to his LIE about taxing Carrier for any additional jobs they sent to Mexico, which is where those American jobs eliminated are going.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-its-like-to-get-laid-off-at-the-carrier-plant-trump-said-hed-save/amp
Government attempts to interfere in the economy fail.
They fail when democrats do them – see the onfolding disaster in Seattle from the first 2 phases of the MW hike.
They fail when DT tries to strong arm companies into the behavior he wants.
Regardless, the process of producing more value with less human effort that raises our standard of living will continue inexorably. The workers who are for the moment out of work have my sympathy. But they should thank Trump – they got a 6 month reprieve.
Any company discussing these types of steps – is going to do them eventually.
If you are low skill – work on adding skills.
If Trump should apologize for something – it should be for interfering.
Otherwise how is this his “fault”. The left wing nut wearing ash and burlap and weeping over life is stale.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
You are owed nothing – failure to greasp that makes it harder to get for yourself what you can.
“If Trump should apologize for something – it should be for interfering.”
He shouldn’t apologize for lying to the electorate with promises he couldn’t keep to get elected? Or building up the expectations of those Carrier workers their jobs were secure, and stay silent when the rug was pulled out from under them?
Dave dhilii , on hearing Bob Cratchit’s son was dying: “Who cares!”
If politicians apologized for every lie they told to get elected – their entire tenure would be filled with apologies.
I think they should not lie at all.
But that is not how things are.
Trump has put more effort into keeping promises than any other candidate in my lifetime.
That does not make him honest – just less dishonest.
Jay,
If you do not want me kick the moral soap box out from under you and break it over your head it would not be wise to attack my morality, integrity or charity without evidence.
I have actually helped people in difficulties.
I could list several people I am helping now.
What I vigorously oppose is you or anyone else stealing from me to make YOUR choices about how my money should help others.
I particularly resent that when so many of these willing to steal from others for some mythical greater good do zip to help anyone themselves
Progressivism is inherently immoral. I have struggled to confine my moral attacks on progressivism to the ideology rather than to specific posters here.
But if you choose to attack my personal morality – you invite the same in return.
Free Trade, Robots and outsourcing.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2017/07/20/the_fight_against_robots_is_a_fight_against_prosperity_102795.html
Meddling in elections.
Right and we spy on the Russians; are you suggesting we allow our own Presidential candidates to suggest they spy on us?
We are not talking spying – we are talking meddling.
And the left is alleging a conspiracy.
That requires for knowledge and some form of participation.
Do you have evidence of that ?
Changing the subject for a bit, if I may, to something not directly related to Trump, but may shed some light on why Emmanuel Macron does not seem as hostile to Trump as Angela Merkel is, and why the EU’s threats to sanction Eastern European countries could be the beginning of an EU crack-up
Macron has instituted border checks at the French-Italian border, specifically to prevent the entry of Middle-Eastern migrants, something that Hungary and Poland have been doing since Merkel encouraged the entry of “refugees” from the ME.
This is precisely what Poland and Hungary have been criticized for advocating, not to mention the supporters of Brexit in the UK. Free movement among nations, without border checks, similar to the travel that occurs between states in the US, is a major tenet of the EU.
If France is going to end this free movement policy, what happens next?
“The message went out to the world: set foot on any Greek island, or on the southernmost rocky prominence of Italy, and you will become effectively invisible, able to make your way unhindered to any of the flourishing nations of Western Europe because, even though you are not legally entitled to the “free movement” rights that belong to EU citizens, there will be no checks at national crossing points to impede you.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/22/freedom-movement-europe-will-end-will-orderly-chaotic/
“Changing the subject for a bit, if I may, to something not directly related to Trump, but may shed some light on why Emmanuel Macron does not seem as hostile to Trump…
I hope you see the humor.
I do, I do 🙂 I should have said, “not directly related to the Russian investigation. Nothing is unrelated to Trump these days!
Macron has figured out, as has Putin, that the best way to manipulate Trump is message his pulsating ego, and pretend they like him. Hense all the back patting and arm grabbing and smiles from Macron at their meeting, like wooing an obnoxious date whose father is planning to open a new factory in town.
How would that be different from any other politician ?
The european market might have been sustainable.
The europe with a common currency might have been sustainable.
Europe as a single stable political entity has never been.
For me this disgusting woman is a pretty good metaphor for the forever trumpers.
“We can’t wait until the 2018 election waiting around to accomplish the Trump agenda, to secure the border and stop illegal immigration and repeal Obamacare and fix the economy and fix the veterans administration,” she said. “All those things need to be done, and we can’t be at a standstill while we wait for John McCain to determine what he’s going to do.”
Ward was immediately slammed by critics, who viewed her comments as insensitive, self-serving and opportunistic. She dismissed the criticisms as fake news perpetuated by liberals.”
The incredible lack of class of these kinds of people will leave a mark on the GOP that will last a long time.
It was definitely not the time, I agree. But people get sick, and the government can’t grind to a halt when that happens. John McCain is a one of a kind of American hero, and I think that everyone wishes him well ~ well, I hope so.
I am glad to hear you say that. I can only think of two or three people in politics I actually personally admire and he has long long long been one of them.
I do not have that much admiration for Sen John McCain – he is neither the worst or the best of congress.
I have and will have incredible respect for Leut. John McCain.
I wish him well, but he has received a death sentence, and the execution is going to be quick. Nothing but a miracle will change that.
Ward merely spoke the truth.
What is it that is upsetting you ?
I am sorry about McCain – but the survival from diagnosis of this type of cancer is about 18 month. Worse still they are rapidly declining months.
The odds of seeing much of John McCain in the senate the rest of the year are very low.
WE can all hope for miracles – and I noticed that you cut the part of Ward’s remarks where she hoped that McCain might miraculously recover.
Beyond that for the most part I agree with Ward’s remarks.
I am sorry this has happened to John McCain.
One of the most offensive things that Trump has done was attack McCain.
I think he has been a mediocre Senator – but he still served this country well.
And I am familiar with his story he is a true american hero.
Few are aware that he was REPEATEDLY offered early release by the NVA.
That he was beaten and tortured for refusing to return out of turn.
Ace Cunningham was also an american hero – as was Charles Wrangle
and all of them left something to be desired as senators and representatives.
Ward managed to get 40% of the vote when she primaried McCain in the last election.
That is pretty amazing against a senator of your own party with that high a stature.
Ward is currently challenging Flake for the AZ, Senate seat in 2018.
That is expected to be a tight contest for Flake – Ward is currently tied with Flake in a head to head contest.
It would probably be very wise for McCain to resign and the AZ governor to appoint Ward to his seat.
It is increasingly looking like he should have retired in 2016.
Regardless, I do not see the offense you do in here remarks.
You seemed to feel that excluding all her well wishes and expressions of sympathy can be ignored.
Of course her remarks were self serving.
Though I find it odd that you only have difficulty with the self serving remarks of people you do not like.
Self-interest is the most potent force for the improvement of standard of living that has ever existed.
Dave, “I think he has been a mediocre Senator”
And your thinking for this is?
Lets start with the fact that Barry Goldwater really did not like him.
Keating Five
How interesting, you dislike McCain based on some relationship with a third party that was investigated and found to have no substance other than Glenn and McCain using poor judgement in their friendship with Keating, while you are defending Trump from unproven charges of having a relationship with Russia.
How can the same basic situation be held against one when he did nothing wrong while defending another from charges based on them doing nothing wrong?
And I suspect Goldwater did not like him because he was not conservative enough. Hell, Goldwater did not like Eisenhower either.
But you answered my question.
Ron,
I have read not only all the stuff about the S&L scandal, but McCains own account.
It does not make him one of the most corrupt politicians in washington.
But it kills the St. John image.
It is not unusal for people who have been war hero’s and served the country well to display serious flaws as politicians.
Regardless, I have a great deal of respect for Leut. John McCain, just not Sen. McCain.
He is probably in the top third of senators in my view – but he is not a saint.
Trumps attacks on McCain were uncalled for and still one facet of Trump I can not forget.
But McCain was actively involved in the Steele Dossier. That disturbs me too.
With respect to the S&L crissis – McCain did not commit a crime. That is not the same as “he did nothing wrong” though Maxine Waters (and Barney Frank) have done far worse.
I would suggest learning something about Goldwater.
I do not know what your measure of “conservative” is, but Goldwater was ALWAYS a very limited government type and ultimately shifted to libertarian.
—–
You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.
Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world.
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government
I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.
Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?
Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater was non-interventionist in foreign policy.
He was a strong critic of defense spending.
While Goldwater was labeled “Mr. Conservative” he was quite different from anything most here would call conservative.
In his entire life Goldwater was not involved in any scandal.
It is not by any means a sign of indecency to want a balanced budget, to want to actually fix Obamacare, to want to improve the economy. It is certainly not wrong to want to fix the VA, a thing any decent person will support.
There are lots of core ideas of conservatives that have nothing indecent about them at all, just like there are lots of core ideas of far lefties that are not indecent as ideas.
The problem of indecency in politics do not lie is the most fundamental wishes of people.
The indecency involves behaviors and tactics. Every movement believes that it is actually speaking for the people and that its interests are “the peoples” interests. Which is why nearly every movement fails.
trumps agenda is only the decent American agenda when looked at through extremely fuzzy vague glasses. The details of his ideas are generally ranging from nonsensical to despicable. I do not want his ideas, as embodied in the details of the plans, to win. The trumpies do want trump to win and remake society in trumps image and it sets them up on a collision course with people like me, and, I believe, history. The real core of trumpism is based on more truly indecent principles than decent ones. Everyone knows that.
Ok, so I’m not getting what you’re saying, Roby.
On the one hand, you write, “The indecency involves behaviors and tactics.” But then you say, “The real core of trumpism is based on more truly indecent principles than decent ones.”
So, Trump’s indecency is intrinsic to his behavior and tactics, so any principles he espouses are truly indecent?
I’m not trying to be flippant here, but I am befuddled by this. I have understood for some time that you consider Trump to be personally despicable, but what principles does he stand for that you consider indecent?
Fair enough. Its probably not very clear in my own mind where the line is.
Ideas: At the very bottom most people are motivated by love, desire to live nicely, desire to have their children succeed, desire to have a stable society. That is all wholesome. Then fear comes in, the eternal narrative of who and what the nefarious forces are who are trying to ruin that scenario and what needs to be done about them. So, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a person reasonably stating that a nation has to have secure borders, that we need to find the best way to screen immigrants and refugees so they won’t be terrorists or criminals. We are already into the realm of fear, but its human and rational and goes back the wholesome love of family and community. That is what I mean by the core ideas having nothing indecent about them.
Then there is how one acts on those fears and what level of behavior you (I mean anyone) will tolerate and rationalize when it comes to defeating ideas and people you see as a threat to your wholesome life. The southern rednecks who drove around drunk in their pickup trucks waving the confederate flag and their shotguns and terrorizing black citizens were motivated by love of family and community at the very bottom under all the shit but their tactics and behaviors and fears and angers got indecently out of control and they are part of a culture that reinforces that and teaches it. They thought they were doing a good thing. I call them indecent.
Behaviors: As an obvious example, trumps ideas about treating women and whether it makes him fit to be president form a political chasm. I’d call him an despicable and indecent man in this regard and I’d call rationalizing and minimizing his behaviors and their effects when they reside in the POTUS on girls and women indecent. I 100% believe that the GOP base and the trump base have anywhere from glorified to accepted this aspect of trump where they would find it, or even a small fraction of it, despicable from a democrat. His idiot commentary on twitter and elsewhere is another such behavior issue that one side has accepted, I find it indecent and the acceptance of it indecent.
This kind of analysis could be applied to nearly every aspect of the trump presidency and the different reactions to it from left, right, and center.
My remarks are an attempt to understand what you are saying and to draw you out further.
I did not find much in your post that would allow me to determine how you decide what is right and what is wrong. A short list of this is right and this is wrong – is not the principles that you weighed to draew conclusions.
I would agree with your list of motivations – except that I would call them values.
But they are not principles.
Nor are they universal.
We generally share them – but they do not have the same importance to each of us.
They are useful to individuals in making decisions in their own lives.
They are useless as guides to government.
I would also note that fear is an emotion – not a value.
“The southern rednecks who drove around drunk in their pickup trucks waving the confederate flag and their shotguns and terrorizing black citizens were motivated by love of family and community at the very bottom under all the shit but their tactics and behaviors and fears and angers got indecently out of control and they are part of a culture that reinforces that and teaches it. They thought they were doing a good thing. I call them indecent.”
Driving drunk is a crime.
I am not sure what “terrorizing” is but presuming that it is violent acts – it is a crime.
These people should be judged by government based SOLELY on their bad acts.
You and I are personally free to judge them as we please.
Most people have good and bad values and motives.
Motive or intent is not a just means for government to evaluate people.
It is not a good way for individuals to evaluate others – though we are free to do so.
I am piss poor at reading the motives and intents of others – and based on the evidence I see – everyone else is worse.
I do not know what Trump’s ideas about treating women are.
I do know that Trump has treated some women badly.
Bill Clinton has outdone Trump in the same misconduct,
and Hillary has slutshamed Bills victims.
A pox on them all. But Donald or Hillary was going to be elected no matter what.
Bill Clinton drives me nuts. I have issues with many of his policies – but mostly he was a good president. He is and was a person of bad character.
regardless, Trump is our current mysogyinst in chief and Clinton has established like it or not that is not a bar to fitness. I do not like that. but it is how it is.
Different Trump supporters glory in different aspects of Trump’s character.
I am sure a few revel in his mysogyny – some democrats did in Clintons.
If you want to rule out people who treat women badly – you should have voted for Johnson.
Historically Democrats have been given more latitude on sexual misconduct than republicans.
Though I think that Trump esentially marks the end of that aspect of character mattering.
That means republicans held on to treating women decently longer.
I have noted that I recently started frequenting Twitter.
Trump’s tweets are tame compared to most.
Including people of very high stature on the left.
Twitter is what it is. Trump did not make it that way.
What have you addressed related to philosophy or policy ?
I can descern nothing about Trumpism from your description besides that it is people behaving badly.
What I want from Roby is specifics not adjectives with negative conotations.
Roby
What is it you think are the principles of Trumpism.
That will allow the rest of us to assess whether you accurately describe Trumpism and whether it is indecent.
Saying a woman is up to all hours of the night working under a red light
could mean that she is a developer in a photo lab.
I know so 70’s.
Roby, one of my go-to political commentators is Ben Shapiro. He was a never-Trumper during the election, and did not cast a vote for any presidential candidate. His objections to Trump tended to be based on Trump’s behavior and unpreparedness for the presidency. He was a Cruz guy, for what that’s worth, and he has come around to thinking that it’s possible for Trump to be a decent POTUS, if he can exert some self-control.
Anyway, he does a segment on his podcast called “Good Trump, Bad Trump,” which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. He praises something that Trump has done right and criticizes him for what he’s done wrong. Yesterday, “Bad Trump” bashed Jeff Sessions for recusing himself in the Russia probe, while “Good Trump” tried to exert some presidential pressure on the Senate to actually do something about health care.
This is what I think that moderates should be doing. That is, looking at Trump’s actions as president (not what he said on a hot mic 12 years ago, or some other nonsense) and evaluating his actions based on how effective they are in accomplishing his agenda. His agenda is very different, almost diametrically opposed to Obama’s, so it goes without saying that there will be disagreement as to whether the differences are good or bad. And Trump is a political brawler, with little to no political finesse, so it’s hard to judge, or even to understand, his strategy and tactics at times.
I, for example, have been extremely disturbed by his bashing of Jeff Sessions. It’s stupid, it’s wrong, and in many ways extremely self-destructive. Sessions was never going to be a wing man like Eric Holder was for Obama, weaponizing the DOJ against the president’s enemies. I couldn’t stand that about Holder, and I admire Sessions for doing the right thing . So, I agree with Shapiro that it’s “Bad Trump.”
But, when it comes to true Trump haters, I see no rational evaluation of his actions. Just blind rage and a disturbing willingness to blame him and his supporters for all of the troubles that they see in the country. It’s simplistic, self-serving, and just drives the wedge further between political sides. When people refer to me ~ or any Trump voter~ as a Trumptard or a Trumpkin, or some other stupid name, I don’t take offense (I consider the source), but I stop engaging in debate with those people. What is the point? You and I see things differently. Very differently, to be sure, but I think we have to keep engaging in debate, even when the outcome seems pre-determined. It ain’t necessarily so…
Attacking his own people – particularly those like Sessions is a mistake.
Though I found it interesting because shortly after the media attacked Sessions on the Kislyak perfury nonsense.
That should have driven home to Session the stupidity of his own actions.
While I think Trump should not take inhouse brawls public,
Sessions did make a mistake – as did Rosenstein.
That mistake let the camels nose under the tent flap.
The camel is following.
Sessions might have assumed recusing himself would get him out of the firing line.
It didn’t, it just left him unarmed.
He is now the attorney General of the US, and concurrently powerless to do anything about an investigation into himself that is ludicrously baseless.
I am also concerned of the rumors that Tillerson is leaving.
Part of that is Trump’s own character.
But part of that is the media, and the Special Council.
Really good people who are not carreer politicians do not want to stay where they have a special counsel with infinite resources conducting anal probes.
I would further note that Trump’s hold on the GOP is tenuous.
He has two problems:
He is choosing not to fill large numbers of upper level positions.
This would be a typical choice of a business person.
Trump ran a successful lean mean campaign.
He understands that most organizations are bloated and that actually makes them less efficient more unweildy more costly, slower and more leak prone.
BUT those unfilled positions are GOP jobs. And future republicans in positions throughout government in the country are groomed in those positions.
That is part of why the democrats pollitical losses are so damaging – they have about half the republican ability to groom future leaders right now.
The 2nd issue is that Trump demands loyalty and has had a fairly strong policy of not hiring republicans that were not with him on the campaign – particularly those that attacked him.
And that shrinks his pool of qualified people.
I like shapiro too. He is smart and he is usually right
“That mistake let the camels nose under the tent flap.
The camel is following.”
Good way to put it. Either put parameters on Mueller’s investigation, i.e. define it, or fire him. The political hit to Trump would be fast and furious, but it would end. As it is now, the open-ended investigation is an ongoing political charade.
I can not seem to find it, but there is another RCP agregated peice that suggests that Trump publicly define many aspects of Mueller’s investigation, and that he demand that Mueller respond to those demands in a public report.
The specifics are unimportant. But it is probably possible for Trump to sit down with some of the smart people that he has and build a straight jacket For Mueller that Mueller either accepts and conforms to or the public will support Trump if Trump fires him.
There are also issues that will come up that did with Comey.
Comey did not do what Trump directed him too.
Trump’s demand that Comey tell the public he was not being personally investigated,
has been against FBI policy, it is usually not in the interests of the person not being investigated.
As With Comey, Mueller has arguements rooted in Tradition to not do some ot the things Trump might ask.
But tradition is not law.
As an example not identifying targets – or more specifically not denying specific targets when they are not – is protection for the person not a target.
People are free to waive their own rights.
Comey made the typical elitist decision that the norms of his profession take precedence over the free choices of an individual.
Priscilla, sounds to me like to Shapiro the bad trump is the actual trump himself, the person with all his behaviors and morals and the good trump is any time he manages to articulate the gop/conservative agenda.
To a person who does not want the GOP agenda, which is something like 50-60% of us, there is only bad trump.
You can complain in bitter terms of all those who only see a bad trump and call us extremists making illegitimate war on the POTUS, but we are a large group and considerably larger than the true trump believers. trump got 13 million votes in the primary, those are the real believers. Labeling us and the media with all the accusations that we are waging some incredible wrongful illegitimate war is Itself waging an incredible illegitimate war, that is your paradox.
I believe that you and many suffer from the idea that because you like the basic trump agenda and the concept of turning washington upside down and shrinking it drastically for the most part it is thus good for America and there is a majority of people who support what trump is trying to do. There is no such support.
His agenda is mostly bad for America in the opinion of people like me and the public backing for it is much more limited than conservatives will let themselves believe. He did not get elected because some huge proportion of Americans wanted an outsider to overthrow the status quo and build a wall etc. The only thing trump articulates that has majority support is tougher screening of people entering America. trump was not elected to do what he is doing, he was elected pretty much by a series of ugly accidents in an election between two wretched choices. Its not a mandate. You guys think it is and that resistance to this idiot and his agenda is bad sportsmanship. The 55% who disapprove are not going away. I predict that number will only grow baring a true change in trumps behaviors and results.
Again, this means to people like me that there is only a bad trump, an infantile, incompetent, wholly dishonest man with a disgusting set of morals, and a bad agenda as well.
I do not think at this moment that he should be impeached. I think he should be impeached if and when the investigation is completed and it is truly damning and after conservatives have realized after several years of this nonsense that he is not successful at getting them almost anything at all they want. When they don’t get what they want from trump his popularity will finally fall into numbers where GOP congresspeople can think of impeaching him. That is off in the distance.
Right now we are just stuck with an infantile POTUS who weakens America abroad and who is a walking insult to a majority of women, to name the most obvious group his values and ideas rightfully offend.
Maybe he will turn presidential and actually do something surprisingly productive. No sign of that change in the man yet.
Too long, much longer than I intended and rather redundant. I should have cut it at “to people like me there is only a bad trump”. I’m hitting send anyway and then going back to the real world of family and projects.
Carry on, everyone, in your chosen roles.
The GOP agenda is not some binary all or nothing thing.
It is probably true that 50-60% of us do not want the entire agenda.
It is also probably true that 50-60% of us do want each individual item.
This is also one of the problems with ObamaCare and with trying to replace it
It is also true that some items – either in PPACA or the “agenda” are either fiscally stupid or immoral or unconstitutional – regardless of whether they are popular.
The above is all normal. It would be true of Pres. Cruz or Hillary and was true of Obama.
I do not seem to be able to get through to you that Majoritarianism is a tryanically stupid way to govern. You seem to think that because at the moment you might be able to get majority support for some of your policies – particularly if you present them without any consideration of their cost, that you can ignore the fact that majoritarianism is inherently evil, that its past history includes slavery and genocide.
Even where I disagree with you on an issue – I support your right to be obstructionist on that issue. But you do not grant the same right to others.
Regardless, the “agenda” I support is reducing government infringement on our rights.
That is an agenda that does nto require majority support.
“I believe that you and many suffer from the idea that because you like the basic trump agenda and the concept of turning Washington upside down and shrinking it drastically for the most part it is thus good for America and there is a majority of people who support what trump is trying to do. There is no such support.”
Well, I don’t think that I’m “suffering” from anything, and what you say is true in part, but I think that you are missing the reality of why Trump was able to defeat more mainstream conservatives like Cruz and Rubio, and particularly “establishment” conservatives like Bush and Kasich. That reality is that millions of people have come to believe that both the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington have lost any connection that they ever had to the the voters, and have become committed, first and foremost, to serving the lobbyists and special interest groups that keep them rich and powerful and to growing the power of the central government at the expense of the freedom and liberty of the people who voted for them.
These people see Trump as a fighter. They want a fighter. They expect him to fight what they truly believe is tyranny and corruption. “Draining the swamp” is not a joke to them. They’ve heard all of the promises from politicians before, and like all of us, they don’t believe anything anymore. These are people that have a connection to Trump that will be very hard to break, and it won’t be broken by insiders like Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer, James Comey, or any other enemy of Trump whom they consider to be a “swamp dweller.”
Another thing~ Trump’s most ardent supporters believe that he is a culture warrior, and will break the stranglehold that the left has on education, the media and politics. They believe that political correctness is poisoning the culture. Most of them are not racists, and they are tired of being labeled racists. They understand that racism, sexism, and all of the “isms” exist on both sides of the political spectrum, but that only the right is blamed. They see that left wing extremists can speak freely, but conservatives like Ben Shapiro are banned on college campuses.
I guess my point is this: If you think that there is no support for Trump out there, you are mistaken. Making a martyr out of him may temporarily satisfy haters, but, in the long run, it will tear the country apart.
There may not be majority support for every line item in Trumps agenda.
But to the extent Trump has a mandate it is to
Drain the swamp.
Much of the political jihad going on right now is about exactly that.
It think that is part of Why Trump is holding his core support.
Is there someone who expected that when Trump tried to Drain the swamp the swamp creatures would not fight back ?
That is also why the “resistance” strategy is dangerous.
The so called “drip drip” has thus far not significantly eroded Trump’s base.
So long as it does not eventually it will fail.
We do nto actually know whether Mueller has broadened his investigation.
Most leaks so far have been false.
But it would not surprise me – because the Russia meme really can not ever get leggs.
You are essentially looking to prove to Trump voters that they were somehow deceived.
That essentialy means proving that Clinton is not a crook.
The Trump/Russia thing is just an indirect claim that Trump voters are stupid.
Assume that this Trump/Russian collusion was hypothetically true –
What is it that Trump and Russia did that changed votes in a way that the voters themselves will beleive they were deceived. ?
Anyway I think Mueller is smart enough to grasp that short of proving Trump worked with Russians to hack voting machines, even if he “proved” collusion, he is going to fall short.
There is probably more support out there for “draining the swamp” than there is for Trump.
“I guess my point is this: If you think that there is no support for Trump out there, you are mistaken. Making a martyr out of him may temporarily satisfy haters, but, in the long run, it will tear the country apart.”
trump makes a martyr of himself, sort of like how Moogies does. some will bleed for him as he performs his drama, every martyr has their audience.
Clearly, as I stated, he has support. Just not nearly so much that he can get anything done. There is no reason to be any more protective of the hard core trumpies sensibilities and demands that there is of those of the the hard core sanderistas. They both number in the millions and neither group is going to get very much if anything of what they want.
America as a whole does not want trump’s routine or agenda, if it did his presidency would be going very differently.
trump himself is tearing America apart and he could care less, as long as it gets good ratings and shows a profit.
He has support for “draining the swamp” and that is what he should focus on doing.
Sorry Roby – but Trump is not tearing the country apart.
You conflate style and substance.
The anger that is out there.
The anger on the right that has turned into action that has taken over most state governments and large parts of the federal government is real, and even the successful impeachment of Trump is not making it go away.
People who hate trump – still want to see the swamp drained govenrment transformed the elites removed from power.
The left thinks this is all about Trump.
This is more a battle about the future power of the left, and it is one they are losing.
You can defeat the Trumpist form of anti-leftism.
But absent change on the left that does not appear to even be under discussion the left is in trouble.
All the debates about free speech on campus, or Post modernism are important.
They are losing ideological wars.
Even the Left’s war on Trump is a war of annihilation. At its conclusion maybe Trump will be dead. Maybe the left will be temporarily celebratory, but this war on Trump is doing permanent damage to the left, no damage to those not on the left – except Trump.
In discussions here – I end up holding my nose and defending Trump sometimes.
I can lose that fight and lose little.
But all the ground that is not Trump has essentially been ceded.
Even ground related to what should be accomplished in congress.
We know we are no longer living in the rational American Presidential mindset we all grew up taking for granted when the Dipshit in the Oval Office castigates his own appointed AG to vindictively investigate/prosecute his opponent in the election (to deflect from his own devious machinations and improprieties):
WASHINGTON (AP) : “Fuming about the ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and questions as to whether his campaign colluded with foreign officials, Trump again focused his ire on Sessions, who was once one of the president’s closest allies.
“So why aren’t the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?” Trump tweeted Monday. His tweet came just hours before his son-in-law, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, traveled to Capitol Hill to be interviewed about his meetings with Russians.”
This is an abnormal deterioration of the standards we prided ourselves in believing were part and parcel of required Presidential behavior in our nation; sorrilily im not as optimistic as you that we will recover bipartisan moral equilibrium any time soon
Yep.
Aparently history only began 15 minutes ago.
Bill Clinton had an absolutely horrible relationship with Janet Reno – probably worse than that of Sessions at the moment.
Bill just did not make they rift quite as public, and the press did not report on it.
But it was widely known.
Nixon had a worse relationship with Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.
LBJ is infamous for reveling in berating people.
And Jefferson and Adams were friends until they were mortal enemies and then ultimately friends again. In the middle they said repugnant things about each other.
You seem entirely oblivious of history
Most (unfortunately not all) of Trump’s agenda (and that of may republcians) is to return to people control over their own lives.
That is always decent and sustainable.
Obamacare was an impossible idea from the begining.
Wanting it fixed is irrelevant.
Wanting unicorns does not make them possible.
The fundimental flaw of Obama Care and pretty much everything the left fixates on is that it is an attempt to create a positive right.
When you create for one person a right that also creates a positive duty on another – you do evil not good.
Republican efforts to “repeal and replace” have really been efforts to fix rather than replace Obamacare. I think they were mistakes and I am glad none have passed.
Democrats have been politically stupid not to support any of those replacements – even though I think they are bad ideas.
PPACA is failing rapidly. Something will inevitably have to be done.
I beleive one government study out recently concluded that the effect of a straight repeal would be LESS uninsured than any of the half measures, as well as significant actual health cost savings for everyone.
While I think most of these long term projections are voodoo.
At the same time we know what Healthcare and Health insurance were 8 years ago.
As bad as they were – for most of us they were less bad than today.
So is calling 40% of the electorate racist hateful, hating haters a “decent” tactic ?
Is covertly trying to manipulate the press and the primary a “decent” tactic ?
Is bussing in voters from other states a decent tactic ?
Is sending agitotors to an opponents event with instructions to incite violence a decent trafic.
IS concocting and shoppling to the meadia a dossier on your opponent that is full of salacious and know spurious lies a decent tactic ?
I think voters had a good idea what they were buying and bought the least rancid meat.
I think any other perception requires fuzzy glasses.
You have made it clear you oppose Trumpism.
I am reminded of a clip I saw recently – I think on Reason.
A reporter went out on the streets in NYC and interviewed millinials.
He asked them if they supported socialism.
A great deal did.
Of those he asked what is socialism.
None had an answer – not even a wrong answer.
So Roby – what is Trumpism ?
There is very little on Clinton’s platform that I supported.
As I recall I supported nearly all of Trump’s actual platform.
But sometimes his public remarks were at odds with his platform.
Regardless I can identify those things Trump seeks to accomplish that I support and those I oppose.
What is it that you support and oppose.
I can not tell whether we have any common ground when you “oppose Trumpism”
Because I do not know what you mean by that.
You said you wanted a balanced budget.
Trump says he wants a balanced budget – I am not sure how serious he is, but it is what he says.
I want a balanced budget – except in times of national emergency.
I think we all want a healthcare system that provides nearly everyone with affordable care.
The debate is how to get that.
Given that government has never been able to provide any good or service at lower cost and higher value than free markets I am highly skeptical of programs that claim to be able to do so – as ObamaCare does.
I do not support failed ideas.
I do not support half assed fixes to failed ideas.
Here I would be opposed to Trump – and you would support him.
I think there is near universal agreement that the VA is a problem.
Obama with republican help, threw money at the problem – it got worse.
Trump is trying to hold people accountable, and cut spending.
I doubt Trump will fix the VA.
I doubt he will make it worse.
Can you accept that ?
The central issue with public policy is rarely if ever “deceny”
It is more often facts, logic and reason.
I oppose doing the thing that sounds decent.
I want see us do – (or sometimes undo) as needed to be better off.
Regardless, you say Trumps agenda fails as it moves to details.
Explain – maybe we can find some common ground.
“trump makes a martyr of himself, sort of like how Moogie does. some will bleed for him as he performs his drama, every martyr has their audience.”
Trump and Moogie! What a pair!
I think that, to the degree that Trump is a showman (comparisons to P.T. Barnum are common, and not entirely inaccurate) you are correct.
But, he is exactly NOT playing a martyr ~ he is playing a warrior. It is one of his alter-ego’s that is part fact/part fiction. Fact, because he is truly fighting against enormous odds, and some legitimately sinister forces, to accomplish what he was sent to Washington to do ~which is, essentially, to break the stranglehold of establishment politicians, lobbyists, special interests, mainstream media-types, etc. on the federal government. Fiction, because he likely knows that he can only challenge those forces so much before they destroy him.
He’s not tearing the country apart, the “resistance” to him is doing that. Look at what he did immediately upon being elected ~ called the Clintons, offered a gracious opinion of them in his first interview, said that he would likely not pursue charges against Hillary. And look what he got in return ~ Assertions that he was legitimately elected, that Hillary “won” the popular vote (in 250 years, it’s never mattered, but all of a sudden…it mattered!), that he was a Putin puppet. Evidence that Obama had used the FISA courts to surveil him and his campaign throughout the campaign. And so on…. It’s the reaction to Trump’s election that is tearing the country apart. It would be a huge mistake to martyr him, via political maneuvering and ruses.
Loyal opposition, clear-minded criticism, “good Trump, bad Trump.” evaluation…. That’s the way to go, but the Democrats have chosen otherwise.
**NOT legitimately elected
If we are trying to decide what caricature Trump and his supporters think fit him.
I would suggest that he and they think of him as Rocky Balboa.
Trump is deliberately confrontational.
I beleive that he sees it as Punching back twice as hard.
I am not prepared to say that he starts confrontations.
But he dares them to happen.
And he does not back down.
One of my problems at the moment is that Democrats can fight Trump’s polices and they can win or lose and we can move on. Much as we did under Obama.
Obama did some good things and many bad things. Republicans opposed nearly all Obama did. They obstructed many things, but not all things.
There was damage done tot he country but nothing permanent or that we can not overcome.
If the fight between Trump and the Left was the same, there would be little to fear.
But the left is not fighting Trump over issues and policies – they are challenging his very existance.
This quite stupid Trump/Russia nonsense must end with the destruction of one party.
Here is a NeoCon other that MaxBoot who notes that while Russia is an existential threat and Trump is way too friendly to Russia, that this is nothing new. That Obama and Clinton were closer to Putin than Trump.
I do not agree with the NeoCon view that if it is Russia we must oppose.
Sometimes we need to work with Russia, sometimes we need to stand up to them.
But the rest of the article is interesting.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/24/why-its-hard-to-take-democrats-seriously-on-russia-215415
From the moment the election was over, I strongly advocated for pardoning clinton,
For putting this behind us. Obama did not pardon Clinton.
Trump did not pardon Clinton – but he did say that he was going to put it behind.
But the left could not let go.
This Trump/Russia nonsense continues.
We are now fighting over Trumps Business dealings – why ?
Because there is absolutely nothing in the Trump/Russia election fraud nonsense.
Because the more we go after Trump the more dirt comes out on Clinton and Obama.
Trump Jr. has a nothing meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and we discover that Natilia is tied to FusionGPS and the Clinton State department and AG Lynch and that Clinton and Obama sought to repeal the Magnavinsky Act that Natalia met with Trump Jr. about.
It should have been self evidence on Nov. 9, 2016 that there was no meaningful Trump/Russia collusion.
Because elections are determined by votes, and unless you are claiming that the Russians altered ballots or vote counting, then you must be arguing that voters were deceived and stupid. If Trump colluded with Russia – what did he get for it ?
Clinton’s wounds are all self inflicted.
With all that is going wrong – some things are going right.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-24/politics-is-weird-right-now-business-isn-t
http://thehill.com/news-administration/343429-paul-ryan-mueller-is-anything-but-a-dem-partisan?amp
From above link:
Ryan pointed to Mueller’s resume and how he was tapped and served as FBI director under the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush.
“Remember, Bob Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican who served in the Republican administration who crossed over and stayed on ’til his term ended,” Ryan said.
There are very few people challenging Mueller’s “partisanship”.
But that is not the only measure of conflict.
I do not beleive Mueller is “partisan”
All conflicts are not partisan.
I do beleive Mueller is personally conflicted with respect to everything involving Comey.
That is a resolveable problem
How mueller addresses it will give us an idea of his integrity.
The bigger problem is whether Mueller is self serving – and I am more suspicious of that.
I think if Mueller had been appointed to dig into Hillary – that he would have spent 7 years doing it and torn her inside out.
That is not what I think should be done regardless of who is being investigated.
The objective is not to prove that every aspect of some persons life if pearly white.
It is to answer the question regarding the specific crime alleged. If investigating that leads to other crimes to prosecute those, and to finish and leave. ‘
The objective is not to create a lucrative sinecure for yourself and cronies.
All those who think “President” Trump’s actions and comments are below the dignity of the office, please stand up.
Humm, guess who is still sitting here.
I have been standing since atleast Bill Clinton on that issue.
I think getting a BJ from an intern in the oval is pretty close to as undignified as you can get.
Undignified is a basis to make voting choices. It is grounds to impeach.
It is not a crime to be investigated.
Roby : In reference to Obamacare and economics. Consider the following, …After returning from his first visit to Alaska, geographer Henry Gannett cautioned: “If you are old, by all means go, but if you are young, stay away. The scenery of Alaska is so much grander than anything else in the world. It is not well to dull one’s capacity for such enjoyment by seeing the finest first.”
Hmmm, speaking of dulled capacities, mine seem suboptimal, I’ve missed the connection.
There are some that say this whole Russia deal is going to bring down the Trump administration. There are others that say it is a nothing burger.
But there are two things completely clear to me. One, just looking at this “moderate” site where those participating should have “moderate” views in some form or fancy have spent days if not weeks talking about one thing only, while the real issues facing the country go ignored. From my perspective, not a word lately concerning anything really important, including my comments.
Two, at some point in time the minimally controlled GOP congress is going to have to come to the realization that playing an aggressive game with healthcare and taxes is a no win game. Sometimes you have to compromise to win in the end. Had the Falcons compromised when they had a 28-9 lead with just over 10 minutes to play in the super bowl, passes would not been intercepted inside the 30 yard line, Ryan would not have been sacked on a passing play inside the 35 yard line and with the good chance of being in the 30 yard line range with 10-12 minutes left and the field goal kicker they had, compromising and kicking a field goal and making the game 31-9 would have put it out of reach and New England would not have tied the game in regulation and eventually won the game. Sometimes playing for less than a touchdown or a home run ends up scoring enough points to win in the end!
Many times playing an aggressive game when in control of the game ends up being a losing game.
“Many times playing an aggressive game when in control of the game ends up being a losing game.”
As a sports junkie back in the day nothing drove me crazier than a prevent defense or an offence trying to slow the game down to protect a lead; or visa versa; unless I won because of them of those strategies :- )
“When you lose to somebody who has a 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Sen. Schumer told the Washington Post. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.”
Or maybe they did know what you stand for.
Increasingly it apears that the left stands almost entirely for “not trump” and nothing else.
“Many times playing an aggressive game when in control of the game ends up being a losing game.”
Yes, absolutely, Ron And sometimes aggressiveness pays off.
But I agree with you on this when it comes to healthcare. Why in the world the Republicans didn’t have some sort of Obamacare replacement ready to go, I don’t know (well, actually, I have an idea, but still….it’s a travesty) If the GOP was not going to aggressively attack and replace O’Care, then they should have gone the route of passing smaller bills that would advance their goal.
Priscilla, Yep, Creighton Abrams said “When eating an elephant take one bite at a time” meaning when you want to do something difficult, do it slowly and carefully.
So there are smart people in Washington that know how the game is played. They can come up with much of the same information that the CBO comes up with or something close. When you repeal Obamacare, everyone knows that X millions of people were added to Medicaid and Y number of people were added to insurance roles, either by choice or by fear of IRS penalty. The then would be able to give the GOP leadership information that XY number of people would lose healthcare coverage under their plan, That would allow the GOP to test out the PR reaction to this number and how it would play in the public. And I suspect that the reaction, when the message was modeled by PR companies giving negative and positive PR messages floating this to a large test group of people, would be the same or almost the same as what happened in reality. Most any large company test products, messages, advertising and other PR issues and I would expect the two parties to do the same.
Once they found that killing the elephant created a huge negative PR reaction, then one bite at the time begins. Just look at the massive changes in Medicare and the huge reductions in reimbursement rates over the years and since they were done a little here and there, absolutely nothing is ever reported. But I know that over the past 10 years, billions have been removed from reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. Just the rule that physician rates can only increase 1/2% through 2019 and no increase from 2019 to 2025 plus the fact hospital rates are increased for core inflation less 1.5% has had a huge impact on payments, but no one ever hears about this and how medicare patients are being screwed because payment rates are being cut.( Yes these are “Washington D.C. Cuts”)
One bite at a time make a big difference.
Ron
The CBO was pretty far off with respect to its predictions on PPACA.
There is no sane reason to expect it will do better on any alternate.
Further the entire scoring process ignores the elephant in the room.
PPACA vastly increased the cost of healthcare.
Not only did private insurance and healthcare costs rise, but there was 1.3T/decade in government subsidies. Probably the additional costs the rest of us incurred were about the same. That is nearly 3T/decade.
What did we get ?
Medicaid expansion,
More people with health insurance.
Did we get any actual improvement in healthcare ?
Nope, Zip, Nada.
The oregon experiment confirms in the near perfect gold standard of a large scale controlled experiment what we have known from other studies over the past 5 decades.
Health insurance does not improve health outcomes in any significant way.
There have been no changes in life expectance trends.
advocates of government spending think they can fake the mechanisms of a free market.
Things do not improve because you spend more money. Prices rise as a consequence of spending more money – they do not drop.
We have seen this in healthcare. We see it in both public and college education,
We saw this with the housing bubble.
Value increases and prices decrease when free individuals say if you want my money – give me value. They happen when producers say if I can deliver more value I will get more money.
If you just add money and hope that the incentives will arrise, all that will happen is the market will distort to absorb your money and give you nothing in return.
BTW there was an excellent article aggregated on RCP in the last week about why CBO despite the skill of its experts can not possibly ever get it right.
There was also an economics paper about 3 years by Paul Romer – the spouse of Christine Romer, Obama’s chief economics expert that effectively demonstrated that any system with sufficient number of coefficients can not be modeled.
There are lots of smart people in the world and in washington.
But the smart people in washington – whether in CBO or outside of it will NEVER sustainably out perform free markets. They can not. Free markets are smarter than any of us, because their intelligence comes from all of us.
Dave, once again you are missing the point of my comment 100% and trying to relate it to your Libertarian thinking. It does not matter if the CBO was right or wrong in their estimates. It is the process by which those elected officials are going about business that is the problem. It does not matter if healthcare is market driven or price fixed in this instance. It does not matter if health outcomes improved or not under PPACA. I did not address any of this.
If someone tells you the temperature on your grill is 300 degrees and you are going to get burned if you touch it and it is 250 degrees and you will get still get burned, are you going to argue that they were grossly off and put your hand on it? It does not matter how off they are, it is still bad.
So my point is I don’t care how far off the CBO was. I care about the process the GOP is going through to get rid of Obamacare. Right now they are never going to get rid of any of it using the process they are using. The GOP senate has become the body of centrist, moderates, conservatives, Libertarians and far right wacko’s and when you have all these people in the senate it is going to be very difficult to get anything concerning entitlement passed. When you get Rand Paul to agree, you lose Collins. When Collins agrees, you lose Paul. And along with them are a few others that follow in their footsteps. The Democrats do not have this problem, they are all Warren and Sander liberals.
So if anyone from the moderate left of the party to the Paul Libertarians and Cruz led wackos’ want anything changed, one bite at a time is the way it is going to get done.
The traditional means by which either party gets sufficient support when it can not get a majority is to add elements to bribe those on the flanks.
One of the changes withing the GOP since 2009 is that tactic is no longer possible for republicans.
Maybe you can lure Cruz that way – you are not getting Paul and probably not Lee.
I am addressing the senate here – but the problem is larger in the house.
The “freedom caucus” members were not elected to compromise.
And most of them have extremely solid support back home.
The majority of states and congressional districts are pink.
The number of actually red or blue ones is small but about equal.
Those from the red and blue districts have zero reason to compromise on anything.
These in pink districts today are between a rock and a hard place – they can not survive a primary challenge – because even if they win they will enter the general too far from the center.
The Tea Party in particular – but fiscal conservatives and libertarian republicans have all made it clear to the party that they are prepared to primary moderate republicans and lose an election rather than put inplace more moderates.
That makes it ever harder to accomplish anything in congress. And I think that is GOOD.
Further though pork is still a big issue – it is far harder today to buy votes.
Again those “freedom causus” votes are near impossible to buy.
Just about the only thing that will assure they are not re-elected is if they are perceived as for sale.
Dave, you are so correct about the House and that is why they can pass stuff the Senate has a hard time passing. Most house members are elected from gerrymandered districts where the liberals are isolated and the conservatives are isolated. Fresno and the central valley of California has been gerrymandered so many of the conservatives are isolated and only one GOP or two GOP members get elected, while in North Carolina the districts around the larger cities are designed to capture the majority of the liberals, leaving much of the state to more conservative voters and increasing the number of conservative house members.
The senate, on the other hand has more members that have to appeal to a broader range of voters. Anyone like a Cruz would not even get out of the starting blocks in Maine, while Susan Collins name would never appear on a Texas ballot. Paul would play well in Texas but fall flat in the Northeast. Rubio, Portman and Toomey have to play to a divided electorate that is more moderate than Maine or Texas. What they hear from their constituents is very different than what Cruz or Collins hears from their constituents. So trying to get anything through the senate when 48 democrats are all lined up like kindergartners waiting for school to start is extremely difficult for any party leader when they have to keep all but 2 of their members in line and when they represent a party that has more individual thinkers than the collective thinking of the Democrats.
So in the senate, it comes down to who they represent and what do they support for those they represent. Some would say they represent all of Americans, others would say they represent the voters from their states.
I could quibble on details but on the whole you are right.
Where we likely disagree – is I think how things are is GOOD.
What is the big problem is that for short periods in the modern past for one reason or another this was not true and we were able to advance socialist lite legislation that never would have passed otherwise and now we can not get rid of.
Regardless, it is supposed to be very hard to go forward.
To the extent we have a problem. it is that we are on an unsustainable path and it is near impossible to fix that.
I am not sure whether we mean the same thing – but it is possible that your “take little bites” approach and my suggestion that the GOP focus on small things it can accomplish now.
In fact I think it should try to do some little things – even if it can not accomplish them.
Get votes on the record – whether republcians or democrats.
Lets bring issues like ExIm bank to a vote.
Lets end government funding to controversial things or things that are just not the role of govenrment.
Lets consolidate social sefetynet programs even if we can not elimiate them.
Lets get rid of stupid artifacts of the depression like dairy boards and rasin boards.
Even if we fail at these – get the votes on the record.
And let voters decide in 2018.
One of the odd things that has been going on – like everything it started before Reid, but is that of parties deliberately avoiding votes on many many things.
Reid did not want democrats to sit for re-election defending votes for things that democrats wanted to do.
That is pretty dishonest. It is saying I am going to let McCaskill or Manchin appear to be moderate on some issues, until I can ram some legislation through congress and the president and then I will get it done in the dead of the night and roll the votes I need.
Republicans are tending to do this too.
Trump keeps threatening to go after reps and senators in upcoming elections.
In a very few instances that is plausible.
But most of the votes he needs to change have stronger support in their districts than he does.
Trump conducted a strategically brilliant campaign.
He grasped that if he could win the primary, that he no longer had to care about republicans in deep red states. That he had to win the rust belt.
That it did not matter if he won Georgia by 30% or 3%.
But that means he does not have the political leverage he thinks he does.
Dave we agree on little bites and small steps for the most part. And one could add selling insurance across state lines, increasing the HSA amounts and what they can be used for and allowing insurance companies to offer multiple plans that cover specific illnesses or do not cover medical conditions, like a 50 year old male buying insurance without maternity coverage. One step at a time until government is made smaller.
But have you ever seen government do anything in small bites?
But we disagree with respect to PPACA.
You seem to want to take little bites out of it.
My view is it is an unsustainable failure.
Let if fail or repeal it.
Do not get suckered in to trying to fix it.
If you do, it will still fail albeit more slowly and you will share ownership of that failure
I do not inherently disagree that many of your fixes for PPACA are good ideas.
Further I am increasingly of the view that PPACA needs to be allowed to fail – rather than get repealed.
We are not going to learn except from failure.
The failure of PPACA will harm alot of people.
But mostly that harm will be small compared to the bigger failure that are eventually coming. Regardless we need to get past saving the left from itself.
If I actually beleived that PPACA was sustainable – I would likely buy into your – we must do whatever we can to make it less vile.
But I beleive its failure is certain. We are not going to care about CBO scoring when we have to rebuild from ash.
Dave here again is an area I think we agree in part, but I disagree with your position to repeal it or allow it to fail. So based on my opinion of the senate, I don’t see how in the hell McConnell is going to round up all the cats and get them to vote for repeal. Spence had to break the tie just to get to the point they will even talk about a plan on the floor of the senate. If you can not agree to talk, then I sure as hell don’t see them agreeing to repeal.
Now you say let it fail. I think if you look at the legislation and what it was suppose to do and look at the current situation, the plan has already failed. People are just living with a total failure, but they are scared to death of the possible replacement plans because the left has better PR scare tactics than than the GOP has PR promotional tactics. How many times can one say “premiums have double or tripled, plans are being removed from the market place so some areas of the country have no alternatives or just one, deductibles have increased to the point that even if you have coverage you hardly ever spend enough to get to use the insurance, doctors are refusing to accept Obamacare plans, etc etc” and not have this begin to make a dent in the thinking of the voters?
The problem as I see it is about 85% of Americans have insurance they like. Medicare, Medicaid or employer sponsored plans. And for many the requirements that insurance through employers certain certain coverage’s is not an issue with them because they want that coverage. So the healthcare issue is one that many voters really don’t care about and the ones that do are scared to death they will lose coverage they gained when Obamacare was enacted.
And those that get elected sure as hell do not want to be depicted in a political ad showing someone dying because they voted to end Obamacare.
I accept you think it will completely fail and then something new will take its place. but what is “complete failure” when we already have “failure”. I think the only way to get rid of it is to erode the base that supports it and then let it fail when there is not enough support to matter.
Well McConnel has drug McCain from the hospital to buy himself the oportunity to herd those cats.
Yet even McCain is saying he can not vote for the bill he just voted to bring to the floor.
I think you are correct – there will be no vote to repeal. But I will be shocked if Republicans can get 50 voted plus Pence for anything.
But the easiest thing to get Republicans to vote for – which I agree with you they will not be able to – is repeal.
It you can not get 50 votes for repeal you can not get 50 votes for anything between Repeal and PPACA as it is.
The only way you get anything passed is if McConnell shifts to Boehner’s strategy and gets some democratic votes.
I do not think Schumer is going to allow that to happen on anything less than PPACA pretty much as it is, and if McConnell appeals to democrats he has signed his own political death warrant.
Anyway, the net result is we will have PPACA until it fails – which will be fairly soon.
Yes, the left is better at messaging – nothing new there. But messaging does not change reality.
You say it has already failed – depending on how you define failure – that is so.
But it can and will get worse.
No one will care too much about the pre-existing condition issue – when no insurance company is offering PPACA compliant insurance in much of the country.
The most glowing claims about PPACA are that it increased the portion of the population covered by about 4%.
The overwhelming majority of those people either do not vote or already vote democratic.
One of PPACA’s big problems is that its winners and losers divided along red/blue lines.
Not perfectly but very strongly.
That is a massive incentive for democrats to do nothing and republicans to destroy it entirely.
A part of the reason that Republicans can not pass anything is that you are correct – there are likely atleast 4 or 5 republicans who seriously risk losing their seats if they substantially alter ObamaCare. BUT there are probably atleast 10 who risk losing their seats if they do not repeal ObamaCare.
The best hope was to get some of those worried about losing their seats for modifiying PPACA to by into the Cruz amendment – poison pill.
Which is esentially – Obamacare is still nearly in its entirety the law of the land, but it can not preclude anyone who wants to from buying whatever heatlh insurance they want.
I would note that more voters than you think care about PPACA – because aside from Healthcare and health insurance costs, it has increased the cost of government by 1.6T/decade.
I do not think we need to do anything. The failure will worsen on its own.
Dave ” I would note that more voters than you think care about PPACA – because aside from Healthcare and health insurance costs, it has increased the cost of government by 1.6T/decadeI ”
Dave now I know you are wearing rose colored glasses. Do you REALLY think people care about the debt? As I write, we have $19 trillion, 967 billion in debt and growing by about $500 to $600 billion now with much greater deficits in the future. If people cared about the debt, they would have said so may years ago, not now at $20 trillion.Liberals and moderates do not care about the deficit. Only a small percent of conservatives care about the debt.
So another 1.6T means nothing to them until we melt down in economic debt like Greece.
Do people care about the debt ?
In a rigidly concrete sense – no.
In the sense that most instinctively grasp there is no free lunch – yes.
When you are experiencing ventricular tachycardia “one bite at a time” is not going to get you anywhere.
I do not actually buy the PR problem.
Absolutely congressmen respond to angry phone calls.
People who are scared of losing something make angry phone calls.
That is not reflective of the real state of the electorate.
When polled nearly 80% of americans want coverage for pre-existing conditions.
When the question asked if the wanted pre-existing coverage at a small increase in coverage 80% did not.
We have one and only one system that accurately reflects the entirety of our relative values as well as properly agregating the individual differences in those values – free markets.
Pills can not tell very accurately what people want.
Politicians can not give people what they want.
What we want is far too complicated.
The republicans do not owe anyone a replacement for ObamaCare – they got very stupidly suckered into that promise.
ObamaCare is a disaster. I have not looked in detail at any of the replacements – but to the extent I have – they seem to look like little more than the same thing dying more slowly.
There was alot wrong with pre-PPACA. But that is all that is actually owed to voters, a return to the pre-PPACA status quo.
After that talk about what to do can begin.
Unfortunately democrats are about 100% clueless, and republicans are little better, or they would not keep concocting ObamaCare lite.
Price Controls DO NOT WORK. All these schemes are just various forms of price controls.
They have flaws beyond that – but that alone is enough.
If you want the cost of something to go down and the value to go up – you must have faith that in a free market that will happen – not necescarily immediately, but inevitably.
There is no known best way to deal with health care or health insurance.
The way that works best for you may not be best for me, the way that works best today may not be best tomorow. The preceding “mays” should actually all be “is”
Free markets do not work by finding an answer and stopping. The find an answer, and then they find an answer again, and again, and again.
Government does not do trial and error, Government does nto do experiment – and we do not want it to, government does not and constitutionally can not provide for me differently than you – that would violate equal protection. In those instances where a government answer actually works – atleast well enough, government stops.
Any problem that we apply a government solution to – at best means one size fits all, and improvement every couple of decades.
Free markets change in seconds.
You wonder why the past 2 decades have sucked ? Because government has been choking innovation.
Regardless, I can propose a bunch of ideas – good ones to improve health care.
But at best those will create a one time improvement. They can not result in more value for less effort – continuously.
We have 150,000 years of economic history. It is only during the recent era of high degrees of individual freedom – including economic freedom that we have experienced growth above 1%, And no system except economic freedom has delivered sustained growth of more than 2%
No Plan for heatlh insurance or healthcare that does not significantly increase economic freedom can sustainably increase the quality of healthcare and decrease the cost.
Because there is no single answer, and there never will be.
There is todays answer and tomorows, and the next days and ideas no one has ever thought of, and absent economic freedom they never will, or even if they do they will never try.
Do not beleive – look at every area of healthcare that has anything close to a free market – plastic surgery, Lasik.
All highly regulated markets have several things in common:
Low rates of innovation
Low rates of growth
Increasing costs over time.
All lightly regulated markets have several things in common
High rates of growth
High rates of innovation
decreasing costs over time.
This is true in the US
This is true accross the world.
Rick, congratulations on your trip and your experience in Alaska. As well, thanks for the helpful reminder that most people are good, and even down right enjoyable, when we sit down across a table from them and the stress is lifted or lessened absent politics.
Write again soon!
That is correct.
So is this:
Jay, I hope that you’ll continue to read Shapiro’s Twitter feed, maybe even check out his website, The Daily Wire He’s a brilliant guy, fair-minded,honest, and very funny. Watch out, though, he’s quite conservative, and disdains Democrats to a far greater degree that he does Trump. He might tweet out something that challenges your dogmatic views.
Be ready to retreat into your safe space.
I would suggest finding Shapiro elsewhere than Twitter.
Thus far I have found most of Twitter is full of people who should know better making 13yr old snarky comments.
Trump’s tweets have been troubling. He is tame compared to much of Twitter.
It is not where I would go to get a sense of someone.
The tweets from people like Shipiro generally LINK you to their full articles on line.
Don’t you know that? And magazines, newspapers, tv & cable networks also have Twitter addresses to link to full online articles as well. Widen your focus there.
“Thus far I have found most of Twitter is full of people who should know better making 13yr old snarky comments.”
Like Trump you mean.
Yes – large numbers of people that I have previously greatly respected who post on twitter sound like Trump or worse.
I am no longer interested in complaints about tweets.
Twitter is a nasty obnoxious forum.
Snark, inaccuracy and misrepresentation are the currency and norm.
I am aware that tweets often link to more extensive sources – probably twitters only redeeming value.
I prefer to just go to those sources directly. Then I do not have to clear my mind of the sewage from Twitter.
There ya go again, misrepresenting my affinity for Democrats who stray far left into PC Land.
I’ve followed Shapiro for a while; we agree on some things, not others. As I’ve followed Brietbart for years ( and watched them dissolve into the muck after the founder died and Neo Alt Nazis like Bannon appropriated editorial control). As I’ve followed the WSJ for news and commentary, and periodically watched O’Reilly and Fox to broaden the discussion.
But Trump corrupted the conversation. I predicted he would NOT be a uniter, but a reckless divider, a dangerous buffoon who would undermine our government and institutions, and I’ve been proven right.
Character is Destiny, and it was inevitable that a characterless untruthful narcissist like him would corrode our national character by default. It is undeniable that in less than 6 months he’s besmitched the office of President, lowering standards of rectitude for that position that will not easily be reaffirmed, and suitability standards for political office in general.
Bye bye American Pie
Hello Trumpistic Pablum
Of course he is undermining our government – that is what he was elected to do.
Of course he is not a uniter – regardless that is a fake value.
If you want the country united – you have to do so arround the least common denomiator of our values – not arround your values whatever they are.
If character was important Bill Clinton would be one of our worst presidents.
I wish character was important. I have a hard time accepting that it is not.
But I can not get past the fact that Bill Clinton had bad character and was mostly a good president.
With respect to much of the rest of what you said about trump even if I agreed – his primary unique characteristic is style not substance.
What lie has Trump told that reaches those of Clinton, Obama or Bush ?
Trump is a scrapper from Brooklyn. He is not a Harvard elite.
He was elected because of that not inspite of it.
To the extent you are right about him – that is what voters knowingly elected.
You are angry because voters elected something you did not want and on election he did not turn his back on his voters and say – it was all a fake job, I am actually an elitist washington insider.
Like you when Obama was elected – I prayed he was not what he claimed to be – mostly he was. That is not a basis to impeach him.
I have serious concerns about Trump – not over what he has done, but what he might do.
Prof. Turley had an interesting and scary article in USA today.
It is a form of Crystal ball reading, but Truley speculated that Trump may be preparing to get Sessions to resign or fire him in order to setup to fire Mueller.
Trump may have decided that he can survive that – if he does so soon.
Turley does not know that is the case.
I do not know that is the case.
Even if it is, no one knows whether it will work.
A part of Turleys speculation is that Trump may beleive that if he can end or limit the investigation even if that drives his approval down to 10% that he will survive to 2020,
and that by 2020 his political strength will recover.
I do not know that to be true. But it is not inconsistent with my understanding of Trump.
I hope that is not the case.
I think that the political winds are blowing more ill for democrats at the moment that republicans. I may be smoking dope, but I think the GOP is going to have small losses in the house and small gains in the senate – or better if the economy improves.
I also think that 2018 will move us towards more “freedom caucus” members.
I think that a “saturday night massacre” scenario will make the next 4 years entirely about Trump. And I think that is a mistake.
Nixon was toast – not because of low approval and bad press – but because paying hush money was not something republicans in the house and senate were going to stand behind.
The Clinton impeachment had an actual crime – lying under oath, and still Clinton survived.
There is no actual crime with respect to Trump. There is never going to be on this Trump/Russia nonsense, and so long as the investigation remains confined to that.
There will never be an impeachment.
Trump may be right that he can survive firing Mueller.
I hope that he does nto.
I also hope that Mueller confines his investigation.
IF it is apparent that he has not – we are going to have a constitutional showdown.
And if you do not understand that you can not run a federal investigation into anything you wish just because “trump”
then we live in a police state.
None of us are safer from government than the president.
Trump, showing what a lump of feces he is once again:
http://amp.usatoday.com/story/508014001/
What democrats said “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,”
What Trump is doing.
Obama speaks like he came from harvard. Trump speaks like he came from Brooklyn.
Obama is speaking too people who came from places like harvard.
Trump is speaking to people who came from places like brooklyn.
We all know Max Boot wanted hillary and endless war to keep neocon’s happy.
We have yet to see if Trump is going to do what he promised regarding the MidEast.
Defeat ISIS and disentangle us militarily.
But thus far that looks promising.
Unless you actually want the Dick Cheney aproach to “make america great again” by militarily defeating everybody, then Max Boot is not someone worth listening too.
What should scare you is that he now speaks for the left.
He doesn’t sound AT ALL like he comes from Brooklyn.
He grew up in Kew Gardens, Queens, in a neighborhood with wealthy families, went to a semi-private college prepatory school with other kids of his status, and he sounds like someone with encroaching Altzheimers
He sounds exactly like his voters want him to sound.
And that is what you do not get. Brooklyn, Queens – Detroit, it does not matter.
He was elected, because he punched back twice as hard.
He was elected because he does not apologize.
He was elected as the political equivalent of the mythical Rocky
And you keep pissing over him because he is exactly what the voters who elected him wanted.
You also do not get – that the “resistance” is itself pushing for a “constitutional crisis”.
Lets say everything goes as planned – and Trump is impeached.
Whether Trump’s voters continue to support him or not.
They have been deprived of what they wanted – “draining the swamp”.
And from their perspective – the swamp won.
You say he is tearing down govenrment and institutions.
That is what he was elected to do.
You say he is a dishonest liar.
Yet what you are most angry about is that he is doing what he promised.
If you succeed in removing Trump – I am not sure what comes next.
Trump is not Nixon and he is not Clinton.
Nixon’s resignation fundimentally altered the GOP – but in a positive way.
In a way that lead to Reagan, and eventually to Trump.
Clinton’s impeachment altered democrats in a bad way.
That lead to Obama.
In neither instances was there much likelyhood of a voter backlash.
Nixon committed a crime,
Further the attacks on Nixon and Clinton shared something important that mitgated fallout.
Nixon was a very left leaning republican. He was hated by democrats – because he was taking the middle from them.
Clinton was loathed by republicans for the same reason.
Both had broad but weak bases that were not that committed.
Reagan and Obama had strong bases committed to them – not party.
So does Trump.
Further the left is dramatically raising the stakes.
My father died from Vascullar dimensia – which resembles Alzheimers but moves much faster.
Trump does not sound like that. McCain did in the Comey hearings – so it is not surprising he has a brain tumor.
Regardless, Jay, can you get past spewing invective and adjectives and make your argument with facts.
trump Backstabbing Continues:
to know the Donald isbto fast despise him:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rex-tillerson-quit-trump-secretary-state-department-leave-role-frustration-white-house-a7858246.html
There have been stories like this for a while.
But there is so much like this in the media that has proven false it is hard to know how to take any of this.
I think Tillerson has done well.
At the same time Tillerson has business ties in Russia.
He may will be bailing in the hopes that Mueller does not head after him.
That would be understandable to me.
If he is actually going – it will be a loss.
I am also concerned about Sessions at the moment.
As much as I really hate him on a policy basis.
He actually has integrity.
At the moment his integrity is being attacked by both the left and by Trump.
I would not be surprised at all if he resigned.
I am seriously bothered that Trump continues to attack him.
I think that is a mistake – particularly once the left forced Sessions back into Trump’s lap by pushing for investigations of Sessions.
I think Trump is correct – Sessions bears some responsibility for allowing this to happen.
Buy Recusing himself he pushed things down to Rosenstein.
Rosenstein moved stupidly and with little thought to appoint Mueller.
Anticipating the Trumpanzees
I would agree with bonhoeffer;
But all sides in the political debate think the other is stupid.
It is hard for us to look in the mirror an see that maybe we are the stupid ones.
Even when Trump gets it right – the swamp grows.
Don;t agree complete with this – but mostly.
Rick!
I am glad the primeval fjords and inlands of Alaska shielded you for a time from the discord of rabid partisans and knee-jerk factionalism! I am glad you encountered convivial tablemates, and that you constructed another solid post!
Hello Priscilla, Dave, Roby, Jay, Ron, Mike Hatcher, et al.
I experience a similar hiatus from the madness when I immerse myself in a remote stream, river, or lake to fish: the wooded banks, the water, and the behavior of the fish are much the same context as when I was eight years old, or when Thoreau walked and pondered in the 1800s, or when our Founders wrote in the 1700s.
Things often evolve and devolve too quickly in our modern society/culture, but out in the Wild…it’s about much more than catching a fish or taking pictures of scenery, especially in this age of MEDIA ADDICTION which results not in individual thinkers finding common ground, but instead in belligerent “boutique identities” and “bubble domes”.
Ah, mutual interests. Common Ground. You mention love of family & friends, fun, beauty, self-fulfillment. To that I add our mutual needs for air, water, food, and shelter. We send our federal taxes to the same “administrators”. We share many of the same dangers in life, from diseases to tornadoes to terrorists to venomous snakes to some of our federal administrators!
There is an over-used, inappropriately applied, misunderstood argument put forth by extremists and hard-liners when moderates start talking about things such as common ground, mutual interests, cooperation, and harmony. The worn-out argument is that discord and disagreement have been around forever and are good for us. Yes, yes, yes, moderates know this is true, but TO A POINT! There is an important, vital difference between lively, heated, and even acrimonious debate among intelligent individuals who ultimately value practical results and the preservation of our Union, versus the knee-jerk vitriol of myopic bubble dwellers and rabid partisans!
Indeed, we are all “fellow humans thrust together on the adventure of a lifetime.” Let us work together against our common dangers, including extreme individualism and suicidal factionalism.
Good to here from you and glad you have derived some pleasure communing with nature.
Why is disagreement only good to a point ?
To be clear I agree, I am just nothing that “to a point” is not to any point.
We can not disagree to the point of violence. I am not sure what other limit to our disagreement might exist – but I am open to ideas.
What I am not open to is the idea that we can pick constraints without any meaningful basis.
In some things the extremes are wrong. But that does not inherently mean some random point between them is nirvana.
You plead to “preserve the union” – how do we do that but buy reducing the areas we use force to resolve disagrement between ourselves to the minimum.
A different definition of limit government.
If we wish to remain united as a nation, as a vast diverse conglomeration of myriads of disparate cultures and ideologies, We must figure out not merely how to work together but what we can work together on. And that would be the values that we all share nearly universally.
We can not expect that we will all agree on everything. We can expect that none of us – left right or moderate will use force against the others where we disagree.
Our “common dangers” are those dangers that nearly all of us agree on.
We do not have the right to decide for others what they think is dangerous.
I have no idea what suicidal factionalism is.
I do know that individualism is one of the most fundimental american values, and that it is the importance we place on it and the respect we give to it that distinguish is from the rest of the world.
Left and right seek to define the american identity – to take ownership of what “american exceptionalism” is – it is that “extreme individualism” that sets us apart from the world.
Thomas Jefferson had a Koran. As a nation we sometimes look to shut the doors to those different from us. But even in our xenophobia – we still have been historically more open that any other nation.
European nations are at this moment trying to do what we have done for two centuries and welcome immigrants. As badly as we have done that – Europe is doing worse.
Even the evil Trump immigration order – does not say – do not enter.
It says if you are from a dangerous nation, entering is going to be slower and we are going to check you out thoroughly first.
My father had his DNA tested before he died. I was expecting confirmation of some family lore that claimed micscenegation in the welsh mountains in the distant past Instead I find a tiny bit of askanazi jew in the not too distant past confirming another bit of family lore.
Regardless, we are all from everywhere, it is our differences that make us great.
“Why is disagreement only good to a point ?”
“I have no idea what suicidal factionalism is.”
Pure pure Dave.
“Regardless, we are all from everywhere, it is our differences that make us great.”
Well, that’s a great statement, if only you would act on it and learn to appreciate those that don’t agree with you, say, liberals!
Sure, Dave, the Civil War, all the entrenched inability to solve the slavery issue, and the continuing battle between North and South following the Civil war, that was great, it made us great, lets use that as a model!
Because all Pat is saying is very simple, don’t let it get out of hand, lets preserve the union this time. And you, as our perpetual argument machine, have to find a way to argue with “lets not let it get out of hand.” If history is any judge you will probably find fifteen or so more angles to argue with “lets not let it get out of hand. ”
The TNM should be renamed Dave’s argument clinic.
If only you or most others here would respond non fallaciously to an argument,
or answer the questions your own arguments raise.
If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would know that the way I deal with our differences is to confine the public sphere – that is where force is used, to those things we near universally agree on.
When you use force aka government where you have differences with others you do not respect our differences.
You use the civil war as a counter example. I am ok with that.
So is the civil war a legitimate or illegitimate example of an instance where we used government to impose the values of one set of us on another ?
If it is – why ?
Once again I am trying to get you to commit to any principle at all.
Anything that allows others to correctly understand your view of what is write and what is wrong and when the use of force against others is justified and when it is not.
The last time I asked I got back a long collection of values.
Most if not all of which I agree with.
But values are not principles. They do not answer questions like when is force justified.
They do not even answer questions like what would you do what you can only have value A or Value B but not both.
What pat is saying is simple – so simple it tells us nothing.
Does Pat’s remark tell us anything about the Civil war – beyond that she thinks it should not happen ?
Was the north wrong for trying to impose its values on the south ?
Was the south wrong for enslaving other humans ?
Lets not argue to the point of violent conflict is an aspiration, maybe a value, not a principle. It does not answer the questions I asked above.
What of the american revolution – should we have just “gotten along” with England ?
Again when is violence justifiable and when isn’t it and why ?
You duck the fact that all questions involving government ultimately become questions of the justified use of force and potentially the justified use of violence.
I absolutely agree with Pat’s aspiration – “let’s not let this get out of hand”.
But that tells me nothing. It does not answer anything.
It is exactly like the purported moderate value of compromise.
It answers nothing.
In the end you are incapable of answering questions like how do we know what is right and what is wrong. When is force justified, When should I compromise.
As Best you are Potter stewart – “I can not define right or wrong, but I know it when I see it”
We can not and should not run our government that way.
That is explicitly the rule of man, not the rule of law.
What does “do not let it get out of hand mean” ?
There is a difference between an aspiration and real guidance.
“There is an over-used, inappropriately applied, misunderstood argument put forth by extremists and hard-liners when moderates start talking about things such as common ground, mutual interests, cooperation, and harmony. The worn-out argument is that discord and disagreement have been around forever and are good for us. Yes, yes, yes, moderates know this is true, but TO A POINT! There is an important, vital difference between lively, heated, and even acrimonious debate among intelligent individuals who ultimately value practical results and the preservation of our Union, versus the knee-jerk vitriol of myopic bubble dwellers and rabid partisans!
Indeed, we are all “fellow humans thrust together on the adventure of a lifetime.” Let us work together against our common dangers, including extreme individualism and suicidal factionalism.”
Bravo! Have you been moonlighting as McCain’s speechwriter?
Welcome back!
Hey Pat!!! So good to see you back! And it is our differences that make us great (except, of course, when we are killing each other over them
) !
Hey Priscilla!
“And it is our differences that make us great (except, of course, when we are killing each other over them)!
Who can disagree with that? I think we need to chisel that sentence into concrete (or marble or granite) in a bunch of places around the world.
I only wish I could be that concise when I tangle with Dave, which I again feel compelled to do, God help me, lol !
All being concise requires is lots of time an effort.
I choose not to put that time and effort into internet posts.
I would not expect you to.
“..knee-jerk vitriol of myopic bubble dwellers and rabid partisans”…and I forgot to add: “who are solely driven by their own gains and forget they need a Common Good within which to be selfish and greedy”
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Adam Smith.
More recently Elenor Olsrom won the nobel prize in economics for her work demonstrating that many many problems of “the common good” that presumably required govenrment intervention have historically been resolved with no difficulty by individuals working without government.
Sorry Pat, but from each according to their ability to each according to their need does not work. Schemes fixated on the common good leave all of us worse off. Self interest accomplishes more improvement to the human condition that charity – by many many orders of magnitude.
Hear, hear! (Dave will argue that I am wrong, the phrase is actually here, here, which is shorthand for “the answer to all evils is remove government”).
Just finished watching Trumps speech in Youngstown Ohio. He needs to stay out of Washington and just travel the country addressing the people like he did tonight. And in doing so, he can garner all the support he needs to get things done by calling out both parties in Washington like he did tonight.
If he would stop the asinine idiotic tweets that make him look insane and stick to his message that he ran on, I firmly believe he would get the people behind him in much greater numbers than he has today and that would push congress to pass most everything that he was elected to do in November.
And this comes from someone who is not a Trumpansee (or whatever that term was used in prior comments)
I agree.
Trump seems to actually like these big “campaign” events.
Further he has an advantage now he did not have as candidate.
The secret Service is going to treat hecklers a bit differently.
I think Trump should stay out of Washington.
The whitehouse discussed ending press briefings.
I actually think that is a good idea.
I do not think Trump is going to stop tweeting.
And whether I like it or not, I think it is actually working for him.
Dave “I do not think Trump is going to stop tweeting.
And whether I like it or not, I think it is actually working for him.
Well for the handful of people like me, it could be the difference between voting for Trump or the Libertarian the next time around. He gets me on his side with speeches like Youngstown and then the next morning attacking Sessions on Twitter removes that support for me.
Yes he can keep his base. But his base does not lead to reelection. The swing voters call the election and what is his tweets doing to that group.
As much as Trump has proven less offensive to me than I expected and the possibility exists I could vote for him in 2020.
The odds are still that I am not.
But I am not even close to the ordinary voter,
and I am definitely not a Trump voter.
And I do not think you are either.
It is those people at Youngstown who are likely to decide the next election.
And Trump appears to be doing great with them.
And you can talk about swing voters – but if you did not vote for him in 2016 – your not one of the swing voters he needs to get.
Again – it is those people in Youngstown.
Of the state Trump won, most were by 20 points or more of the rest many were by 10 points. The only “close” states were AZ, NC, FL, PA, MI, WI
Those are the “swing” voters that matter. Three of the largest of those are rust belts states. Trump can afford to lose one of the 4 largest, or the two smallest.
I think it would be a good idea if Senators and Congressmen spent more time outside of Washington. With the the technology that we have today, it would be easy for them to actually live in the state and/or district that they serve, and spend far less time in D.C.
Never work, lobbyist would have too hard a time getting to them. And how would a senator get to stand in front of the cameras in an empty chamber with no one sitting behind them giving their political speeches that look like they are addressing the full senate or house for TV audience?
But what a fantastic idea. Have everyone come to Washington, call congress into session, do some parliamentary business and then send everyone home, thus holding meetings via internet at regularly scheduled times.
Hear, hear! (Roby will argue that I am wrong, and the answer to all evils is more government).
It would be much more as the founders intended. Granted, theirs was a simpler time, with far less in the way of modes of communication, but members of Congress did not think of themselves as the ruling elite, as they do now.
We have created a de facto elected monarchy and nobility. The nobility decide who will be vie to be the next monarch. Trump, of course, upset this system and must be overthrown.
If that effort is successful, I believe that a third party will likely form, since Trump’s constituency no longer supports either of what they consider the “ruling” parties, and most any effort to oust him will result in a greater antipathy to what they call “the swamp”.
A positive result of all of this would be if the states succeeded in getting an Article 5 convention of states, to propose and vote on amendments to the Constitution. Things like term limits, I’m not optimistic about that possibility, although 13 states have already endorsed it.
I do think that we are at a crossroads.
“times are different” is not necessarily and argument and not necessarily true – with respect to the issues being discussed.
Through WWI the US managed without an income tax and with the cost of government at a few percent of GDP.
Many things are differernt today.
The fact that they are different is not proof they must be different.
We are concurrently both more and less free.
Our pervasive government mostly makes us less free as individuals but more free as businesses.
Exactly the opposite of what those burdening us all with rules intended.
Trump supporters and the left are actively opposed to “globalization”.
Yet, it is an unrepealable fact.
Businesses locate in the US only if the benefits of abundant cheap energy, skilled labor, proximity to the worlds largest market and the worlds best and cheapest transportation system(freight) outweight the burdens of government.
Those “evil” businesses can leave anytime they want to get cheap labor, and non-intrusive government.
If you oppose outsourcing – then you should oppose the forces such as burdensome regulation that drive it.
For you, Roby….
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033103/london-celebrates-the-monty-python-reunion-by-putting-a-50-foot-dead-parrot-in-potters-field
My older daughter just spent $250 to buy me a “face to face” with John Cleese, $350 if you include the ticket to the Cleese screening of the Holy Grail and Q and A itself. Birthday present. Ah, it was all worth it!
Roby! I’m no celebrity hound, but a face-to-face with John Cleese is exciting. Maybe don’t bring a pair of antlers and a little bell.
You have a great daughter.
Great, daughter, great dad, great present.
Ron, dhlii, I agree there are advantages to Trump staying on the road. For one thing it gives the maniacal media machine something for filling its precious air time. Better for the President to be on the offensive.
Just to be clear – I do not have a strong opinion on what I would call Trump’s style.
Like many hear on the left at times he terrifies me.
While I think the left is responsible for the in your face confrontation.
I do not see Trump backing down.
We have had a couple of days of stories hinting at Sessions resignation, or firing.
At a wierd time – when Sessions himself is being targeted by the leaks and innuendo.
Now Sessions is about to announce deeper investigations into the leaks.
Was that the goal all along ? Does Trump just goad his cabinet from Twitter and interviews ?
I did not watch the apprentice, but my understanding is that he was extremely blunt.
I agree with Trump that Sessions should have informed him that he was going to recuse himself within hours of taking the job BEFORE taking it.
But Sessions offered to resign before and Trump said no. We should not be revisiting that unless something has changed.
Further so much of the media stories are just crap.
There have been Tillerson resigning stories for a while.
He was unavailable for a few days and suddenly the media is reporting it is imminent.
Now ? All the speculation was nonsense. Tillerson is not only not resigning now – he is not at the end of the year, he says he is in this for the duration.
So what is going on ? Is Tillerson playing games if Trump ?
Is the media playing games with us ?
Are Trump and Tillerson gaming the media ?
We have these leak based stories that Mueller has broadened the investigation greatly, and stories that Trump is preparing to fire him and that the remarks about Sessions are just prep work to fire Mueller.
But we do not even know that Mueller has expanded the investigations,
Meanwhile the Trump/Russia collusion meme tanks as we find the Russian Lawyer that Met with Trump Jr has even greater ties to the Obama Administration, FusionGPS and Clinton. And we now have stories that the Steele Dossier was manufactured by the Russians to Tank Trump.
So who is it colluding with who ?
The links to Clinton are weak – but they are still stronger than those to Trump.
We find out Kushner’s big meeting with Kisylak was 1 minute long, barely long enough to get a card, and that Kushner completely forgot his name until after the election.
The purported post election back channel to Russia turns out to be something the Russians did and it was to their forces in Syrian not Russia and was about fighting in Syria and had nothing to do with politics.
Kushner could be lying – but he has now been nailed down to facts that can be checked and will be in deep shit if they are wrong.
Just to be clear I do not care if Kushner failed to note some time that he and Kislyak reached for a crap puff at the same time at some political party.
I do not care if there are minor details wrong.
I do not care if Team Trump actually got OPO research from Putin – though there is no eividence they used anything that was not already public knowledge.
At the moment the Clinton campaign connections to Russia dwarf those of Trump and go back to 2010 (I am talking about stuff having nothing to do with her role at State).
You need to find BIG lies on the part of the Trump campaign – not little errors.
To reverse this.
Further, we do not know what Mueller is doing – but if he spends $20M and comes up with Kushner had a parking ticket in Russia fixed – I am going to be angry.
I hope at the moment that Trump is NOT contemplating firing Mueller.
But if Mueller comes up dry on the election – he needs to go home.
Dave just for you. Another example of overreach by government
http://www.thespruce.com/regulations-for-portable-fuel-containers-2153054
I had to buy a new container and when I filled up my mower, it spilled about 4-6 ounces due to the way this crap works. I finally broke the system just so I could get the gas to flow freely without alot of pushing and manipulation.
And the best thing about this, it is spurring the economy. You can buy a $20 five gallon container and then go on line to Gas Spouts.com and for an additional $8.00.plus shipping and handling, you get an old timey spout to fix the spillage problem these new cans create.
Ain’t it great!!!!!!!
I buy gas cans at local farm equipment auctions.
$1 ea for 5g and they have usable spouts.
Aside from that I have a small collection of expensive 1g cans that I had to buy when I ran out of gas somewhere and walked to a gas station.
Though sometimes I was able to buy a Gallon of Ice Tea, Dump it and fiill it with gas for the car – if no one was looking.
I really tried to give those new plastic gas can spouts the benefit of the doubt. I approached it with an open mind, but I only had two hands! The new gas can spouts are ridiculous. How did they make it to market? They make more of a mess than ever.
We already had an invention called a funnel. An old, basic, smooth spout on the gas can and a funnel in the target (if needed) is all we need to avoid spilling gas.
Too many people trying to get rich inventing new gadgets, I suppose.
I beleive Ron is complaining about these new spring loaded gizmo’s that I think are supposed to prevent leaks and prevent vapor from escaping.
In reality they seem to guarantee that gas is spilled all over the place.
You got that right. They are made to fit the small opening in the gas fill pipe on a car. You pick up the can, you place the cans spout into the fill pipe small opening and push down. That allows the gas to begin flowing. Once the gas has been placed in the cars tank, you remove the spout, it springs back and stops any further flow “to prevent spillage”.
Now try that asinine spout with a lawn mower that has a 2-3 inch opening in the tank. You can not find a place to push the spout down so it opens, the only way is to put it on the edge of the mowers tank opening and then some of the gas hits the edge of the opening and flows into places other than the tank. The other option is to pull the spout back by hand. WOOHOO!! You get a hand full of gas sometimes and if your lucky, your hands might come back clean, but try keeping a 5 gallon gas can steady with one hand while guiding and holding open the spout with the other.
So the environmentalist that thought this crap up are the same ones that probably never use a power mower (CO2 pollution) and have never had to deal with their stupidity. But what they created was another company that now makes spouts like the old ones that fit the new cans and they charge $8 bucks plus shipping and handling. What a deal!!!
Sorry for the rant, but every time I use that thing and spill gas on the driveway or lawn, I end up in a cussfest that no one needs to listen to. Plus at $2.10 a gallon, one does not need to spill much to begin being a waste of real money.
I completely understand the rant. ‘
I do not think I have a reputation for being rant free.
A reminder that we do fight and kill over ideas.
http://anindependentmind.com/2017/07/24/dunkirk-battle-ideas/
What a tangled web we weave.
Clearly FusionGPS is “colluding” with foreign powers – including Russia.
Clearly FusionGPS actively interfered with the US election. Specifically seeking to harm Trump and help Clinton.
FusionGPS is tied to both Democratic pro-clinton and Republican Anti-Trump groups.
FusionGPS is strongly linked to Natalia Veselnitskaya
FusionGPS is very strongly linked to Russian Adoption and repealing the Magnivinsky Act
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/26/senate-testimony-fusion-gps-helped-corrupt-russians-venezuelans/
Talk about Nothing Burgers.
Regarding Trump, they were originally hired by Republicans who wanted to get dirt on him during the primaries. Too bad that didn’t pan out faster – maybe DoucheBagDonald wouldn’t have gotten the nomination, and the nation wouldn’t be suffering a catastrophic DISGRACE.
Steele WAS looking for NEGATIVE Trump Intel; that was his assignment.
Did he personally exaggerate what he culled from sources, or in good conscience present info that MAY HAVE BEEN credible.
‘Credible’ is the keyword:
“from 2013-16, Steele gave the US government extensive information on Russia and Ukraine. This was work done for private clients, but which Steele wanted the US authorities to see. One former US senior official who saw these reports said “It was found to be of value by the people whose job it was to look at Russia every day.Another who dealt with this material in government said: “Sometimes he would get spun by somebody. [But] it was always 80% there.”
“None of these reports touched on the nature of Trump’s relationship with Russia.
But last June, Steele began sending pages of what would later be called his dossier.
In light of his earlier work, the US intelligence community saw him as “credible” (their highest praise). The FBI thought the same; they had worked with Steele going back to his days in MI6.”
Some of Steele’s dossier has proven unreliable; other parts have not. His assertion that Russia was hacking the US with the intent to undermine the Democratic Party (and Hillary) has proven correct. MULTIPLE foreign intelligence agencies we consider trustworthy allies have affirmed it. That’s why Congress just now overwhelmingly passed that Russian Sanctions bill, to chastise The Russian meddling in our election.
Until Mueller’s investigation is complete we can’t conclude tRump didn’t collude with the Russians. His stupid machinations to interrupt the investigation are those of someone who has something to hide.
America won’t be safe until he’s hidden in a padded cell.
Jay “Until Mueller’s investigation is complete we can’t conclude tRump didn’t collude with the Russians.”
And flipping the coin “If Mueller’s investigation concludes Trump did not collude with the Russians, Democrats will continue to “investigate Trump” to find dirt on him regardless of his innocence.
Continue investigating, even after the charges are are determined to be unfounded?
You mean like Republicans and Trump continue to do daily with Hillary?
And if Mueller turns up evidence of Trump wrong doing – like money laundering, or other criminal acts relating to his businesses hidden in his taxes, info that if released during his campaign likely would have cost him the election, wouldn’t you, an American voter, feel his election was illicit, and therefore demand he resign or be removed!
You do not seem to grasp what unfounded means.
In June 2016 Comey gave a pres conference. He describe most of the facts that the FBI had found regarding Clinton’s emails.
He ommitted the lying under oath,
the destruction of evidence.
and issues related to FOIA and govenrment records keeping laws.
regardless, the facts he listed EXACTLY matched those required for a criminal violation of 18cfr793(f)
Given that Clinton’s emails demonstrated that she had intentionally setup the private mail server, to protect her correspondence from FOIA requests and other legitimate inquiry, and that she had not provided her official communications to government either during her tenure or at her departure – that constitutes intent.
the requirement for 18cfr793(e).
In otherwords Comey laid out everything necescary for a successful prosecution.
Comey then added an intent element that is not in 18cfr793(f) but is in 18cfr793(e) and is the only difference between them – and then falsely stated that no one had been prosecuted without intent.
He was doubly wrong because intent was not required and was present.
Now many other things that Comey glossed over – like destruction of evidence are themselves crimes.
Many Claims regarding Clinton have not been will investigated.
but I am not aware of a single one that is actually unfounded.
All of the claims regarding Trump that we have information to investigate – are unfounded.
Unfounded does not mean – subject to the excercise of prosecutorial descretion.
In fact excercising prosecutorial discretion means the claims ARE founded.
How are you expecting to find this evidence of money laundering ?
Do you know what money laundering is ?
Most broadly it is converting money that is traceable back to criminal activities into money that is not.
It nearly always involves CASH (that is not a requirement, it is just a consequence of the destruction of bank privacy laws), because money in other forms today is pretty much tracable back to its source.
So If Trump sells a condo in FL and the buyer writes a check, or performs a wire transfer or exchanges something other than cash – it is highly unlikely this is money laundering.
Because all those forms of money have a source. If the money has something to do with criminal activity it has ALREADY been laundered. The crime would be the first bank that accepted it.
So are you claiming that Trump is picking up gym bags full of cash for condo’s and then depositing them 9000 at a time in the bank ?
Jay is just plain wrong.
We can individually reach whatever conclusions we wish at any time we wish – we are not constrained by or by waiting for Mueller.
That said not merely the presumption of innocence but even the premises of science is that something is not true until it is proven.
If you are following FusionGPS – there stuff is completely fabricated garbage sourced by foreign governments.
Trump is not the only target – they have defamed human rights activists.
So you wanted them to spray garbage sooner ?
If you are bothered by Trumps morals and lies, I do not think the best counter is a bigger pile of crap.
I do not care that Steele was looking for negative intel – that is fine by me.
Frankly the whole thing is fine by me – it is more damaging to those who concocted it.
With respect to those who bought it – and the Steele dossier is the source of the Russia/Trump meme – I can only say – How thick are you ?
All of the allegations that are in it that are testable are bunk.
They are not exagerations, they are completely false.
To the left – your primary source for the Trump Russia Collusion story is a document produced by collusion between trumps enemies and Russia.
How is it you can not see that refutes the entire thing.
That even trashes the claim that Russia favored Trump.
If so why were they feeding anti-trump garbage to Steele ?
I do not wish to say much about Steele’s past work,
But I will say that an endorsement from the US intelligence community is meaningless to me.
The FBI has reported that Russia hacked the DNC. They did that using only the CrowdStrike report – no other access to the DNC hardware, systems or records.
The CrowdStrike report has been shredded by much of the private cyber security world.
And CrowdStrike has a reputation for crapy false reports blaming Russia.
If the FBI is willing to put their impramature on crwdstrike my faith in US counterintellince is shot.
Regardless, I do not have access to his past work, and someone I have no reason to beleive saying that in some past work I have no way to verify he was 80% right – discredits that Intelligence analyst – as the Trump Dossier has proven 100% wrong on every testable bit of intelligence.
You keep passing through the IC saying they thought Steele was credible.
You are not bolstering Steele – whose dossier was near incredulous on the surface.
It circulated for a long time – but nobody wanted to print anything from it for months because everyone regarded it as crap.
And you are saying the IC thought it was credible ?
I think if the media could have gotten anyone in the IC to say it was credible – they would have printed it in a second.
Even the parts that you claim are credible are NOT right on the surface.
You keep failing to grasp that the material from the Trump Dossier came THROUGH Steele – it came FROM Russia.
So what you are saying is that the Russian government provided other campaigns with intelligence claiming the Russian were favoring Trump ? that is pretty much the definition of incredible. It comes very close to proving the OPPOSITE.
Frankly it calls into question every claim in the dossier.
Russia “interference” in the election was EITHER to favor Clinton, or just to cast doubt on the election.
That has to be the case unless you beleive Russia would covertly leak information that they were favoring Trump.
What you do not seem to understand is that the fact that the Steele dossier came from Russia discredits everything in it – including the hacking claims.
It is entirely possible that the ONLY thing Russia did to “hack” our elections was produce the Steele Dossier whose purpose was to make us beleive they were hacking their election. If so they have reaped unbelievable benefits with very little work.
Every argument I have made may not be true – there is too much incest in all of this.
But what is absolutely true is there is pretty much nothing in the Steele Dossier that EVER should have been taken credibly.
FushionGPS’s Ties to Venezuela and Russia and their reputation for producing false and defamatory intelligence significantly predates the election.
Oh god not the multiple foriegn intelligence agencies rot again.
NO! The so called 17 agency report was prepared by representatives from 3 agencies, none of which were the normal representatives of their agencies for these type matters,
All the members of the group that wrote the report were handpicked – I beleive by Clapper under the direction of the whitehouse and the outcome was foreordained.
Congressional testimony by various agencies heads and underlings subsequently have discredited most of that report.
Congress passes things for political reasons.
Would you vote against Russian sanctions right now ?
You have Muellers investigation backwards.
Until Muellers investigation is complete we can not conclude that Trump DID collude with the russians.
Aside from the presumption of innocence guaranteed by our constitution, there is also the complete lack of credible evidence.
Based on what we have now – there should be no investigation.
We do not investigate people because we do not like them.
This is not Russia – though the left has gone over the edge.
Talk about foreign affairs and you could end up being spied on
http://launch.newsinc.com/embed.html?trackingGroup=91690&siteSection=thehill2300_nws_pol_sec&videoId=32740705
I would note the ACLU’s discussion of the 4th amendment – the government can not TARGET a US Citizen for investigation without complying with the 4th amendment.
That means you can not investigate anyone – including Trump because you think they might be doing something wrong.
More on FusionGPS and the fact that the entire Trump/Russia collusion story originates with a group ACTUALLY colluding with Russia.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/25/trump-dossier-firm-are-highly-paid-smear-experts-human-rights-activist-will-tell-senate/
Unintended consequences of trying to help people ends up hurting lots more people and helping no one.
https://qz.com/1023279/an-economist-explains-why-stopping-employers-from-doing-criminal-background-checks-doesnt-really-help-anybody/
These are the people you need to be thinking about as you push forward
http://nypost.com/2017/07/25/why-the-rust-belt-just-gave-donald-trump-a-heros-welcome/
Another perspective on Trump that I do not entirely agree with but those fierce Trump opponents should consider before rash action.
And The Conservative “Trump Is A Lump Of Crap” Beat Goes On
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/26/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-family-215426
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
dhlii, quoting an economist, Adam Smith.
“And it is within a context, which we may call “society,” that the butcher, the brewer, or the baker are able to pursue their interests. And the society is made up of people, and laws, laws both written and unwritten, conceived and communicated by people. At best, and most commonly, thankfully, these laws are adhered to voluntarily. It is partly through a deeper understanding of the very practical reasons why we adhere to laws voluntarily that humanity can continue rejecting mistakes from the past and evolve to an improved future.”
Pat Riot
No, it is not in the context of society.
It is in the context of the rule of law.
That is the only prequisite.
The butcher, baker etc.
Do not need churches, civic groups, or unions to produce value for both us and them.
Adam Smith AGAIN
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
They need government – very limited government
All the things you call society and unwritten laws are the traditional functions of free markets.
When we violate unwritten laws – government does nto arrest us.
But our neighbors may shun us or cease to exchange with us.
Those “unwritten laws” are a small subset of PRIVATE self regulation.
It is an absolute requirement that the written laws of a government are voluntarily followed by the overwhelming majority of people.
The less well followed written laws are the bigger and more powerful government must be driving rapidly towards totalitarianism.
Dave,
You and I are, and have been, in very close agreement regarding the typical inefficiencies and faults of government, as well as the history that “private sector enterprise” nearly always “outperforms” government endeavor.
I really am with you there, man.
From time to time I have been stopping by and reading TNM. I do admire your “tenacious logic” and your willingness to stand against the current with a viewpoint no matter how unpopular or untrendy it may be.
I like that about you.
But you and I are different, and that is good. I think I saw chiseled into decorative, stamped concrete somewhere: “And it is our differences that make us great (except, of course, when we are killing each other)!”
Or are disrespectful to each other.
I’m beginning from a place of respect, and hope that we can remain respectful in debate.
I think we’ve both accomplished enough in our lives that our egos should be intact.
I hereby propose that if we temporarily lapse into insult, as we have before, we should not take it personally, as we don’t know each other in “real life”. Then we should apologize like good sports, recover, and then get back to higher ground of intelligent debate!
We are required to refrain from violence towards each other.
We are required to honor the commitments we make to others.
We are required to fix whatever actual harm we cause – even innocently.
These are the only requirements that people can be compelled by force to fullfill.
Other moral duties are outside the scope of government
To the extent we are bound by them it is not by threat of force.
I respect you – and most others here.
But I am not legally obligated to, and I think my moral obligation is not to disrepect until disrespect is earned.
Respect too is earned.
I would further note that I TRY to distinguish between ideas and people.
Calling an idea or argument idiocy is atleast for me acceptable – if that idea is obviously wrong.
Calling a person and idiot is not.
I try not to drift from the one to the other.
If I have insulted any person here. I apologize.
But I owe no apology for insulting bad ideas.
I am sorry if some take that personally.
If it helps I have personally held most of the ideas I insult today at some time in the past.
dhlii,
You are shielded at times, whether intentional or as natural by-product of your personality (I believe the latter) by a sheer volume of thought and words.
Most mere mortals, myself included, don’t usually have time to spar with you. And so, statements of yours stand here in cyberspace without challenge.
Sometimes little barbs and pokes slip out, such as below:
“What pat is saying is simple – so simple it tells us nothing.”
I’m thickening my skin and bracing myself, because I want our differences to have the opportunity to synthesize into something new.
I ask others to forgive me in advance for the verbosity that might ensue.
Here is a mildly humorous and inaccurate representation of how it has gone with you and I in the past:
It’s a bit like someone, you, saying it’s the engine that makes a car go, that the car goes nowhere without the power of the engine (free markets & self-interest, et cetera)
And then the 2nd person, me, says yeah I am also impressed with the power of the engine, but don’t forget about the motor mounts, the wheels, the chassis, and the steering wheel. Without the context, the engine doesn’t move.
And then you say it’s the engine that makes a car go.
Dave, your faith in the economic principles of self-interest/free markets, capitalism and libertarianism is seemingly so deeply cauterized into the synapses of your brain, that I’m just plumb curious to see what route into the broader sphere of thought will finally bump you out of your “economics mindset” and into the broader light of day. (I admit my tone comes out
snide and snarky at times. Can you handle this tone periodically? I’m seriously asking.)
I defend my arguments vigorously.
I am pretty thick skinned. There are only a few things that really set me off – hypocracy and presumed authority over me (by authority I mean a presumption that you can use force)
I do not know and do not think there is a way to discredit a false argument with flowers and peace signs.
At my family dinner table we could debate anything – loudly.
But no one left the table offended.
My parents grew a very small business to a medium one while I grew up.
The board meetings were our dinner table – and discussions were loud and heated.
At the end my parents made the decisions – or they delegated them. They were the parents and they were the final authority.
But each of us was an important part of all decisions.
We made family decisions much the same way.
I have dealt with my own family much the same way.
I can not get my kids to mow the grass,
but they have a voice in every important decision this family makes.
But the final choices are up to my wife and I.
Virtually all of economics and libertarianism comes from a free simple principles.
That individual liberty is foundational. That it may only be restricted where such restriction increases the liberty of all of us. That all morality is rooted in freedom.
That you can not do right or wrong without freedom.
From individual liberty and its inherent properties you can derive everything else – including the entirely of classical liberal economics.
My ideology, philosophy, economics, politics (there are all the same),
leave you free to do any thing you want – no matter how stupid I may think it is
EXCEPT impose your will on others by force or fraud.
If you think I am wrong – great go your own way, do your own thing.
If you think communism, socialism, facism, progressivism is the right way.
Great – make it work in a purely voluntary environment.
If your ism requires force to work – you have already completely lost me.
Yes, these is ground into me. But it has taken nearly 60 years to get here.
I have arrived here by studying reality, by studying philosophy, by studying economics and law and …..
I did not start where I am, and do not expect to finish where I am.
But I am convinced that I have improved and continue to improve my thought over time.
Snark away! I do not care about your tone. I would just observe that I find my tone tends to mirror that I am responding to.
As an example – it you step onto a moral soap box, my inclination is going to be to kick it out from under you.
I can think of little I would enjoy more than a serious debate,
I would note that what we enjoy we tend to do alot of.
Self-interest is the engine of the world.
Faith is the belief in something unproven.
There are things I have faith in.
That individual liberty/freedom is the fundimental attribute of humanity is not an element of faith.
The debate here, that has already sprouted out naturally further above, is about moderation.
I said something to the effect that differences are only beneficial to a point, and then we humans must put aside our differences and get along/preserve the Union.
And Roby likes that. And so does Georg Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796.
But then you sort of pooh-poohed the idea of “getting along.” You have consistently here at TNM scoffed at the ideas of “compromise,” “Common Good,” and “Moderation.” I’d like to get at your misunderstanding of these concepts, because you and I voluntarily pursue them every day!
I said “suicidal factionalism,” which is merely factionalism that is suicidal, like a man and woman in a rowboat arguing over who should row until the boat plunges over the waterfall to their mutual death. Suicidal factionalism.
Most simple propositions fall into 1 of three forms/outcomes.
The slope to the right, they slope to the left, or they have an apogee somewhere between the right and the left.
Of the first two the best answer is always at one extreme or the other.
We can prove that some proposition is not one of the first two forms by demonstration that it fails at the extremes – reductio ad absurdem. Anything that does not fail reductio ad absurdem is near certain one of the first two forms.
Everything that fits the first two forms is ill served by compromise or moderation.
These are typically things where there is a fairly clear right or wrong answer – even it everyone does not see it – regardless compromise and moderation in these instances is not only wrong – but often more wrong than being completely wrong.
Absolute error usually results in rapid failure and learning. Bad compromises last forever.
Those things that fit the last form have another characteristic.
There is some principle or value that defines the apogee
If you do not know that principle or value then “moderation” or simply throwing this arround at random.
Government fits the third form – zero government fails. 100% government fails.
The three principles I beat the drum over define the apogee of government.
BTW there is a hug amount of data over a very long time to support that.
Why moderation is not the middle or compromise!
The right is correct on many issues
The left is correct on others.
Both are wrong on a collection of other issues and still the answer is not in the middle,
Every problem that is a vector problem – the answer is at one extreme or the other – is not a left-right vector.
Libertarians are neither right nor left.
They are right on some issues, left on others, and at the extreme of non-left-right vectors on others.
In most left right maps libertarians fall in the middle. even though they are not in the middle on almost any issue.
If your definition of moderate is at the center on each issue – then you are wrong.
In fact you are wrong more than the left and right.
If it is not inherently agreeing with the left or the right on ALL issues you can be at the extreme on every single issue and still be moderate, even be in the political middle.
Compromise does not guarantee error, but it actually increases the probability of error.
We are required to “get along” on a few things.
Those three principles I keep flogging.
We are not required to on anything else.
Outside of those there is no generalize absolute means of knowing whether getting along or opposing is the right choice, the moral choice, the most effective choice.
If two people are in a rowboat approaching a waterfall arguing over whether to row upstream or down – probably there is only one right answer – and getting along may mean going over the fall.
dhlii,
For now I will just say we are dwelling on two different planes of existence, two different realms of thought. There are so many statements in your latest posts that make me shake my head and wonder where to begin. But it’s OK. We are both non-violent people and good Americans. As you were, sir…
Your response adopts my argument aparently without realizing it.
The legitimate use of force is severely limited.
Once you accept that – nearly all the rest of my arguments are proven.
Just when I thought Trump was losing his touch……
The GOP has humiliated itself with its inability to fulfill its key campaign promise ~ repealing and replacing Obamacare. That should have been the big story yesterday.
But Trump ended the 1 year-old Obama policy of accepting transgenders in the military, a policy that is largely hated by the military. Bradley/Chelsea Manning, a seditious transgendered soldier, is the poster boy/girl for this policy and Obama’s commutation of Manning’s sentence created enormous ill-will towards it among Trump’s base.
And that became the story. I’m convinced that the media doesn’t even know when it’s being manipulated.
I do not think we have thought out Transgendered issues very well.
We have just barely started to get a handle on gay issues and transgendered ones are far more complex.
I personally do not presume to know all the answers.
As a libertarian I am inclinded to protect the rights of people to do as they wish absent harm to others. But sometimes Transgendered issues do not make determining that clear.
I am not sure that Trump is right with respect to the Military.
But I think that he is right for now.
The military is a voluntary organization – you have no right to be in it and absent re-instating the draft we can conclude that accomidating Transgendered individuals overburdens our military.
The military is their to defend our nation, that must come first. That is an absolutely legitimate and required role of government.
That said I think ultimately transgendered people will and should end up in the military if they wish.
As Goldwater said “I don’t care if a soldier is ‘straight’, as long as he can shoot straight.”
The sole factor for the military should be can you do your job.
We also had a holy war in North Carolina recently over restrooms.
Charolotte passed an ordinace that Bussinesses claimed was so unclear they had no idea how to comply – as a result the state imposed something else.
I learned as a result of this that Target stores have their own policies – and that to me sounds like the right answer.
Ultimately I think we will see the end of gender separated public restrooms as we know them. But this could take a decade or so.
More and more public facilities have multiple individual lockable rest rooms.
Increasingly there is atleast on individual lockable nonspecific restroom that handles families with young kids and infants and individuals who want a high degree of privacy.
It also makes accomodating handicapped and other special needs groups easier.
But there is one area that we are just not likely to see this happen – and that is in our schools.
Schools provide serious challenges to this entire issue.
The recent Charlie Gard case leads most of us to want to see the rights of parents with respect to their kids elevated above the state.
But much of the psychological literature on gender identity strongly suggests that with few exceptions permanent changes prior to adulthood are atleast as likely to be harmful as good. That kids who have gender dysphoria may not grow to be adults with gender dysphoria. Further we have strong indications that gender reassignment does nothing to fix the problems of people seeking gender re-assignment.
As an adult these are your choices.
For children I am strongly but not absolutely inclined to defer to parents over the state.
And lastly I think the possibility of parents accepting mixed gender locker rooms for their kids is near zero.
Our entire sex crimes law represents some of the most egregious (and stupid) instances of unconstitutional nonsense, but we – including the supreme court lose perspective entirely when sex and children are used in the same sentence.
trump and his #Trumpanzees once again behind the curve of history:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/26/canada-transgender-troops-us-military-tweet
One military that has no problem with transgender soldiers: Israel’s
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-one-military-that-has-no-problem-with-1501093682-htmlstory.html
Countries that allow transgender members in the military
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/countries-that-allow-transgender-members-in-the-military-1.4222205
Jay;
While ultimately I think that the US military will include transgendered soldiers the purpose of the military is to defend the nation not to advance policy goals – and this is an inherently ambiguous one.
You note other nations that allow transgendered soldiers.
Can you name one that would be capable of holding its own in a conflict with the US military ?
I wish Obama had not rushed this forward, I think that I wish that Trump had left well enough alone. I think that ultimately we will get there.
But this is of less consequence than the immigration EO.
This is a tiny matter effecting a tiny number of people – and no ones actual rights – as there is no right to be a soldier.
“You note other nations that allow transgendered soldiers.
Can you name one that would be capable of holding its own in a conflict with the US military ?”
Can you name nations that could defeat us if we have a tiny fraction of transgendered soldiers in the US Military?
Is that the standard ?
What if the inclusion of Transgendered soldiers increases our logistics requirements by 50%. That BTW increases the deaths and injuries to reservists,
I do think that Transgendered people should be permitted to serve.
But I do not think that Either Obama or Trump should have jumped headlong into the issue.
Just to be clear – I think they both were ALLOWED to, they just shouldn’t have.
The military probably needs prodded into this, but there are also real issues that have to be solved.
I am glad that Women are now in virtually all military roles – but that has proved to be expensive to impliment. It was not happening overnight.
I think the high estimate of the numbers involved are 5000 – that argues both ways.
One the one hand the effect will likely be small.
On the other the benefit is small.
The world will not end if 5000 people can not be soldiers.
Well Jay you have found the point this Libertarian is no longer Libertarian. I really have a problem with a female with a penis between her legs being in the same showers and bathrooms as “real” females. Now it may be completely different now than when I was in the military, but if it is not, then men showering together and women showering together without stalls or barriers makes it hard for me to accept transgender individuals in these roles. Maybe yiou could get past the vagina in the mes shower or the penis in the womens shower, but I would not be able to do that.
AND I SURE AS HELL DO NOT WANT TAX MONEY GOING TO GENDER REASSIGNMENT SURGERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. That money needs to go toward saving lives and not screwing around with genitals.
Ron,
While I am probably closer to Jay than you on this issue.
I do not think there is a libertarian answer to this.
With ALL freedoms – what you have a right to, and what you can force on others is not the same.
I have the right to shoot heroine. I do not have the right to force myself high on others.
I have the right to conduct my personal affairs as I wish. I do not have the right to force others to accept me.
Just as I have the right to form a life contract with a spouse of the same gender.
I have no right to force my local photographer to memorialize the event.
that photographer can refuse me service because I am gay, or because I have no shirt or because I am an asshole or just because it is thursday.
I think it is stupid for us to discriminate for meaningless reasons.
But we are free to do so.
Dave, I suspect things have changed a lot since I was in the military. I remember when you were told to do something, you did not question why to do it nor did you have a choice if you wanted to do it or not. You did not even get a chance to discuss that with any superior if they told you the way to do it, even if there was a better and faster way to do it. You just did what you were told and you had NO RIGHTS for the most part while enlisted other than human rights. You could not even discuss politics legally and could face a captains mast or courts martial if you did.
So you say “I have the right to conduct my personal affairs as I wish. I do not have the right to force others to accept me.” Well when you are in the military, you do not have the right to choose who you work with, who you shower with or who you sleep in the same barracks with. So in this case, they are forcing others to accept transgenders.
So if the military wants to accept these individuals, then others that sign that 4 year contract should have the right to cancel the contract if they are forced to maintain a close personal life with someone they can not accept when it comes to being Trans.
Now when someone joins the military and if they are told that they could be part of a close group of individuals that could be any one of the LGBT and they accept that in their contractual agreement, then go for it. In this case the individual made the choice.
We are misunderstanding each other.
First your general assessment of things inside the military is correct.
A soldier has virtually no rights.
You want the freedom to do as you please with your own life – do not join the military.
At the same time we have decided that the military must accept black soldiers – and that military units must work with black soldiers – regardless of the personal racial views of specific soldiers.
We have subsequently done the same with women.
And then gays.
We are in the dance with respect to the transgendered.
With respect to the military specifically this is not mostly about rights.
There are several questions – does this effect military effectiveness.
The same question has been raised regarding blacks, women and gays.
I suspect the answer – if we could get an honest one, is that it has a small negative effect at the moment.
Another question would be to what extent does equal protection apply to the military.
Regardless, I just do not see this as a big deal.
I said before Obama moved to fast, but I think Trump should have left it alone.
I do not think this has much political value for him.
Those who will vote against him for this were already against him and those who would vote for him were already for him.
I feel much the same way about it as you do. And I’m definitely not in favor of paying for sex change surgeries, though I’m not against supplementing medication costs – if the military pays for anti depressants why not hormonal medicines too.
But apparently our generational reservations are not shared by younger populations in the modern world, who are not offended as we are.
And also apparently, it hasn’t proved problematic to ALL those other nations who have accepted transgenders into their military. Certainly there’s places for them in non-combat roles. trump once again is proving himself to be a hypocritical lying lump of crap: during a campaign rally in Greeley, Colorado, after promising to protect their rights, he took to the stage waving a rainbow flag with the words “LGBTs for Trump” scrawled on the fabric. He also tweeted, “Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.”
More lying BS from the Liar Supreme, who since then announced the ban on trans military service, allowed his Department of Justice to file a legal brief at a federal appeals court arguing that anti-gay discrimination is legal under federal law, appointed a Supreme Court justice who opposes LGBTQ rights, and even failed to recognize Gay Pride Month.
If that was going to be his administration’s governmental LGBT positions, why did he LIE about protecting their rights? Easy answer: because he’s a liar who will lie for advantage: & Trumpanzees support that kind of behavior as proper governance: America the Land of the Deceitful!
There is an awful lot of your post that is pretty close to made up.
As an example the fact that Gorsuch thought the court should consider a review of Arkansas’s birth certificate law rather than just outright declare it unconstitutional does not make him anti-gay.
I have had this debate elsewhere – and we can have it here.
Many of our laws are rooted in actual biological facts.
Some of that we can change if we choose.
Some we may not. But we should be careful about changing those laws quickly as
There are likely huge unintended consequences.
With birth certificates the intention of the law is to assign the rights and duties of parenthood at birth without the burden of massive testing and with the lowest odds of subsequent legal battles.
Most should be familiar with some of the bloody legal battles over parentage over the past several decades.
I think that the majority of the court got the birth certificate case wrong because it is NOT a gay rights case.
We are likely to have similar issues as we approach Transgender.
I am not proposing answers. I am stating that there are questions that do not have clear answers.
If we say that biological males identifying as female may use the women’s rest room.
Do they also get to use the men’s room when they please ?
Does anyone who claims at this moment to be female get to use the womens room ?
Do we just get rid of gender assigned restrooms ?
Biology provides absolute answers to many of these questions.
We can decide we do not like the answers biology provides.
But doing so creates hundreds of questions and issues we are going to have to revisit.
And all are not trivially answered by rights claims.
Pretending that not being willing to jump immediately into chaos is hate is deceiptful.
The biggest problem I have with Trumps tweet is that it reverses an issue that whether too soon or badly appears to have been solved.
Name one statement in my comment that’s close to ‘made up.’
Do you have an idea how idiotic your comments are in response to what I posted?
And if you’re going to be outlandishly goofy, can you please do it succinctly.
I am not saying you made it up.
Regardless, you have made no claims specific enough for me to prove or disprove.
I do not think that it is even a little outlandish to ask you to be clear enough about the claims you make that I can check them out.
I think that Trump lies or misrepresents on occasion.
I think despite the style he uses that offends many of us that the actual frequency and scale of the lies is less than Obama.
“I am not saying you made it up.”
No, but you insinuated that, you phononous balonous with this:
“There is an awful lot of your post that is pretty close to made up.”
Then you went off on some tangent that had nothing to do with my comment.
You and Trump, can’t control the impulse drivel.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your forte.
I am not “implying” any single specific thing.
But I am outright stating that the reliability of these types of claim has proven so poor that I verify them more and more.
There are innumerable possibilities.
It is possible that what you have posted is true. It is not likely.
It is possible that you made it up – but no I am not accusing you of that.
It is also possible that someone else made it up or that you are misreporting something.
There are myriads of possibilities.
Truth is among the less probable ones.
If you want me to take you seriously – I need more substance.
Otherwise it is just more of the unsubstantiated garbage that has thus far all proved false.
Regardless you can not seem to distinguish between
X is false, and You made up X.
Jay, I can accept your position on Trump and lies. i will add one additional comment about Trump. He need medication for ADD. He can not stay on message at all and just when something good happens he screws it up by going off half cocked and tweets some moronic comment.
But there is a vast difference between you and I on our beliefs about politicians. Where you are so upset about the “Liar in Chief”, I believe fully that ALL politicians lie and Trump is no different than any other one in Washington. It just happens that he promotes his lies, while others keep them a secret or try to.
I have been trying to get a sense of whether Trump’s tweeting and some other behaviors are effective or not.
I do not beleive they should be effective.
At the same time this worked for him through the campaign.
I have also listened to Scott Adam’s on Trump – who seems to beleive that Trump is a world class manipulator and that everything we think is bad for him is actually good.
I am not sure that I agree. I am also not sure I disagree.
The left has managed to continue the political tensions and stresses of the election cycle 9 months past its end. That has been harmful to Trump – but it has been more so to his enemies.
The left and the media have bet heavily on proof of something that is pretty close to logically impossible.
Absolutely they have connected a few tiny dots between Trump and Russia.
But they can not get the damning facts.
One of the reasons is because it can not exist.
The best possible – and by that I mean logically possible, not likely, not hoped for, outcome from this for some misrepresentations about contact with Russia.
Absent some secret shadowy Trump advisor that no one knows about it is increasingly obvious there is no room for the Trump/Russia meme to occur.
How is it those of you on the left imagine that Trump, Kushner, Maneforte, Trump Jr,, Sessions. … managed find sufficient holes in they schedule that are not documented to meet with secret Russian emissaries completely out of vie of anyone.
Much of the Steele dossier was discredited because the people who purportedly met where on the other side of the world at the time that meetings purportedly took place.
The allegations regarding Trump are deliberately vague – because specific allegations can be tested.
This also gets back to the 4th amendment assertions I keep making.
This is the 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Governments ability to poke its nose into our private lives requires probably cause – supported by an oath, and specific claims.
Our founders lived in a world of general warrants – which is pretty much what Rosenstiens direction to Mueller is – go find evidence of wrongdoing where ever you can.
We insist that claims be specific – because we can test the truth of specific claims, because we can refute specific claims.
We insist that claims be sworn – because before we will violate someone’s privacy we want another to have staked their integrity behind the claims.
I am however disturbed by more recent events.
I understand Trump’s frustration with Sessions – and I would love to see Sessions gone.
There is even a good argument that Sessions was obligated to tell Trump he was going to recuse himself. An excellent argument that Rosenstein never should have appointed Mueller. But those things are done, and Sessions has been a loyal ally, and you do not stab allies in the back.
I was impress by Scarramucci initially, but now he is starting to attack members of the administration. You do not do that publicly.
I can beleive Adam’s assertion that Trump is crazy like a fox to a point.
In numerous ways this should have been a good news week for Trump.
The hearings regarding FusionGPS are going very well for him.
Whether it pans out there is credible pressure on Muller to stay inside the box.
The media attack on Sessions drove Sessions back into Trumps arms and Trump then pissed on him.
The Clinton Ukraine connection is developing.
Weirdly Natalia and FushionGPS seem to be at the hub of absolutely everything.
The left and the media seems to want us to beleive that Trump Jr. was colluding with Russia using the same agents that Clinton was using ?
How does that work ?
Anyway the Tweets attacking Sessions and the exposed infighting in the whitehouse are not good.
You know, Dave, it’s exactly that tepid kind of criticism of Scaramucci, and Trump for his obnoxious deleterious behavior, that reinforces my opinion of you as a rationalizing babbler. To not protest loudly against this lowering of common decency from the Trump people is contemptible. That applies to anyone else who having heard this boorish garbage, remains silent – Like the silence here so far regarding Trump’s contemptable Boy Scout Jamboree speech.
Patriotic sensible Conservatives recognize political ideology doesnt justify or excuse abysmal lowering of standards of decency. Some are beginning to speak out. Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer slammed Anthony Scaramucci on air tonight-calling his profanity-laced comments about fellow senior White House aide Reins Priebus and others “disgraceful.”
“Being a New Yorker is no excuse. This is the degradation of the presidency,” Krauthammer said of the Wall Street financier on Fox’s “Special Report,” while calling out President Trump for not restraining his new White House communications director.
Those of you who voted this creep Trump into office, and still shrug off Trump’s idiocies deserve contempt.
Strip out the hyperbole in your posts and there is little left.
Scaramucci has made public accusations.
In doing so he has bet his own reputation – because when you accuse someone else – you are betting your own integrity against the truth of your accusation.
If Krauthammer criticized him – great!
That is how you deal with speech you think is bad – with more speech.
Regardless, Scaramucci’s big problem is not his language or style
I would prefer different language and style – but I got to express my views on that in Nov. 2016. It is the accusations.
Just as those pushing this Russia nonsense are batting their own integrity quite stupidly, that they are right – so is Scaramucci.
That you find his accusations repugnant – while making equally unfounded ones of your own is humerous.
Separately – even if he is right, I think this is better handled quietly.
But I am not the president – neither are you.
No one elected me – you do not seem to get that no one elected you either.
Sorry, not that offended by the BSA speech.
Admittedly it is slightly more self agrandizing and political that Obama’s 60 second video for the BSA’s 100th aniversary. At the same time Trump was there – in person.
Obama phoned it in. I call it a draw.
Regardless, you seem to think that if you can not control what others do, their style, that makes them inherently evil.
It is this kind of nonsense that results in the hateful hating haters crap.
And you do not even realise that:
It is alienating you for the rest of the country
You are making yourself into the very thing you claim to despise
I did not vote for Trump. I did not vote for Clinton.
If those who voted for Trump are morally bankrupt – those who voted for Clinton are doubly so.
That said it is a bad idea to transfer your attacks on a politician to their voters.
I am certain that Trump voters feel the same about you as you about them.
The odds of their being right about you are greater than you about them.
However you characterize Scaramucci – he is Trump’s enemies in the mirror.
Look upon yourself.
Atta boy, Dave, rationalize bad behavior from Presidential appointees with inane reasoning.
You’re a putz. That’s my heart felt opinion, an accusation on which I bet my own reputation as an expert at recognizing putziness
Not rationalizing anything,
Only noting that adding scary adjectives to inconsequential things does not make them consequential.
I think that some of the recent Palace intrigues are annoying.
They are not an existential threat to the country.
I think some are a mistake. Regardless, I get to judge that in 2020.
A while ago Trump suggested he was going to stop the press briefings.
Mostly I think that is a good idea. I am not sure how they serve a purpose.
Media is changing. Trumps constant tweets as annoying as they are are likely much more important than the entire whitehouse communications staff and press corp.
I think we are in the midst of disruptive change in the press. I think it has been coming for a while, but the tipping point might be right now.
Ad hominem is not argument.
“Sorry, not that offended by the BSA speech.”
That certainly defines your moral circumstance.
What is it you found “immoral” ?
Do you think politicians speaking about politics immoral ?
I think it is a wise thing for the military to pay for anti-depressants for soldiers.
I can not think of a reason we want depressed soldiers.
I do not think soldiers have a right to payment for anti-depresants – just that it is a good idea.
People can do as they please with their own bodies – Heroine, HRT, sex re-assignment, not my business.
But the rest of us are not obligated to pay to provide you your choices.
With respect to those things that you say Trump is lying about – please provide specifics and I will check them out and draw my own conclusions.
I do not beleive everything Trump says.
I also do not beleive everything everyone says trump has said or done.
I would wonder why you do not find your own “trumpanzee” reference as offensive as the monkey references with regard to blacks and Obama ?
You are free to speak as you please.
And the rest of us are free to judge you based on your speach.
The past election the left spent calling everyone who disagreed with them – hateful hating haters. Whatever the faults of Trump supports – they are less rapid and less hateful than his enemies.
I do not consider myself a Trump supporter – but I would be less insulted to be called a trumpanzee at the moment that a progressive, a democrat, or a member of the media.
Apparently President Bluster never bothered to consult with ‘our’ Generals before making his distracting dumb ass Tweet:
I think you are misreading the meaning of the JCS notice.
I think that he is merely clarifying that there is a chain of command and it must be followed.
I do not think anyone wants the lower echelons of the military taking on their own to decide what should be done.
Trump will direct Mattis, Mattis will direct the JCS and slowly the policy will fitler down.
Further at each level decisions will have to be made as to what it means and how to impliment it.
At this point we have a Tweet from Trump – that is not an order,
I would guess their will be an order, but the military is not directed via twitter.
Very interesting Brookings article on polling.
The thesis of the article that we should be very careful what meaning and the strength of that meaning we draw from polls, is both valid and interestingly presented.
But the article then goes forward to make exactly the same errors it told us not to make.
Regardless, the central point – polling is hard and often measures something completely different than what it is intended to is valid.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/07/25/the-obamacare-repeal-and-the-illusion-of-public-opinion/
Exclusive: Russia used Facebook to try to spy on Macron campaign
https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1AC0EI-OCATP
Obviously not true!
Russia denies it!
Case closed !
Someone say it is not true ?
I am trying to figure out what spying via facebook even means ?
Do you think it is a bad thing for Russia to have tried to follow any significant world leaders campaign ?
Are we saying that Macron posted state secrets on his campaign web page ?
Tell me specifically what was being done and why it was wrong ?
I don’t have the time or inclination to wise you up – it would prove futile in any case. Think Social Infiltration via Faux bots/friends and you may figure it out
“I don’t have the time or inclination to wise you up – it would prove futile in any case. Think Social Infiltration via Faux bots/friends and you may figure it out”
What you are lacking is facts, logic and reason.
You are arguing guilt by association to a network that Harvard’s communications department found the most balanced of all networks, that I do not even follow.
Do you think that just saying things makes them true ?
That I must be a Fox Zombie – because you say so ?
Never mind that I do not even have access to any cable news network,
“Never mind that I do not even have access to any cable news network,”
And you don’t understand Facebook.
And you haven’t scratched the surface of Twitter.
You’re in a cocoon of ignorance about information flow, like a restaurant critic who only eats at fast-food restaurants pontificating about the state of American culinary trends.
Sorry Jay – but I think you are the one who does nto understand Facebook etc.
Again how does Russia hack the French election through macon’s Facebook page ?
One way or the other you end up with a contradiction. The public is public.
Honestly I do not even think you gave it any thought.
I think the press saying “Russia” is a “dog whistle” to you,
Or more like pavlov’s bell – ring it and you salivate.
You decided to push this Russia hacked Macron nonsense.
I have barely followed it.
The “facts” I have are from you.
As best as I can tell – Russia created facebook pseudonym accounts and friended Macron.
Or is there something else going on ?
Regardless, you have not answered the question.
How does Russia spy on Macron via facebook ?
Does the left grasp how stupid this Russia hysteria makes you look ?
New Yorkers, Trump’s own people, Dave, speaking in his ‘Brooklyn’ idiom, have this to say about him:
You seem to have presumed that if it is Trump that I automatically agree.
I think that Trump should have left well enough alone.
A also think Obama should have left well enough alone.
Generally I support equal rights for everyone.
But Transgendered issues are complex.
As will all other rights – you can be or do pretty much whatever you please so long as you do not harm others.
But you can not compel others to accept you as you wish them to.
The military gets more complicated as it is a legitimate and nececary part of government and while private discrimination is a right – even if often heinous. Public discrimination is not. And finally – chosing to live according to whatever gender identity you wish is a right, but being a soldier is not.
I have nothing against transgendered people. My daughter has a friend who she met when she was a college swimmer. At the time, her friend was a boy, who has since transitioned to being a girl…actually, a young woman, since they have now grown up. My daughter remained close with him/her throughout, and we have had him/her as a welcomed guest in our home both as a male and a female. I will note however, that this young woman has suffered from depression both before and after her transition. She also has the same significant other as she had when she was a boy, which I find confusing, but it is apparently not uncommon. Chaz Bono, formerly Chastity, has the same girl friend as he had when he was a she. Apparently, you can go from being straight to gay ~ or gay to straight~ as well as from one gender to another. I think that this raises a few questions…..
The ban on transgenders in the military was lifted only at the very end of Obama’s presidency. Trump has reinstated a longstanding policy, one that is strongly supported by the majority of military leaders as well as by most service men and women. If an able-bodied young man enters the military, and then announces in the midst of basic training that he is really a girl trapped in that able body, he will be eligible to begin hormone therapy, which will reduce his muscle mass, increase his body fat, as well as redistribute that fat differently, trigger breast development, and may cause emotional changes as well, especially in someone who may already suffer from depression. A woman receiving testosterone will also see drastic physical and emotional changes.
None of this is at all conducive to the sort of training and bonding that needs to happen during military training. Quite the contrary, it is quite disruptive. In addition, I would be interested in knowing how many of the reported 5,000 (sounds like an awful lot!) transgender people in the military joined because they knew that they would receive free gender reassignment treatment and surgery.
The whole controversy is one that we should not be foisting on our military. Not until we know a lot more about transgenderism.
For me the BIG lie was reneging on his promise to release his taxes.
To refresh your memory, when Trump first started campaigning for the Republican nomination I defended his entry into the race, here on this blog. I gave him the benefit from the negative doubt from Republicans and Democrats, and said let’s wait before dismissing him.
And then he proved the critics right ( Roby castigated me here for it) and Trump’s obnoxious deceptiveness soon percolated to the surface. After the tax renege, he continued to prove himself untrustworthy of any public office, a characterless obnoxious temprementally unstable jerk who would demean the office of president, and the nation if elected. Demeaning his fellow Republicans as well as Democrats with personal insults, making one outlandish and inaccurate statement after another, stirring up violence at one rally after another – this moron was lowering the standards of public civility to that found at staged wrestling matches. And the moron, having lied in his promise to be ‘presidential’ continues to demean the office.
Anyone who doesn’t recognize the SMEAR of malignity he’s wiped across our national character is brainless. And anyone not SCREAMING to get him out of office is so dazed and confused they couldn’t hit the ground with a stone.
Obviously you are free to consider any purported committment of Trump to be the big lie.
I do not think the Tax Return thing is “the big lie” I am not going to read them – and neither are you.
Maddow got ahold of the 1040 portion of one year – and there was nothing to it.
I checked the web for this tax release promise and there appear to be one or two instances in which he said he would release some portion of some tax returns.
But out of about 2 dozen times in the past 7 years he has talked about releasing his tax return all but two of them are very equivocal – i.e. “I MAY release my tax returns if”
Regardless, you are free to beleive as you wish.
I think lying about what you are going to do is far worse than about providing information that you have no obligation to provide.
Aside from the tax return claim the rest of your post is ad hominem.
You are free to feel that way, but that is all it is – feelings.
Whether we allow transgendered people to join the military or not we should not be paying for cosmetic surgery or HRT.
I do not think it matters much that there is compelling evidence that sexual re-assignment does not change the problems that people with sexual dysphoria have.
Free means free to do things that may or may not work – so long as they harm not one else. Harming others – includes making others pay for it.
I oppose our Drug laws. I also oppose GOVERNMENT paying for treatment for people with drug problems. The absence of government – does not mean the absence of our moral obligations to our fellow man. But we limit the use of force to compel moral conduct to those three principles I keep repeating. Everything else is between ourselves our conscience, our maker, and the extent we can endure the oprobrium of our neighbors.
Dave, I am generally sympathetic to libertarian ideas, despite the fact that I am not a libertarian.
And I emphatically agree with you that the government should not shoulder the costs of hormone treatment and “gender reassignment surgery.”
But, regardless of who pays, there is good reason to ban transgenders from enlisting in the military. No one whose mental state is such that they do not accept the objective truth of their birth and so insist on taking massive doses of hormones and multiple major surgeries, should be expected to undergo the rigorous mental and physical training that one needs to complete as a military recruit.
And the rest of the men and women in the armed services should not have to endure the stress and anxiety of knowing that they might be sent into battle and expected to rely on someone who is not physically or mentally fit.
I
Ron: “I believe fully that ALL politicians lie and Trump is no different than any other one in Washington.”
Are you serious?
Yes, all politicians lies, but not with the frequency, and deleterious destructiveness of Deceptive Donald. I challenge you to present any major politician, let alone any other President, who has lied so egregiously and often to citizens of this nation.
While you’re at that futile task, read this catalog of Donnie Distortions ( lies lies lies)
More of the same:
http://www.vogue.com/article/donald-trump-lies-200-days
And more
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
You are honestly citing Politifact ?
There was an article on RCP within the past week noting that Politifact had identified a claim of Obama as False, and then rated the Claim by Trump that the claim by Obama was false as also false.
Lets see “We’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” Pres. Obama
I think the cost of that lie is something over 3.5T todate.
I was a critic of Obamacare, and posted how my Daughter’s premiums and deductibles went up, an that she had to change doctors. She bitched about it to me, and I bitched about it online. BUT she adjusted, and so did the system, and at the end of the first year she told us the care and service improved.
Now, as a user of Obamacare related services she says if the Republicans end it, her costs are going to skyrocket, if she can afford to keep it that is; which may be doubtful; she has existing conditions; there’s a good chance she won’t be able to afford it.
What the jerk-off jackass Republicans are doing to healthcare is multiple times worse than Obama. If you’re too dense to get that, YOU’RE DESPICABLY DENSE.
There are always winners and losers in any government program. The problem with Obamacare is the level that one wins and one loses.
Where your daughter is covered for preexisting conditions and she is happy with her care, there are others where their premiums are prohibitive, the deductibles are at the point they can get all the care they need and never have the insurance pay a dime and they have doctors they are not happy with.
I would love to see a study of people covered by Obamacare and see how many are actually happy with their coverage and how many are not. All we hear now is political crap from one side or the other. Cruz had a plan where your daughter could have maintained what she has, but others could have opted for optional coverage. And the shortfall would have been made up by funding from the government for plans like your daughter had. This failed along with every other plan the congress proposed, so we still have Obamacare and will have it for years to come.
Measures of happiness are stupid.
Our level of happiness with something is best expressed by what we will pay.
People are likely more happy with a Lamborghini Huracan as they will pay far more than a ford focus.
This has already been addressed in the context of healthcare.
Canadians are arguably happier with their healthcare than those in the US.
At the same time those in the US would likely hate the Canadian system.
My parents both spent significant time in the hospital before they died.
The care (not healthcare) they got was amazing.
Only the super rich get that in the rest of the world.
When we buy healthcare we buy more than outcome.
Like McCain said prior to voting down the asinine Republican Skinny Brain repeal without replace bill, Health Care effects ALL Americans, and requires bipartisanship on major issues of national concern, and a return to the “regular order” of legislating by committee, not a bunch of secretive one sided deliberations excluding Democrats.
This DIVISINENESS will worsen for as long as The Dunce Remains President.
Jay, McCain has all the right to speak about this issue and what he said is spot on. remember he was the one PUT DOWN by Obama when he asked a question or offered a suggestion in that farce of a meeting between Democrats and Republicans when Obamacare was being discussed and Obama said something like “John the election is over”, meaning shut up and sit down like a good boy, I am the president now. No GOP input into that and the GOP is doing the same to the left on this.
Problem is there are going to be a large number of people hurt between now and when Obamacare terminates on its own, many more than those being helped.
“Problem is there are going to be a large number of people hurt between now and when Obamacare terminates on its own, many more than those being helped.”
Correct. We have divisive dysfunctional government.
We need moderates, not partisans, working together to fix our problems.
Instead, were stuck with the idiots in place now.
Our Two-Party system isn’t working.
Extremes in both dominate the agenda.
Jay, what I find so interesting is the fact so many people say just what you said “We need moderates, not partisans, working together to fix our problems.” but then when push comes to shove and moderates are running against far left liberals or far right conservatives, the “fars” always win. No one will put their vote where their mouth is.
I vote for a more conservative candidate, but prefer that candidate to have a congressional score of less than 20 to -20 when scored on the liberal to conservative positioning scale. I voted for the current 5th district congressperson from NC since the democrat was way off the scoring on liberal positions, but I find the one I voted for really unacceptable given her voting on many issues. The problem is the democrat would have been unacceptable on all issues I care about.
Money buys elections, Money comes from the wealthy. Most wealthy individuals have extreme political positions. I find it hard to find any moderate wealthy people. So most moderates running have fewer dollars to buy advertising and get their messages out. And that ends up causing them to lose.
Trump spent half what Hillary did and won.
The impact of money on elections is greatly exagerated.
In many of the special elections since Nov. the democrat has had double or more the money of the republican – and lost.
I am not going to argue that money has Zero effect – but the effect is vastly overstated and elections reach a point at which additional money has no effect.
We are certainly there in presidential elections, we are probably there in alot of non-presidential elections.
Finding a perfect candidate from either party is nearly impossible.
We have a choice of the lessor evil.
There is no special reason that “moderates” the way moderate is used here would be any better than far right or far left.
Now more than ever it should be apparent that government is at the core of our worst problems.
I have no doubt we can solve whatever out problems are – easily – if we get government out of the way.
Oxygen effects all americans – it is not the role of government.
Most things effect all americans.
We had the mess that gave us ObamaCare – because of government.
We had the mess of ObamaCare because of government.
ObamaCares was not passed with the bi-partisan support you claim is necescary.
It need not have bipartisan support to repeal it.
Once again you think the rules should be different for the right.
The rules should be different – passing anything should be hard. It should require much more than bipartisan support.
Repealing anything should be easy – it should just require a large enough minority.
If it is a given that congress remains divided and government is incapable of new actions while Trump is president, then we need more Trump.
And how is it that she knows that if republicans end it costs are going to skyrocket ?
With the exception of a few specific groups – I am pretty sure that most analysts including CBO expect people to pay LESS not more.
They will likely get less – meaning they will not be entitled to a bunch of services they do not want, do not need, and probably can not use.
When you say she has “existing conditions” – that could mean anything.
Regardless, it is hard to tell what a republican replacement would do – as there is none.
But if we reverted to pre-PPACA the vast majority of policies covered “pre-existing conditions” if you remained continuously insured.
I would not expect that to change.
Given that you accept that What Obama did to healthcare was bad – then lets just repeal it.
Unless somehow we have entered a world where logic does not apply repealing something bad is not necescarily good, but it is less bad. It certainly is not worse.
What I do get is that PPACA has cost the govenrment about 1.6T,
and it has cost the rest of us atleast that much more – I beleive closer to 2.3T,
I beleive an NBER study recently calculated that it was responsible for a reduction in GDP of about 0.85% if that is correct then – in addition to taxes and higher insurance costs it has also costs us 5T in GDP.
So what are the benefits of PPACA ?
There has been no change in life expectance trends.
More people are insured.
In other words we have proven what I have said repeatedly, and what the Oregon experiment found as well as prior long term studies.
Heatlh Insurance does not alter Health Care Outcomes.
So PPACA has done nothing except cost alot of money.
And you think that Republicans are Dense ?
“And how is it that she knows that if republicans end it costs are going to skyrocket ?
With the exception of a few specific groups – I am pretty sure that most analysts including CBO expect people to pay LESS not more.”
And how is it that you think you know costs won’t skyrocket?
You haven’t read any of the recent CBO evaluations, right? Just your usual blowing it out of your ass free flow nonsense. You should lock yourself in a closet where you can talk to yourself, and not smell up the conversation with false assertions:
“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 16 million Americans could lose their health insurance by 2026 under Senate Republicans’ Health Care Freedom Act, a bill that would repeal only some elements of Obamacare.
The legislation would also result in premiums that are roughly 20% higher than they are under the current law each year between 2018 and 2026.
Details of the so-called “skinny repeal” were revealed on the Senate floor Thursday night.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-skinny-repeal-cbo-score-2017-7
How is it I know costs won’t skyrocket ?
1). I beleive NBER did a study and predicts a 2500 decrease.
2). Since ObamaCare drove prices up, it is logical that repealing ObamaCare will bring them down (less inflation.
3). There is no long term trend for the price of anything in a free market that is not DOWN,
4). Killing PPACA means people will not have to pay for coverage they do not want.
Usually paying for what you do not want costs more.
Between what Government has paid for PPACA, what individuals have paid for PPACA and its negative impact on Growth the estimately cost of PPACA is about $1T/YEAR
Yes, I think there are excellent reasons to beleive costs will go down.
You seem to think that economics is magic and that congress can change its rules.
There are numerous critiques of the CBO’s findings – but even if they were true SO WHAT ?
As noted REPEATEDLY Health insurance has nothing to do with Health Outcomes.
Aside from the myriads of other data on it – PPACA itself proves that.
There has been no change in left expectance trends as a result of PPACA.
It should be within your ability to understand that means,
that while more people were insured and more money went to insurance companies nothing else changed. PPACA was just a massive subsidy to insurance companies – and a bad on at that.
PPACA is a ball and chain on the economy.
Or try a differnet way – did PPACA significantly change trends in the number of doctors ? Nurses ? or any other significant healthcare resource ?
If there was not trend change, then there was also no change in our ability to deliver actual healthcare.
While the resources for healthcare are not strictly speaking limited – over the short run they are. It takes atleast 8 years to change the number of doctors (and it is declining anyway),
Absent an abrupt change in resources all PPACA did was create an abrupt change in money. And just exactly like colleges, and housing – if government dumps extra money into a market segment – you will not see an increase in supply, you will see an increase in prices.
Going the opposite way should PPACA ACTUALLY decrease the money available for healthcare, one or both of two things MUST happen.
Demand must drop or prices must drop.
The laws of supply and demand are immutable.
Why democrats ever thought PPACA would reduce prices is beyond me.
PPACA is a form of price control those ALWAYS create one(or both) of two things:
Scarcity or increased prices.
This is all econ 101.
Jay;
This is pretty trivial.
You are absolutely never going to get me to beleive that adding a price control will not increase prices or scarcity – that is econ 101 and history
You are never going to convince me that subsidizing something is not going to increase its cost – also econ 101 and history.
You are not going to convince me that the repeal of something that increased prices is also going to increase prices – that is logic 101.
I can go on. But that should be enough.
Lastly – anyone – the media, a government department or some outside group that makes a prediction that contradicts one of those is not even worth reading.
I do not have time to waste on magical thinking, or predictions of disasters that historically have never occured.
I do not understand why you would waste your time.
I think most everyone here has a college education – why did you study math, statistics, economics, logic or any of the myriads of courses that teach you to think for yourself ?
We do not learn so that we can rely on experts, We learn so that we can evaluate which experts know what they are talking about and which are full of S–t.
And Dumb Donald’s speach to the Boy Scout’s was atrociously misguided. He has NO self control of his mouth. As the Boy Scouts organization was quickly informed, with thousands of complaints from irate Scout family members and former Scout members.
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/890652171032592384
Amazing how little outrage we heard from the usual suspects in the right wing media
I looked up most of the remarks that were made by Trump that were purportedly politics.
Most were not.
If the BSA wants to appologize – that is their business.
I think it was a mistake to invite him – or any president, or politician as the BSA is a non-partisan organization.
But if you invite the president – you can expect him to discuss his administration – and I do not think that is politics.
But mostly I do not care. What you get when you invite Trump is no secret.
You’re distorting, dissembling.
Really, and if you think Trumps Boy Scout Speach was appropriate, you’re hopeless. Worse, really.
Read the Transcript in full. He’s talking to CHILDREN, many children of Democrats, Independants, etc.
http://time.com/4872118/trump-boy-scout-jamboree-speech-transcript/
I remember being a boy scout.
He is talking to people who are old enough that many are having sex.
Trump gave an actual speach at an actual jamboree.
On the 100th aniversary of the BSA Obama sent a 1 min video.
More diverting dopiness from you.
If Trump robbed a gas station, are you going to say at least he visited it?
And Trump was a Groper, Obama not; are you suggesting Trump gets more credit for reaching out to women?
Do you not have an inclination how dumb your comment is?
And BTW, Obama was a Boy Scout, Trump was not.
Tell me the things that Trump has actually demonstrably done.
Not what you wish, or hope he has done.
I am not aware of an allegation that he robbed a gas station.
There are many allegations that he is a groper.
I beleive them. It is a significant part of why I did not vote for him.
There are many allegations that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and many very very credible allegations that he is a sex offender as well as a groper.
More important to the 2016 election it is a fact that Hillary knowingly lied to ruin the reputations of the women who Clinton abused.
That is actually worse than groping women. And a significant part of why I did not vote for Hillary.
To my knowledge Obama treated women well – and that is too his credit.
During much of the time that Obama could have been a “boy scout” he was in indonesia.
“Barack Obama was not a part of the Boy Scouts of America; rather he was a member of Gerakan Pramuka, the Indonesian Scout Association, and he reached the equivalent of Cub Scout.“”
I was an actual cub scout, as well as a boy scout. Cub scouts and not boy scouts.
I left just after I reached first class – that is just below eagle – though alot easier to attain.
I have actually been to a national jamboree in the 60’s. Somewhere I still have the neckercheif.
Here is the full transcript of Obama’s video message to the 2010 National Scout Jamboree: if you think there’s anything political or improper in it, or that Trump’s inappropriate remarks at his speech to them was acceptable, you’re likely suffering from a reduced supply of oxygen to the brain
“Hello everybody.
I wanted to send my greetings to everyone taking part in the national Scout Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill and congratulate you on the hundredth anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. I hope you’ve all enjoyed this year’s festivities.
You know, for a century, scouts just like you have served your communities and your nation in ways both large and small. During World War II, scouts played a vital role in supporting the war effort at home by running messages and selling war bonds. Some of our nation’s greatest heroes have worn the scout uniform, including 11 of the 12 men who have walked on the moon. And today, scouts across the country continue the tradition of collecting food for those in need, improving our neighborhoods, and reaching out to those less fortunate.
That service is worth celebrating. But there’s still more to do. Even though we face a different set of challenges than we did 100 years ago, they are no less important. And in the years ahead, we are going to depend on you, the next generation of leaders, to move America forward.
So I hope that all of you will carry the lesson you have learned in scouting with you for the rest of your lives. And I hope that when you’re called upon to help write the next great chapter in the American story, you will uphold the best of the scouting tradition and respond with enthusiasm, skill and determination.
Congratulations again on your first 100 years. I’m sure the next 100 will be even better.”
Did I say it was political or improper ?
If I would characterize it, it would be disrespecting the Boy Scouts.
It was a bit more than a minute of pre-recorded pablum that was “phoned in”
He sent the boyscouts a video.
He did not show up.
Trump did.
Further Trump showed up for an ordinary 4 year jamboree.
Obama skipped the Boy Scouts 100th aniversay Jamboree.
Sorry Obama diss’d the boyscouts far more than Trump’s political speach.
If you can not show up – the rest does not matter.
The New Moderate
Politics and Civilization…
The following can be under heading of “Civilization”.
I just want to share..
It isn’t often that one of my notions is altered this much. My 29-year-old daughter was at an ultrasound appt today with her husband, her mother-in-law who is great, my wife (her mom), my wife’s sister (her aunt), and 12-year-old niece. What they all witnessed, via the ultra-sound camera (images amazingly clearer these days) was the 14-week old baby (looks like a baby but size of a peach) seemingly having fun in its own private swimming pool: pushing off with legs, then floating back down, then pushing off, then floating back down. My notion was of a more cramped fetus, but not so during this period of growth.
That’s it!
What? No fetal iPod? 😀
Jay,
Apparently it is very “70s” inside the womb. One makes up games with whatever one can find. In six months or so the little ‘un hopes to “go outside and play”.
How wonderful, Pat! Congratulations, Gramps to be!
(Sorry about the “Gramps” thing, what do you think you will want to be called in your new role?)
Priscilla, yes “gramps” is not on the list!!! Lol.
I hope to be called “Pappa Joe,” as Joe is my real name, not Pat. Rick is the only one here who knew that until now I believe. It was my pleasure to lunch with Rick in Philadelphia, my original hometown. But if “Pappa Joe” sticks, I may have to move to Key West and buy a fishing boat. (ala Pappa Hemingway)
Priscilla,
“Gramps” is not even on the list!!! Lol.
I hope to be called “Pappa Joe,” as Joseph / Joe is my real name, not Pat. Rick is the only one here who knew that I believe. I”ve had the pleasure of lunching with Rick in Philadelphia, my original hometown. But if “Pappa Joe” sticks I will be forced to move to Key West and buy a fishing boat.
And, btw, if you and Rick have lunch again, I want an invite! I’m only an hour’s drive from Philly!
Hi Pat, Big congrats on your happy life events in the real world!
Science is amazing. So is life itself.
And your CLASSLESS President allows this kind of behavior, language, backbiting?
Don’t you GET IT YET!?!
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344215-scaramucci-priebus-is-a-paranoid-schizophrenic-will-be-asked-to
Absolutely I am having problems with Scaramucci’s publicly attacking other’s in the whitehouse.
I am also having problems with Trump publicly going after Sessions.
I would prefer they kept the back stabbing – in the back.
I am not sure I like Scaramucci’s “I will not stab you in the back. I will stab you right in the front”.
Regardless I think the public venting of dirty laundry is politically dangerous.
And that is really the problem.
If the question is style – I would prefer those after me do so out in the open.
I would like to see the anonymous leaks come out in the open.
Saw this
“America is being introduced by Mooch to trading floor language & attitude”
Alot of people are agreeing. Inlcuding Nassim Taleb.
Dave, I have to admit you were right: not only does Trump speak in the voice of his Brooklyn supporters, he’s replacing his spokespersons with others who do as well!
Here’s excerpts from Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director, in a telephone call to a reporter yesterday; in essence pure Brooklynese:
“Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ”
Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. ”
( now there’s a tasteful image for Republican students to mull over in class)
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon/amp
Trump’s straight talking America, ain’t it fucking GREAT!
I have said what I need to say about Scaramucci.
Probably you and I are not that far apart.
Except that you seem to think everyday is election day and you get all the votes.
I think Trump wanted a pit bull, and I think he needed a pit bull.
But I think he went a bit too far.
I would note that Scaramucci is about as offensive as a Stephen Colbert monologue.
I have decided after Anthony Scaramucci has been appointed as communications director and he goes off on the chief of staff that the best thing that could happen to this country short of Trump getting impeached and removed from office is for another Republican to challenge him in the primaries in 2020. Under no circumstances would you have witnessed James Baker, Howard Baker , Leon Panetta , Andrew Card or a host of other COS’s putting up with this crap and their bosses would not have allowed it to happen either. No one other than the president should go off on the Chief of Staff because he is basically the boss of the presidents staff. Thats why they are called “Chief of Staff”
I have given Trump all the leaway that I can and now I have decided he is unfit to fill that position since he is allowing his subordinates to attack employees within his staff. .
I think Trump is doing a fine job in foreign affairs since his secretaries in those positions are well qualified. But his White House staff is taking him down the rest of the way after he does himself harm with his ADD. Some may say it is masterful manipulation. I say it is complete incompetence since you can not run a governmental agency like you do a private business. No way, no how, no matter how much you say you will drain the swamp. He is just filling it with Trump crap.
Heaven help us when I say Clinton would have been a better choice than what we now have. The GOP congress can not get anything Trump wants passed and they sure would not have passed anything Clinton would have proposed, so nothing would be different other than a sane mind in the oval office.
Ron
I find scaramucci as offensive as you do.
But if the economic is growing at or near 3% in 2020 – no one is primarying Trump and he will win.
And if it is not he will lose.
No clinton would not have been a better choice.
We were headed for a recession. We would be solidly in it by now.
With respect to all the things you say you can not do.
We can not say that – yet.
We can say we do not like it.
Whether it works or not remains to be seen.
Like you I am particularly disturbed by the Scaramucci and Sessions stuff.
Trump has actually had a good week – most as a consequence of the Russia story turning on democrats in the house and senate investigations.
Even the media attacks on Sessions helped Trump.
In my view it was a mistake for Trump to attack Sessions.
If Trump is unhappy with Preibus fire him or demand his resignation.
If he really is a source of leaks – fire him.
I do not think that shakeups in Trumps staff are inherently bad – particularly if they are confined to the White House.
But I do think the public airing of dirty laundry is stupid.
I think it is probably the stupidest thing Trump has done since getting elected.
But absolutely everything will be forgiven if the economy starts to roll.
I think that the all trump all the time hysteria that Trump contributes to – is also a negative economic factor. I think real recovery would be even stronger if we could calm down.
the GOP can not pass what it needs to, and passing much of what it can, is probably a bad idea.
The major policy changes are coming from the whitehouse unilaterally.
NONE of those would have happened under Clinton.
Things would be radically different if Clinton was elected.
I would note that Democrats have themselves had a very bad week.
The FusionGPS stuff is not only really bad for them – it ties Clinton into Russia in the same exact way Trump is – only worse.
Then there is the DNC congressional IT staffer that stole probably 4M of the past couple of years, and may yet prove to be an ISI spy. The FBI has recovered smashed Hard Drives from him, and the capital police have Seth Richards laptop – which they now can investigate. There are even rumors these guys might have murdered Richards.
There is the possibility that these guys, Richard or the ISI could prove to be the WikiLeaks DNC source.
No matter what it is not good for the DNC, as this guy is a crook, has ties to the ISI, and likely accessed classified documents on Democrats congressional computers.
The last thing the democrats need is another computer scandal.
we have the democratic party reset.
Merely doing so is an admission that Trump/Russia is a dead horse.
But the reset itself is still born. No one cares.
Do you even know what the new democratic message is ?
It seems to be “we Fucked up the economy and we promise to do better next time”.
Finally democrats have stalled the pointless Nunes ethics investigation – while ducking the same allegations against Schiff.
It now appears Nunes is ending his voluntary absence from the intelligence investigations.
And those investigations are starting to roll.
Sessions is apparently also investigating leaks and unmasking.
Dave, and here in lies the damn problem with Trump. I am going to have to look up FusionGPS to find out what the hell it is because there has been little that I have heard on any news program, including Fox, about that. All I keep hearing about is Trumps tweets, Sean Spicer resignation, Scaramucci rants, Sessions and all the other Trump septic tank waste products spread around the internet. Maybe if he and his staff would keep there fingers up their ass and off the keyboard and keep their big mouths shut for a few days something good might happen in D.C.
If you do not know atleast a little about FusionGPS then you have not been paying much attention.
The first think you should know – and should have known before the election,
Is they are the Washington Research Group that orchestrated the Steele Dossier.
There is alot more – they have been involved in other things for a long time.
But most of us first heard of them in connection to the Steele Dossier.
The political groups – Republicans and democratic PAC’s paid FusionGPS,
They Paid Steele and Steele paid Russian Spies to concoct the Trump OPO research paper called the Steele Dossier.
But more recently Fusion is getting a closer examination.
Fusion has strong ties to Russia. They were actively involved in opposing the Magnivinsky act. They are actively involved in trying to get it repealed.
They are strongly Tied to the two Russians that met with Trump Jr.
If Trump Jr. had bother to check her out Natalia has a strong anti-trump record.
Fusion is also tied to Venezuela and to manufacturing false dirt on human rights activists.
Fusion has ties to many US politicians of both parties – including McCain and Clinton.
Put most simply FusionGPS is a group that actively tries to do what the press is claiming Trump was doing. Fusion Colludes with foreign powers to influence elections, politicians throughout the world. They do so by lying and defaming people. They are strongly tied to Russia (though not only Russia)
And in this election they were working with Democrats.
If you could prove that Trump was in bed with Fusion – you would probably have what you needed to impeach. Trump – Fusion – Russia – meddling.
But what we have in the real world is Clinton (and before that Bush) – Fusion – Russia.
Fusion poses two problems to the Trump – Russia meme.
Fusion WAS working with Russia.
Fusion WAS working against Trump.
That completely obliterates the claim that Russia wanted Trump elected.
You are left with either Russia wanted Clinton
or Russia wanted chaos.
Everything you offer as a problem – is a problem.
But it is all palace intrigue.
It appears to be little more than “Apprentice comes to the WhiteHouse” (I have never watched the apprentice so someone will have to correct me if that is a misperception).
Whether all the shenanigans in the whitehouse are relevant depends on what is accomplished.
For the most part despite the chaos, and despite the constant holy war with the media.
Trump is accomplishing what the President can accomplish.
Apparently the incredibly offensive Scaramucci comments were in an off the record phone call with a reporter. And in response to purported quotes from the reporter by Preibus.
Not a complete excuse – but not my understanding.
Regardless, it would be nice if this stuff was reported accurately.
So many of the unforced errors of this administration have been in style over substance. For Scaramucci to trust any reporter from the mainstream press shows his incredible naivete. Or ego. Probably both.
Like Dave, I don’t consider his trust of Lizza to honor an off-the-record call to be an excuse. His language was crude and offensive. But if Priebus and Bannon are, in fact, the sources of many of the WH leaks that have stalled the President’s agenda, then maybe that information needs to get out.
There is far too much “palace intrigue” going on in this administration, and far too much of it is the fault of Trump not trusting anyone but his family and close friends. I’m not sure I entirely blame him for that, but his bunker mentality will not help him. It’s a nasty situation all around.
The palace intrigue may be interesting and the rest of us may enjoy the voyeurism.
It may advance or impede Trump accomplishing anything.
But it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the election or of Trump’s presidency.
With respect to Scaramucci – Apparently he never asked the conversation to be off the record. Regardless, off or on the record it was stupid.
You do not decide the Press is your enemy and then squeal to the press about your own internal treachery.
On or off the record the conversation should not have occured.
Of course, there is the alternative explanation that Scaramucci did this intentionally, knowing that such a juicy story would be irresistible to the media, would top the news cycle for at least a day, and hasten the resignation or firing of either Priebus or Bannon.
Perhaps Scaramouche can do the Fandango.
Trying to guess exactly what is going on with the palace intrgues is beyond me.
What I know is that Prebius is gone.
That Trump wreched what should have been a good week for him and looked less competent than ever.
I am not beyond beleiving it was a deliberate tactic – I am sure Scott Adam’s would tell us we were all played.
I do not think that Trump is either as politically brilliant as Adam’s thinks or as stupid as the left does.
“Perhaps Scaramouche can do the Fandango”
Bohemian Rhapsody reference noted! Brilliant!
I missed that – thanks!
“I have given Trump all the leaway that I can and now I have decided he is unfit to fill that position since he is allowing his subordinates to attack employees within his staff. .
I think Trump is doing a fine job in foreign affairs since his secretaries in those positions are well qualified. But his White House staff is taking him down the rest of the way after he does himself harm with his ADD. Some may say it is masterful manipulation. I say it is complete incompetence since you can not run a governmental agency like you do a private business. No way, no how, no matter how much you say you will drain the swamp. He is just filling it with Trump crap.”
I always believed you would reach this point Ron. Now, when those who I doubt will ever reach this point reach it anyhow, by the millions, we will see some movement. Where will we be a year from now?
trump has always been clearly unfit to be president, his administration is just as unqualified and looks and acts just as bad I predicted, other than Mattis. He picked a decent and well qualified Supreme court nominee in Gorsuch. Other than that he is the worst case scenario of a person getting a job he is not qualified for and making a complete mess. It is not true that any idiot can be president.
I think that “draining the swamp” is as much a fantasy as the rainbow-farting unicorns promised by the left. Impossible promises are being made. Its not that I have no sympathy at all with the issues (take the VA) that make people of all ideologies see politics as a swamp that needs to be drained (for historical context of how old this impulse is, see Mark Twains acidic evaluation of Washington). But politics will always be politics. While draining the swamp is not happening, gross unprofessionalism is, which weakens us, especially abroad and Mattis cannot stop it single handedly.
trump is something of an American Yeltsin. Yeltsin came into power with the high hopes of his followers. In the end he terribly undermined their aspirations and killed support for western liberal ideas of government in Russia for generations, possibly forever, by the failures of his attempts and finally his own personal inadequacies. trump is doing that for the ideas of his followers. I believe that the idea of tougher screening of foreign entrants will survive trump, not much else that he is promoting is likely to. We will always long to drain the swamp, with very different ideas of what that means depending on ideology.
History is one long crisis, one after another events happen and administrations attempt to contain the damage. In this case, the administration IS the crisis. At some point a crisis will arise outside of the trump administration, some serious economic or foreign policy situation and it will be a crisis on top of a leadership incompetence crisis. One can only hope that when it happens Pence will already be POTUS. donald trump can’t handle the simple stuff, to put it mildly I fear the results of his leadership abilities when real history starts to unfold.
Well I would never had come up with Yeltsin as a comparative figure, but how that fits is remarkable. And when you think Yeltsin had the same support in his Federal Assembly as Trump has in his congress (many opposition members fighting against anything proposed), the comparison between Russia and America become apparent. One only can pray that we don’t have our own Putin (Warren) or someone like that to take over.
Roby, the Yeltsin comparison is quite brilliant.
Thanks Priscilla and Ron, its an imperfect analogy, but if it held true then a swing to the other side and staying stuck there would be the result, a Warren-Sanders flavored progressive dynasty. I don’t think that is the way American politics really works though, the Russians instinctively want a tsar, we don’t. They instinctively believe whoever is in power, we don’t Putin could simply dissolve most media independence and create the official state news, that seems highly improbably here no matter how much we may be cynical about the media. Our American politics are much more alive and real with truly committed and large forces opposing each other rather evenly balanced . trump himself is trying to be on some level that authoritarian putin type of figure but it isn’t working.
The propaganda wars with orchestration from the Kremlin have scared me to my bones, with all the alternate universes good people have found themselves stuck in.
As a sort of non sequiter, the US has meddled in others elections, in the past covertly, especially in the Americas, these days we do it openly as in monitoring elections in Russia and Ukraine. What the west does in the way of monitoring elections for openness and honestly irritates the living hell out of putin and similar authoritarians but it is not at all comparable to what putin has been doing post Ukraine and sanctions in the way of dirty meddling. That so many in the west have been willing to travel with putin appals me, I have been completely broadsided. We could never do in Russia what putin has done in the west with dirty tricks to try to get a sympathetic west. I think he has out clevered himself in the long run.
Roby, we get our underwear in a wad and have a posterior hemorrhage when we find others meddling in our elections, but it is fine with democrats, republicans, moderates, centrist and a few Libertarians when we do it ourselves.
.http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288
The Russians just think that turn about is fair play.
There are some things we must deal with.
Though the IC claims no voting machines were successfully hacked – we need to address that.
Fixing it is not hard.
The rest – we can not prevent. worrying about it is stupid.
We can not prevent foreign nations doing OPO work on US candidates.
We can not prevent them from providing it or using it.
We can not prevent them from putting stories in their own media.
What is interesting is that the things we can do nothing about are highly unlikely to have any effect – unless they are true.
And if Russia or some other foreign nation reveals the truth about a candidate – why should we deliberately choose to be blind to that because it came from Russia ?
The Yeltsin analogy is interesting.
I would also note that both Yeltsin and Trump hint at “The Road to Serfdom”.
Failed government either leads to liberty or totalitarianism.
It does not matter whether you label it “right” totalitarian or left.
Bush lead to Obama, Obama produced Trump.
If Trump actually fails he is likely to be followed by worse.
Failure tends to lead to STRONGER more totalitarian leaders who promise to fix everything given power.
I do not think a Trump failure will lead to a Warren-Sanders.
Both are too weak.
The west has “monitored” elections.
But the US has MEDDLED in elections.
Most of our meddling is covert.
I beleive there were 90+ instances in the last half of the 20th century.
Since the collapse of the USSR we have actively MEDDLED in Russian elections.
We have fomented Coups all over the place.
Worse the consequences of our meddling have been near universally bad,
Ron, look up the journal and look up the author. I will look into the facts behind his comments when I get a chance, but the flavor of them is fairly off for my tastes, its reminiscent of a lefty anti-American mindset, Howard Zinn flavor. Nevertheless I am interested and will make a project out of looking up the Yeltsin election and American involvement to see how much truth is behind his polemic..
Whoever had gotten elected in Russia then was doomed to failure.
In the bad old days we were quite bad at meddling covertly, (or militarily). Perhaps I am an innocent but these days I think our approach to other countries elections has changed. When we have an opinion and a wish its pretty clear and public.
putin certainly does feel aggrieved, most of which is aimed at our open opposition to his methods in his own elections and those in the region. Americans don’t have to agree with his methods to hack our election and its effects, its its own issue. We should be trying as hard to possible to discover what was done and how to stop it next time.
Actually I am all for understanding the point of view of putin and other Russians, its valuable to do that, they do have a point of view and its not all wrong. In my view one point of what putin has done is a warning shot to tell us to leave Russian (and Ukrainian) politics alone, no observers, no commentary, no favorites no sanctions.
The bigger picture is the battle between the western view of democracy and the authoritarian view, which will be going on for a very long time.
Russia was NOT doomed to failure post the collapse of the USSR.
I would strongly recomend viewing PBS’s “the commanding heights: the battle for the world economy”
There is a large segment starting with Jeffrey Sachs and Bolivia in 1985 and running through Poland and the USSR. That deals with Sach’s “Shock Therapy”\
This was initially used to transition Bolivia from failed socialist price controls that were causing massive hyper-inflation to a free market economy.
This approach was incredibly successful in Boliva, Poland. It was also followed successfully in the baltic states and Central europe.
Yeltsin and his people were attempting to do the same in Russia.
They failed. The big reason they failed is that the transition is best done abruptly without warning. With few people knowing it is coming.
There are many reasons for this – one of those being that it is tremendously easy for those in power at the time of the transition to game the shift and profit wildly.
And that is exactly what Happened in Russia. Knowledge of the transition to free markets in Russia became politically too wide spread, the Russian Duma was involved and politicians and former Soviet Aparatiches positioned themselves to get rich from the transition.
Had Yeltsin being able to move more quickly the degree of corruption would have been far less and what would have emerged would have been more likely a working political and economic system.
Sach’s has subsequently shifted left and backpedaled away from his own efforts that essentially remade much of the world in a very positive way.
Further this is not the only way to transition to a free market economy, but it is the only way that has ever worked in essentially failed states – like much of the USSR.
China has managed a gradual transition that has taken 40 years.
Thatcher very successfully desocialized much but not all of the UK and preventing England from becoming a failed state.
Regardless, Russia did not have to fail as it did. Many other parts of the USSR transitioned very successfully – particularly poland and the baltic states.
The significant aspects of the past week are that loose lips at the whitehouse distracted attention from numerous real issues throughout washington.
I have serious problems with Trump’s attack’s on Sessions and Scaramucci’s rants.
The make the whitehouse less effective and diminish its ability to accomplish anything.
They do not however undermine its legitimacy.
And this is the big problem that few of you understand.
You seem to think that Trump can be replaced – because you do not like his policies – the ones that got him elected.
Because you do not like his style – the style that got him elected.
Because at times the whitehouse is chaotic and poorly coordinated.
These are all reasons that people can choose to vote differently in 2020.
None of these are the same as making arrangements for hush money, or lying under oath about the central topic of the deposition.
The ultimate measure of Trump as president is his actual accomplishments.
At the top of those will be what happens regarding the economy.
His style will be blamed if he fails and called genius if he succeeds.
On the one issue of substance regarding the election.
Kusner has testified under oath. He noted one meeting with Kislyack prior to the election.
A 30 minute conversation with 26 diplomats in which he talked to Kislyak for a minute,
and later could not remember his name.
He noted the meaningless Magnivinsky meeting.
AFTER the election there were 2 or 3 meetings.
The purported “back channel” meeting was about Syria – Kushner was arranging to get brief by the Russians regarding their efforts in Syria.
The so called back door communications chanel was actually just communications for the Russian forces in syria to commuicate with the Russian embassy.
Kushner had nothing to do with it and it had nothing to do with the Kremlin and aparently never happened.
It is probable that ever details of these can not be verified.
It is probable that scrutiny will expose atleast a few factual errors.
What matters is not if Kushner’s account is perfect, but is it is deliberately deceptive.
Find a few more meetings before the election would be damaging to Kushner – but not to Trump’s legitimacy. Finding alot more would be a big deal.
The left likes to fixate on after the election meetings.
I can not see how they are relevant in anyway.
Regardless with respect to Kuchner – the left and the press have to demonstrate that Kushner has lied – not in a little way but a big way.
If you do not – then atleast with respect to Kushner the Russia Trump meme dies.
Trump Jr. will shortly testify – as will Maneforte.
Shortly you will have the facts with respect to Russia committed to by the Trump Campaign.
Barring some unexpected startling revelation, the burden is now going to be on you to prove they are lying – in a big way, or there is some other secret unfound channel.
The other major problem you have is that you claim Russian influence.
I do not know what that means.
But whatever it means I think you have two huge issues.
You have to prove substantially greater entanglement with Russia than Clinton – right now you have substantially less, and you have to prove that it had an effect.
The Clinton mail server does nto get you there. That was a major factor in the election.
Russia did not factor in that at all. Had they Clinton would have lost the election and gone to jail. All putin ever had to do to end the elction at any point was to produce evidence that Russia had acquired classified information from Clinton’s mail server.
The DNC hack does nto get you there.
While I do not even beleive the Russians did it. Even if you actually have Trump colluding with Russia to do it, you have the problem that the emails are still damning and true.
So what other ways could Russia have actually influenced the election ?
Did they change votes ?
Did they plant the story abotu Clinton and Walking pneumonia.
There is not some secret thing that Riussia did that effected millions of votes.
We did not vote for Trump because of Russia or against Clinton because of Russia.
We voted for the lessor evil knowing that both were pretty evil.
Ron, here is where my trail led on the 1996 Russian election. In fact the original link you gave was, according to my tastes, an insubstantial rambling anti US pro putin tale by a California academic lefty author in a rather seamy journal with little actual US involvement to support the authors main story line. Part of the tale was backed up by WIki, but it was not the tale of the US using dirty tricks to interfere with a Russian election. Clearly we did not want Russia back in the hands of a Communist candidate, duh. None of our actions were in any way hidden (we openly favored Yeltsin and supported an IMF loan to Russia that was used to pay back pensions).
But, of course we have meddled covertly in the past in many places and so yes, it is not unreasonable for someone say turnabout is a bitch isn’t it.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html
What Russia did in our recent election was covert, pure dirty tricks, in the classic dirty Russian style that has included many assassinations, poisoning of a Ukrainian candidate among other nasty methods. We have every right to be furious and I have deep contempt for trump for taking the position of the Russian state propaganda machinery over the statements and conclusions of our own intelligence agencies. I am 100% certain, to be redundant, that conservatives would be in a boiling rage if a liberal candidate acted like that and won and that they would scream treason (and I would agree because it is treasonous) and claim that the election was tainted. We are not going to rerun the election, its over, but trump has tainted himself and has himself to blame for his Russian troubles. This should never happen again, which is why it needs to be investigated into every corner.
I beleieve CNN had s history professor on reporting on US election interference from 1960-2000. He identified almost 100 instances in that 40 years that the US had actively interfered in the elections of other countries.
2/3 of those were overt. Those in which we acted overtly had the lest bad outcomes – US involvement overt or not is not welcome – just as we do not welcome russian interference.
I do not see the overt/covert distinction as significant.
I would further note that I do not think that coups and revolutions that we staged were counted as part of “election interference”
We should take George Washington’s advice and stay out of the affairs of other nations.
With specific respect to Russian interfance in 2016.
If they hacked or tried to hack our voting terminals – that is something we need to prevent.
Even if they did not they is a known problem there that is easily correctable.
Any involvement they had in spreading stories about one candidate or the other, whether true or false, is not preventable.
If you are going to have elections at all, you must have faith in voters that they can sort our the lies from the truth – which I think they do fairly well.
Because there is no remedy if that is not true.
One of the problems with the left’s Russia influenced the election meme, is that
it is essentially a call for censorship.
Any mechanism that will stop russian influence will ultimately control all voices.
“If you are going to have elections at all, you must have faith in voters that they can sort our the lies from the truth – which I think they do fairly well”
Trump voters belie your naïvety:
A quick Google shows the following misguided Trump-supporter obliviousness to the facts:
During the campaign 59 percent of those who viewed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee favorably thought Obama was not born in the US; only 13 percent believed he’s a Christian. Two-Thirds of Trump Backers thought Obama was Muslim.
After the election, more than half of Republicans incorrectly believe Trump won the Popular Vote.
More recently, only half of all Trump supporters believe the President’s son met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign – a fact Donald Trump Jr himself has confirmed.
“Trump voters be!ie your naivety”
Jay stop blaming Trump voters for the situation we are in. Had liberal voters had a brain cell working during the primaries, the democrats would not have had Clinton nor Sanders, both unacceptable to the moderate voters that make the difference in who gets elected. Had they used their brain, then they may have chosen someone acceptable to main stream America and Trumps torched earth campaign probably would not have worked.
As a result of their decision to pick the worst two possible candidates to oppose the worst GOP candidate chosen by a minority of GOP voters , moderate unsigned voters had little choice if they did not vote for the better candidate in the field. Gary Johnson was considered unqualified and a pothead , but he looks like a genius to what we have now or what the alternative was.
Lets assume arguendo that Trump voters got it wrong – what is your remedy ?
I do not presume voters are perfect – I constrain government with bright line rules so that no matter who they elect the harm is minimal.
How is it you plan on fixing this hypothetical problem of the broken Trump voter ?
Re-education camps ?
Litmus tests for voters ?
Further I thought you were a democratic majoritarian.
What is it that Russia did to our recent election that actually mattered ?
This is the fundimental problem with this left wing nut nonsense.
As best I can tell the “russian influence” you are blaming, is that voters voted differently than you had hoped and theirfore it must have been because of some evil outside force.
Rather than accept that a large portion of the country rejects your values,
you have to beleive that they are stupid and easily influenced.
That massive amounts of money made them vote wrong.
But this election pretty much refuted the Money argument – because Trump spent about half what Clinton did and less than Romney. Possibly less than McCain.
So it had to be evil russian influence.
So what is it that russians did that changed large numbers of peoples votes ?
You say Trump has tainted himself – yet anyone paying the slightest attention to the evidence will quickly realize there is an order of magnitude more connections between Clinton and Russia than Trump.
Obama is now getting blamed for not making a big deal over the Russians sooner.
But there are three good reasons he did not:
First the russian activity was relatively small and not unusual.
There was nothing different with respect to Russia than in 2012 or 2008 or …
Second making an issue of it would bring more unwanted attantion to Clinton’s dealings with Russia which are far greater than trump’s.
Three it was not going to have an effect and Obama knew it.
The allegations regarding Russia where public long before the election.
In fact as I learn more I now know there was LESS contact between Trump and Russia than I had beleived on election day.
Further there is MORE involving Clinton than I knew.
And MORE misconduct involving the Obama administration.
I do not care much if you want to waste a billion dollars investigating,
But if you do, then conduct a real investigation.
The first thing you need to do is shut down the special prosecutor.
This is a counter intelligence investigation not a criminal one.
Where there is evidence that there is probable cause that a US Person has committed a crime – refer THAT specifically for criminal investigation prosecution.
Though honestly, I do not even know why we need an investigation.
There are a few specific things Russia did or may have done:
1) Hack voting machines. I and many others have been claiming our computerized voting machines are vulnerable since 2002 and HAV.
The fixes are cheap and easy. The simplest is do not use computers to vote.
Alternately assure that the voting machine produces a paper record that the voter can audit. The best would be a two step process – the voting terminal produces a paper ballot that is separately scanned to record the vote.
Regardless, the paper ballots need to be saved and made publicly avialble so that the press and other groups an audit them later.
So long as you have two attributes:
The ability of the voter to verify their vote
The ability to count the raw ballots after the election.
It does not matter how easy upstream fraud is.
It will always be detected eventually and therefore there is no incentive.
2). Provided OPO research to candidates.
Though clearly the Trump campaign sought OPO research from Russia.
Only the Clinton campaign actually got any.
Further the Clinton results demonstrate the whole idiocy of trying to thwart that.
The Steele Dossier was a complete peice of crap.
Only people engaged in wishful thinking bought it.
Fundimentally OPO research comes in two forms – true and false.
If burglars had attacked Trump Towers and found unequivocal evidence that Trump had murdered someone would we try to put the gennie back into the bottle because that was discovered criminally ? The Steele Dossier demonstrates the (lack) of value of false OPO research.
Regardless, what Dirt did Trump use on Clinton that he got from the Russians ?
3). Some form of advertising.
We live in a global world – it is not possible to silence people or nations.
Nor would we want to. If we could figure out how to silence Russia, we would be starting down the slippery slope.
“Russia was NOT doomed to failure post the collapse of the USSR.”
“Regardless, Russia did not have to fail as it did. Many other parts of the USSR transitioned very successfully – particularly poland and the baltic states.”
Rot. Get a clue. Russia was in an entirely different position in teh USSR than Poland. Russia lost its empire, Poland did not. Russia is steeped by hundreds of years of tradition and conditioning in mindless bureaucracy and forced its destructive communist economics on its unwilling neighbors by force to its own advantage. That is not the position Poland and the Baltics were in. Russia lost its economic slaves. The slaves gained their economic freedom. Needless to say the economic situations of the Russian near abroad improved (but only after suffering and over time) when the Russian oppression was broken while the Russian economy was struck by an entire series of disruptions in its accustomed patterns, which themselves did not produce a healthy economy even when they had the “near abroad” at gunpoint.
Russia was doomed to experience economic turmoil when it lost its empire and a considerable portion of its markets, and having left a communist economy behind had no choice but to enter a capitalist system in which it had little experience and no instinctive understanding. You have looked up a few sources and put together a ridiculous argument about something you know little about. Fake expertise for show.
You just love to argue, to reflexively contradict anything that moves. You of all people ought to realize what happens when an uber uber uber centralized economy collapses almost overnight.
Here is the Youtube links to “the commanding heights: the battle for the world economy”.
It is excellent, it is 6 hours long. You really should watch the whole thing, you would learn alot.
But the parts relevant to the current discussion are int he middle of episode two
Bolivia starts about 50min, Poland after that and Russia after that.
Russia failed in its transition to a free market economy SOLELY because it moved to slow and acted too publicly, giving Soviet aparatacks the opportunity to game the transition.
The modern russian oligarchs are mostly former powerful Soviets
Regardless, there was no fundimental cause for Russia’s failure to transition aside for proceeding too slowly and too publicly.
Your arguments are wrong.
Russia had choices – and what it chose was NOT ca capitalist market system, but a different form of managed totalitarian system.
Change in empire does not inherently mean loss of trade.
There is no US empire – and yet we trade with the world.
The most imortant thing in trade is trust, and pre-existing relationaships are always more trusted than new ones. The dissolution of the USSR would not have noticably negatively impacted trade. between former states of the USSR.
The argument I am making is not fake – but yours is.
It is not even my argument.
It is that of both actual history – the PBS video includes interviews witht he actual soviet economists who tried to bring about the transition – as well as those in Poland, and Bolivia, and … that did.
It also includes the views of many of the worlds most prominent economists.
BTW Sach’s “Shock therapy” what took place in Chile, Bolivia, Poland (most of eastern europe) – and succeeded – only failing (sort of) in the USSR, is not the only successful economic path.
If you bother to watch the whole series which will mostly connect things you already know from modern history in a way that makes my point – that the past 50 years have been an incredible and successful global transition from Socialism to more free market economies that has resulted in double the population being twice as wealthy as before – i.e. a 4 fold increase in global wealth – and the vast majority of that benefiting the poorest people in the world.
BTW there is a book
The book covers many many many examples not in the movie.
But PBS did an excellent job of telling the story compellingly.
If you want data – go to the book. If you want the themes presented so they are easy to understand go to the moving.
Roby;
This is tiresome. We both lived through much the same history.
Clearly you remember little of it, remember it badly and learned nothing from it.
And have adopted an ideology that has a century and a half history of horrendous failure.
The tremendous global changes that occured over the last 50 years of the 20th century – though mostly in the last 20, are indesputeable facts.
Paul Samuelson – the leading light of progressive economics who was telling us right through 1989 that the USSR was going to surpass the US as the worlds economic powerhouse any moment now – is dead.
Throughout the world even politicians have learned socialism – even “democratic socilaism” is a failure.
The rate of progress has slowed – because since there are very few socialist economies any more and the evidence of failure is old idiots like Sanders are selling a new generation that has not seen the hell of socialism the myth of the socialist unicorn.
Though I want to make clear – socialism is just the most recognizable form of controlled economies rather than market economies.
If you actually bother the watch the video’s I linked, the “battle for the world economy”
Was not between socialists and capitalists.
It was between top down and bottom up economic management.
The specific idiological labels do not matter.
Top down fails.
Bottom up improves standard of living for all faster than anything else.
Any claim to the country is falsified by history.
It is what you are selling that is fake.
What happens when a centralized economy collapses depends on how fast those in power react and what they do.
For the most part government needs to do nothing – except quit imposing central planning.
Free Markets arrise on their own organically.
They need know help from government.
The former black markets transition to open free markets.
The primary danger is that those in power do not like to let go of power and see any disruptive transition as an oportunity – which it is.
But the purpose of government is to use power to protect freedom.
Not to use power to peronally benefit.
“I do not see the overt/covert distinction as significant.”
Even for you this is an inscrutable remark. Laying your cards openly on the table and working in secret, mostly because what you are doing is dirty and would produce outrage, are day and night. Perhaps a cloudy day, but day nevertheless.
“One of the problems with the left’s Russia influenced the election meme, is that it is essentially a call for censorship”.
You can always find an even more absurd statement to make, its remarkable, as you build your oblivious case for the nothingberger side. Foiling the KGB next election would be an infringement on freedom?!?! You are living in your own private universe of extreme libertarianism. Yet, the weakness and absurdity of your arguments does have the value of showing how far one has to have their head up their tuckus to believe the nothingberger point of view, do you are preforming a service.
“We should take George Washington’s advice and stay out of the affairs of other nations.”
It sounds great. The history of the world and the history of the US show that no powerful nation has ever followed that advice. It would be a different world if everyone followed that advice, but its just a fantasy. We were entangled in other nations affair’s from before our birth and never disentangled. In the 20th century we became a powerhouse and a critical factor in world affairs and we were in a more powerful position to act in international affairs, for good and bad. Many of the results, we can ALL agree, have been terrible, horrifying. Pol Pot comes to mind. On the other hand a Stalinist communist world a la N. Korea would have been even more terrible. Could it have engulfed Asia, Europe, South America, Africa without the American counterweight? Did we prevent that? We will never know.
Which wars are futile, which interferences made things worse is So clear… in hindsight. Many clearly backfired and we will never know which ones prevented a worse fate than ours is now. Our American job today is to make putins covert actions to aid one side he favored and harm the other he feared, as if we were Ukraine, fail. An American political candidate or party has enough to contend with battling the opposition party, battling the Russian secret service/assange/wikileaks at the same time takes the problems to another level. Just imagine that China had favored Clinton and hacked the GOP and exposed every stupid or venal statement they could dig out of e-mails and acted through their own assange equivalent. Just imagine that the Chinese or N. Koreans hack the GOP and exploit the rifts in the wings of the party in the next election. Just imagine that the dem candidate praises them and encourages them while stating that none of that is happening. GOP officials and voters will not be so quick to claim that there was no effect if they lose.
There is no magical way to reverse history and human nature and remove the US from the affairs of other nations. The different worlds that could potentially result from such a magical disengagement are not all bright and rosy, some of them are catastrophic. One may as well wait for peaceful aliens to land and use a magical ray on the human race that turns us all into buddhists.
Your views are naive on every level.
But I will be fair and partially save you from your naive rhetoric. Your rhetoric is typically Davelike, its absolute: simply leave other nations to manage their own affairs, period. There is a moderate path, ponder history and meddle considerably less often and more carefully and do it openly when it comes to political processes. I think I will get 100% approval on that, moderate, suggestion. (Cept no one will see it because I just wrote a damn long winded book instead of the two sentences I intended.)
There is a narrow sphere of morality that belongs in the public space.
That is those aspects of morality I keep carping on.
The rest is individual.
I doubt that you and I agree on what is and is not moral – there is certainly an enormous amount of moral pontificating on the left today.
It is like watching Jimmy Sweigart.
Regardless, no we are not obligated to lay all our cards on the table all the time.
Did Russia use force ?
If not then please explain – specifically, not hypothetically what Russia did – using specific acts that we can test – rather than “hacking” or “influence”
The “influence” claim is what is called a logical fallacy – petitio principii, circular reasoning or begging the question.
I do not expect an answer – there isn’t one.
And that is the problem with the meme.
Ultimately this dies because your real examples of what Russia did are inconsequential.
That is why you do not speak about specific acts.
That is dishonest and arguably immoral.
I do not care a whole lot about Russia’s ability to excercise free speech in our elections.
But I do care about mine.
There are two problems.
Barring Russia from speaking requires a gatekeeper.
I am never agreeing to grant govenrment that power – not even when “russia” is involved.
The next is that though I like our constitution, most of the time I am interesting in inalienable – natural rights, not constitutional rights.
Free speech is more than a constitutional right.
I am angry with Russia for censoring its own people – not for its own speech.
Regardless, the claim from Jay’s clip is that Russian’s interfered by trolling social media and publishing things on RT.
Please explain to me how you are going to empower government to thwart that without empowering government to supress other speach ?
Ah the stupid fantasy argument.
Actually you have that backwards.
Staying out of the affairs of others is pretty easy.
We do not do it because governments are about power and power corrupts,
because those who think themselves or their cause just think they can handle power when others can not.
It is not my world view that is utopian – but yours.
I beleive that humans are basically good and that with only a few constraints can sort things out on their own.
That they will not do so perfectly, but they will learn from their mistakes and spiral slowly towards perfection without ever reaching it.
You are selling perfection – not I.
Pol Pot came to power as a result of our meddling – not a good example.
You seem to think that disentanglement from the affairs of other nations – is the same as Tolstoyan non-resistance to evil.
We fought Japan when they attacked up.
We fought Hitler when he declared war on us.
I have no problem with using force against those who use force against their neighbors.
But our meddling in the internal affairs of other nations has never done us any good.
We have near universally failed miserably.
Please give me an example where we meddled where we did not belong in the affairs of another country that was successful ?
With respect to your question “which”
I do not specifically want to sell “just war theory” but it atleast is a starting point, and a demonstration that we can define what conduct is moral and what is not.
“Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
“While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. ”
“A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice”
“Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.”
“Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.”
“The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.”
Regardless, of whether you accept the above or not – are you going to argue that we just pick and choose when we wish to wage war ?
You seem to be arguing that because atleast once we have behaved rightly that we are always right.
Julian Assange the great villain of the left – got it
If Assange published Trump’s tax returns tomorow he would be your hero.
Your selling a dystopia and calling me naive ?
Your last paragaph pretty much nails the problem with you and so many here.
“Moderate – we are not sure what it is, but it is in the middle somewhere, and it si definitely right – because it is in the middle”
If you can not explain why something is right or wrong you are either immoral or amoral.
“What is it that Russia did to our recent election that actually mattered ?”
Dave I have no idea where you got the idea that being oblivious is a form of effective argument.
I could turn the whole silly form back on you with a series of What is it that… questions that target things that bother you and then let you knock yourself out explaining and then say, so what? Why does that matter? each time till you scream. But that would be cruel and I don’t have the time for it.
Somewhere I came across your recent statement that you don’t even believe the Russians were involved in the hacks at all. Why am I supposed to care if you live in an alternate universe?
Your blindness, obtuseness, oblivion are your own personal issue, not the world’s. It just shows how much effort spent on denial it takes to make a nothingberger out of this, in contrast to the opinion of every single statement by any American intelligence official on the Russian covert operation, who take it seriously, to the last man.
Put that much effort into trying to levitate and you still won’t get off the ground. This nonsense isn’t working either.
Now, I am going back to my longstanding policy of not responding to your posts when you are in denial of reality mode. Say something is some other more sensible mode and I may care.
Roby
Deflection is not argument.
Whether I am oblivious does not preclude being specific.
The problem is yours – the emperor has no clothes.
There is nothing that Russia did that altered the outcome of this election and nearly everyone knows it.
Oddly Trump’s scurrilous character helps him
Ultimately to win this argument with the electorate – not me, you must persuade them that they elected someone they did not know.
Nixon ran on a law and order platform and then acted lawlessly.
Trump has always been himself. Voters knew what they were buying.
You have to change that and you can’t.
To a lessor extent you have the same problem with Russia.
To really get Trump voters to abandon ship you must convince them Russia did more than they beleived at the time of the election.
Regarding “Russia hack’s”
We have been given no actual evidence that Russia attacked voting machines.
But the IC has asserted that the Russians attempted to attack some machines in each of 22 states and failed.
I do not doubt someone did. I am surprised they failed. Our voting machines are horribly insecure. It is an area I know alot about.
I am not an actual white hat/black hat or aka security consultant.
But I have spent 40 years dealing with computers and networking and security and cryptography. I had friends in the NSA and worked indirectly for the NSA, I have also worked indirectly form the FBI and for IAEC. I have worked alongside cryptographers on systems that both encode and decode encrypted messages.
I have written firewall software. I have written TCP/IP stacks for embedded systems.
I know alot about networks and security.
Our voting machines are insecure. The computerized machines were a very bad idea to begin with. Worse the overall design violates just about every security principle.
An effective hack of US voting machines to tip an election by a politician or party is unlikely.
But not for reasons that should make us feel secure.
It is unlikely because alot of machines would probably have to be hacked.
Because too many people would have to be part of a conspiracy.
Because there is a moderate probability that they would get caught and the consequences would be disasterous.
The threat that Russia was hacking voting machines is even more serious.
many of the factors that inhibit politicians hacking our voting systems might have less effect on a country.
In this entire meme this is by far the most dangerous.
I know out machines are insecure.
I know russia has the capability to actually hack them, rather than just annoy us.
Demonstrate that Russia changed a fair number of votes in rust belt states and Trump is going to spend whatever is left of his life in jail.
We will not need evidence that Trump was involved.
But you are not going to get there. If there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that, we would know it by now.
With respect to the IC claims – no I do not beleive they no what they are talking about.
I think that the US IC is pretty poor with respect to security.
Our IC resources are not focused on hardening ourselves or anyone else.
They are focused on breaking in to others. Our CyberIC is good at attacking, it knows nothing about defending.
I would further suggest that much of our so called knowledge of Russian capabilities are more guesses based on our own capabilites.
CIA and NSA get hacked all the time. While they are big targets their security is poor.
Voting machines are worse.
I would further note that Russian Hacking is structurally different from that of the US.
There are a small number of actual Russian Government hackers.
Most Russian hackers are really cyber criminals. Russian hackers steal about 38B/year from US banks. The Russian government provides those private hackers “protection” in return for doing some hacking for the government.
If Russian’s hacked the DNC or voting machines they were almost certainly not Russian Government employees. Whether they were doing so as agents of the government or on their own is impossible to determine.
Specifically with respect to the DNC.
What we KNOW:
Wikileaks received actual damaging emails from the DNC.
The DNC has confirmed the authenticity of the emails.
Things we MIGHT know:
That the DNC was hacked twice with older Russian hacking tools.
We only know this fromt he CrowdStrike report.
Every other source of this – including the FBI is relying solely on CrowdStrike.
No one else has looked at the server or network.
Things we do not actually know:
Whether those hacks actually happened.
CrowdStrike is infamous for “Russia, Russia, Russia” and usually wrong
Presuming Crowstrike is correct about the 2 hacks and the tools.
We do not know that those hacks resulted in aquiring the DNC emails.
We do not know that actual Russians did the hacking.
The use of older tools means one of three things:
It was not russians but other hackers who use out of date russian tools.
It was Russians – but not top tier russian hackers or their would have used newer tools.
It was Russians and they used older tools to cast blame elsewhere.
Further we know that The FBI and US IC have no information beyond the crowdstrike report because they said so.
There are several specific claims regarding the Source.
One is DNC staffer Seth Rich – wikipedia has come as close as they ever have to identifying a source in identifying Rich.
He is dead – purportedly killed in a mugging gone wrong.
That story is very messy. There purportedly is a laptop of his that no one has been able to examine.
There is a tie between Rish and the Pakistani DNC scandal that is eruppting right now – the House DNC caucus appears to have hired a cliche of Pakistani’s who may have been spying for ISI (pakistani intelligence).
There is alot of stuff that has been recovered and we shall see if it leads anywhere.
There are alteast some claims that one of these pakistani’s killed rich and that it had to do with the DNC emails.
There are alot of unknowns on the Rick-Pakistani-DNC story.
but there is nothing yet that refutes it.
There is a separate story that Guicifer2.0 hacked the DNC.
That has been pretty much debunked.
The above is what is know with respect to the DNC emails.
Anyone saying we know enough to know it was the Russians is lying or ignorant.
That includes the FBI
“Now, I am going back to my longstanding policy of not responding to your posts when you are in denial of reality mode.”
Paraphrased – if you do not agree with me you are wrong, and and I do not have to demonstrate that.
“Paraphrased – if you do not agree with me you are wrong, and and I do not have to demonstrate that.”
You crack me up. You have been trying for years to force everyone here to agree with you, drip, drip, drip like water on a rock.
You are right, I do not HAVE (interesting word for a so called libertarian to use: HAVE) to demonstrate anything to you, though god knows I have often been roped into the endless game of talking to your wall of a mind. My Choice, (Its called free will, liberty, freedom, etc.) is to engage with you on topics till its clear that its has become absurd and isn’t worth it to me. Clearly you are not willing to accept my choices of when a conversation is worth it and when its not. You try every manipulative trick in the book to keep the foot in the door of your perpetual fanatical sales pitch. Hypocrisy of the deepest philosophical order! You violate every libertarian principle you claim to have in your behaviors towards many other posters, whether you realize it or not.
Cease and desist. I am broadening my decision to include not responding to all of your posts. My silly mistake for having given you another try. Your nonsense gives me a headache.
Sorry Roby; but wrong.
I will be happy to agree with you when you make your case.
You do not even try.
I can not get arguments, principles, reason, facts, pretty much anything from those of you on the left.
Your “argument” if one could call it that is
“I am right, it is obvious (to me) and I do not have to support what I claim”.
That is true pretty much regardless of the issue.
No you do not have to demonstrate anything – if you do not wish to be credible.
I can not force you to accept my arguments, and I can not force you to demonstrate why they are wrong. Your freedom means you can beleive the earth is flat, and pigs fly.
But if you want me – or others that do not share your beleifs to agree, you have to persuade us.
The last election demonstrates that prior fallacious techniques, class warfare and name calling are not working anymore.
You want to get anywhere you are going to have to find something that works.
My suggestion is facts, reason, logic.
Regardless, you do not have to do anything.
What you may not do is shift from persuasion to force.
You were not morally permitted to do so when you held the reigns of power.
You most certainly can not when you do not.
Nothing I am engaging in is a “trick” all the walls you hit with me are facts, logic reason.
You might want to think about the possiblity that I can attack your positions from myriads of angles is not because I am brilliant or “tricky” but because your positions is unbeleivably weak. It is not that hard to defend a strong position.
Regardless, those of you on the left here do not try.
I have come at you from a thousand different directions trying to get you to provide something that establishes when you can and can not use force.
That should be something fundimental. Without an answer to that how can you have government ? Without an answer the nazi’s, Stalin, Mao, and a long list of bloody tyrants are moral.
I have yet to hear from one of you on the left any explanation for when force is permitted and when it is not.
This is the most important societal question there is. Further the answer can not be overly complex – because whatever the answer every human – smart or stupid must intinctively understand it.
Yet, you have nothing.
Your free will is incredibly important – as is mine. The extent of It is what distinguishes us from all other creatures. It is why we though we are social we are not ants or bees, or wolves.
Ultimately your unlimited free will is going to conflict with that of others.
So what defines the extent of our freedom, or what defines the constraint of it.
Or more precisely when can force be used in conflict with the free will of another ?
You give yourself your own headache.
You are responsible for your own life
You say I am hypocritical ? I have given you my core principles over and over and over.
How have I violated them ?
I have never initiated violence or fraud against anyone.
To the extent humanly possible I have kept every binding agreement I have ever made. I the rare instances I can not even recall, if I failed to keep and agreement I corrected whatever damages that caused.
If my ACTS have caused real harm to others – I have made them whole.
So what hypocracy ?
You do not think you are tedious and tiring ? Hypocritical ?
You have no problems tossing out insults.
I really do not care about whatever you beleive so long as you do not impose it by force on others.
If you want PPACA, or whatever your favorite left wing program of the moment.
Get together with all who share that value and impose it one your selves voluntarily.
You complain about hypocracy – isn’t it hypocracy to force on others what you can not manage to do yourself voluntarily ?
Our disputes are not fundimentally about me.
I am not seeking to use force to get you to conform to my beleifs.
You are all about using force to impose yours on others.
And when anyone challenges you on it the name calling begins.
Look Dave, old buddy, I don’t want to be one of the too many people hiding behind a screen name to heave dung at those whose ideas are not consistent mine, so, I don’t want to heave vitriol at you either. Just leave me in peace about politics, we don’t agree in this arena on too much to spend any more time doing the same old dance over and over. Know when to walk away from a fruitless argument.
Peace to you and enjoy your political opinions. I have other ones.
More on the wonderful benefits of government.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/07/26/2_million_bathroom_134569.html
How the world has changed.
http://humanprogress.org/blog/how-globalization-saved-the-world?utm_content=buffer9e7fd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“6So many of the unforced errors of this administration…”
“Unforced errors” seems a fitting term.
With our President’s actual experience and connection with the big show of WWF (particularly alluding to the proven success of the villain shtick) and his experience and connections to reality TV, including Trump’s connection to the producer (I think) of the fabulously successful “Survivor” in which the obnoxious rule breaker was the fan favorite and show winner, what are your opinions of the conspiracy theory that these WH vs. the Left and WH vs. the “Fake News” is to some extent an expected and not-fully-controllable but nonetheless semi-manipulated provocation/smoke screen to help keep the populace occupied (like a more educated version of WWF audience) while other activities and deals occur around the globe?
I didn’t say I accept this conspiracy theory, but I admit it’s fun to consider.
I didn’t say there aren’t real squabbles, leaks, hatred, intrigue, etc., but that Trump and others have long ago resigned to let the side show happen, as it has its advantages…
What conspiracy ? The conflicts between Trump and the Press and Trump and the left are not secret, they are out in the open.
I am increasingly convinces that Scott Adam’s is correct – while Trump has made mistakes, much of this is deliberate.
Come 2020 we see if it is working.
Keep them essentially in two camps, squabbling endlessly, and it will be much more difficult for the People to coordinate…
I am not a fan of coordination inside of government.
for term limits for instance. It will be a lot harder for the People to coordinate for things like term limits. Imagine if we had to continually deal with new blood in the government, and their annoying principles, instead of our entrenched senators and their loyalties to their particular wings of established circumstances. That f-ing Constitution.
Term limits require a constitutional amendment, that requires 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate to vote for it – not happening.
You want term limits – you need a constitutional convention.
And for the record, I am not automatically anti-establishment. I like strong institutions. We shouldn’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. In fact, I want very much to preserve the many healthy aspects of our civilization. I despise the dangerous “ignorant rabble” a tad more than comfy bureaucrats and stuffy gatekeepers and self-protecting experts. At least there is some knowledge and skill within the so-called establishment. I’m not being sarcastic here. This is one of the nuances I don’t think I was able to communicate to Roby in the past, part of why I bristled at being lumped in with the directionless cretin portion of populist movements. No, I value the finer points of art, science, commerce, etc. But where I draw the line is at the subset of multinationals and globalists who knowingly and unknowingly undermine our system of government, our historic grand experiment, to protect their wealth, and their access to more wealth. Nothing wrong with wealth accumulation, Dave, but not at the expense of legal self-direction. As a Libertarian, surely the value of institutions of self-direction (vs. Despotism, monarchy, oligarchy, tyranny, and chaos) must supersede and outweigh limitless wealth accumulation, and conglomeration, the People be fanned.
So, the defeat of the Obamacare repeal will make any middle class tax cut next to impossible. The huge expansion of Medicaid under OCare has blown a whole in the federal budget of monumental proportions.
The reality is that our ruling class wants control of the healthcare system, lock, stock and barrel, and that control will necessarily require tax revenue from the middle class.
It’s interesting that John McCain used his return to Washington to stab his voters in the back ~ he campaigned on full repeal and replacement. I am under no illusions that there weren’t others who would have done so if McCain hadn’t cast the vote that killed repeal ~ but he knows that he will not ever have to face the voters of Arizona again.
Anyway, what’s done is done, and it was barely a repeal anyway. So, let’s see what Mick Mulvaney and Steve Mnuchin can do…….
It’s hot out there, Pat ~ some of the people may want to be fanned!
“It’s interesting that John McCain used his return to Washington to stab his voters in the back ~ he campaigned on full repeal and replacement. I am under no illusions that there weren’t others who would have done so if McCain hadn’t cast the vote that killed repeal ~ but he knows that he will not ever have to face the voters of Arizona again.”
This was not a vote on repeal if I understand it correctly. As to replace, that is a very broad concept. Replace with what is the question. Just any old thing? In my view McCain just may have saved the GOP from a world of hurt, though he will get little thanks. I believe that is called character, courage fits as well.
Since he does not have to face voters again and probably is not long for this world, why would he vote like this, what would be his motivation? Something impure and dastardly? Or just perhaps, the good of the country and the good of the GOP? I heard quite a bit of his excellent speech the other day, this vote is consistent with it.
I wish Obamacare had never existed. But it does exist and it cannot simply be unplugged, (repealed) that is a very naive idea, no matter what some voters want. If it were flat out repealed I don’t think you would like the political consequences, at all. Just give the GOP base what they want, on abortion, healthcare, tax policy. Then say hello to a progressive dynasty.
I would not presume to know McCain’s motives.
Myriads of replacements were voted on.
Some of those would as you note have been abysmally bad for the GOP.
Though I doubt we agree on those.
Any permutation of ObamaCare Lite would have seriously discredited republicans and left them owning the healthcare mess.
I think that they should have voted for straight repeal or some of the other forms such as Cruz’s poison pill amendment.
But I am not at all unhappy with the result. When ObamaCare Fails (worse than it already has), We will know which senators and representatives to hold accountable.
And democrats still own ObamaCare.
Those are good outcomes.
Yes, Roby, it can be simply unplugged.
Though there are some simple things that can be done to improve beyond what we had before. Even returning to what existed previously – which is what a straight repeal would accomplish would have far more real winners than losers.
Nothing has no losers. ObamaCare has alot of losers, and a few winners.
Repeal is neither naive nor greately dangerous.
One of the interesting things about PPACA is that broadly speaking its winners are democrats and its losers are republicans.
Both regionally – most of the areas where PPACA is death spiraling are republican areas.
And even just individually.
There are alot of people who would never vote Republican if PPACA is repealed – virtually all of them are never going to vote republican anyway.
I do not beleive that kind of crass politics should be the basis for making these decisions.
But republicans did not create healthcare reform that screwed republicans and helped democrats. And they should not be afraid of repealing it.
You make some very good points, here, Roby. There is no doubt that, had this “skinny repeal” (sounds like some sort of beauty treatment ~ part liposuction/part facial) passed, the GOP leadership would have patted itself on the back, claimed that they had gotten the infernal thing done, and whatever disaster followed would be known as Trumpcare. And, I don’t hold Trump blameless here ~ he needed to be more engaged then he was, but it’s pretty obvious that what he knows about healthcare would fill up a thimble ~ but this is on the GOP Congress. Trump is not the King (despite the plaintive wails of progressives) and I’m sure that he figured that, after all these years, these guys had this. He is now sadder and hopefully wiser.
McCain? He’s far from a saint, always has been. Many great men are seriously flawed. I believe. I think that he had multiple reasons to kill this effort, not the least of which was to put his thumb in Trump’s eye. I don’t suppose I can blame him for wanting to do that, but a great statesman he is not (although all of the progressives on my FB feed are singing his praises today, so there’s that).
While there are a few proposals that I might have supported.
I am not unhappy with the outcome.
Democrats own PPACA.
Republicans do not
Trump does not.
Voters know – who to vote for depending on what they beleive regarding PPACA.
Even Roby should support that.
if you want to see PPACA remain you know who to vote out.
If you want it gone you know.
This is a vast improvement over Reid who prevented measures from coming to a vote so that democrats would not have to cast difficult votes.
I do not wish to be morbid, but McCain is not surviving long.
His prognosis is really bad.
I am very sorry about that.
I am surprised he came back.
I do not expect to see him in the Senate much.
Ward who was chastised for suggesting he resign, is his likely successor.
I think it is pretty much a given that she would have voted for just about every repeal bill.
This will be back.
“And for the record, I am not automatically anti-establishment. I like strong institutions. We shouldn’t have to keep re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. In fact, I want very much to preserve the many healthy aspects of our civilization. I despise the dangerous “ignorant rabble” a tad more than comfy bureaucrats and stuffy gatekeepers and self-protecting experts. At least there is some knowledge and skill within the so-called establishment. I’m not being sarcastic here. This is one of the nuances I don’t think I was able to communicate to Roby in the past, part of why I bristled at being lumped in with the directionless cretin portion of populist movements. No, I value the finer points of art, science, commerce, etc. But where I draw the line is at the subset of multinationals and globalists who knowingly and unknowingly undermine our system of government, our historic grand experiment, to protect their wealth, and their access to more wealth. ”
Nicely said Pat.
Historically the only times the “rabble” have proven dangerous is when manipulated by the elites.
The French Revolution, that of Mao, or Lenin or Castro, Hitler, ….
Frankly I do not think it is a close call.
Equally important it is mostly not even a valid question.
I do not know what you think “strong institutions” are.
If you are refering to private entities, churches and civic clubs – fine – I do not really care.
If you are talking about government – it should be strong enough to actually perform the specific tasks that we may justifiably initiate force against others and no more.
Slavery was a strong institution – as was Jim Crow.
If people are ignorant and make poor choices in their own lives – so be it.
Though the evidence oddly suggests that even stupid people mostly do better in their own life than others do for them.
If the so called elite are acting in their own lives and succeeding greatly – I do not care.
But why do you want purportedly smart people dictating to purportedly stupid people what to do ? And who decides who the smart people are and who the stupid people are ?
Regardless, I said this was not a valid question – why ?
Because otherwise you are advocating slavery.
Because smart or stupid those in government can force others to do as they demand only in a narrowly justifiable scope.
What you call wealth accumulation has another name that might clarify its importance to you. That would be “increase in standard of living”.
The primary institution of self direction is the SELF.
Pursuing ones self interest means increasing ones standard of living.
You are trying to take two different labels for the same thing or two things that have a cause effect relationship and pretend they are in conflict.
Chaos is not inherently bad nor order inherently good.
The Nazi’s exterminated the Jews in a very well thought out structured and orderly fashion.
Damned not fanned. Oh how I despise auto-correct, that dastardly tool of the elites to keep writers frustrated! Just kidding there!
Priscilla, I welcome that lunch with you and Rick. It would be a blast to meet you, and I think conversation easy as I am nearly always in synch or parallel with your viewpoints. I currently work in Southwest New Jersey, so I think I am often not that far from you.
In fact, I think it would fun if the whole group of TNM regulars booked a hotel, in as neutral a location as possible, and we met for breakfast, lounging at the pool, lunch, et cetera.
There is this thing called skype, Pat. https://www.skype.com/en/features/group-calls/
While we would have to drink our Martinis in our own homes and supply our own hot tubs or pools, it would be perfectly simple to have a TNM skype virtual conference. I say this out of jealousy that it would be hard for me to get to NJ to a TMN gathering whereas there are 4 of you, I believe, in the Philly/NJ area, because I would love to. My wife would think I am totally crazy if I proposed to travel to NJ to talk about politics, to be very open about it!
Roby, it is likely your wife already thinks you are totally crazy. Marriage will do that. Plus, Monty Python AND the glory of Jon Anderson and YES… I jest.
My family does Skype, FaceTime, and too many Marco Polo videos. Bah, there’s nothing compared to getting our actual selves together somewhere. Perhaps at a hotel in Upstate NY, like Albany maybe, so that the PA/NJ group would also have some travel. Now I could see raised eyebrows if we were traveling for just a quick cup of coffee and a chat, but we could make it a sort of artist retreat weekend with time for alone time, recharging of the batteries, and who can’t justify that, but with a TNM dinner on Saturday and Breakfast on Sunday. Just putting it out there. I’d be game, obviously.
Yeah, you are correct about marital crazy.
I could do Albany. Its a 3-4 hour drive I believe. I’d be quite willing.
At some point I hope to visit Philly for a day to buy a classical guitar. One of the best classical guitar shops in the east (or US for that matter) is in Philly. For once in my life I want to spend, say $5000 on a classical guitar and have a real instrument. But it won’t happen soon.
Ok, then, we have the beginnings of a plan!
Apparently some of you have an actual relationship going back to HS.
I am just an outsider comparatively.
But I do live in Lancaster, PA which is close enough to where you all meet.
If you want your breakfast disrupted.
Dave, it will be a welcome “disruption.” I hope we make a get-together happen. When we finally sit down as a group at some restaurant it will be further evidence that “things are good” as we all sometimes point out in our own ways.
Well now that I’ve volunteered several people to travel to Albany, NY, lol….I’m just brainstorming possibilities, folks. Now we at least know Roby is willing to do SOME travel to meet in person. Wherever we do meet first, you will need to bring one of your current guitars, Roby, and play for us. That is a requirement.
I live just north of Lancaster, PA.
Phila, and surrounds are easy for me.
I Graduated from RPI almost 40 years ago
Albany is harder,i can not do that in one day.
But I am interested.
Last night was my Daughter’s 21st Birthday.
She wanted a party, and we had a big one with all of her friends.
Black, brown, yellow and white, as well as LGBTQ
We got her very straight Martial Arts teacher dancing with a Puerto Rican Queen in Rie Died Drag.
Many are my friends too, and they cover a much broader spectrum than posters on TNM.
I talked for half an hour with a woman from BLM about dealing with elderly parents with dementia. I lost my father to Vascular Dementia in 2013.
Wherever we do meet first, you will need to bring one of your current guitars, Roby, and play for us. That is a requirement.
Just try and stop me. Some people can’t stop talking, I can’t stop playing.
My current love is the viola. Plays like a violin, sounds like a cello. The Bach cello suites sound fantastic on it. I’m renting a very nice one. Wish I could rent a really nice classical guitar.
I very much agree with you that it would be proof that things are still good. I feel guilty about moving the whole Philadelphia area crew all towards me. If you are crazy enough to travel that far than perhaps you should come and camp out in Vermont, much prettier than Albany. But I certainly will come to Albany.
Alternately, you all can get together down there and skype me up here for my virtual pleasure.
Dave, I would love to have your “disruptive” presence!
For a break from political suffering and continuing the theme of beautiful slavic women playing Bach:
I’d buy any guitar that comes with her.
Bach, the earliest and greatest musical genius. He never knew his music would have any impact outside of very local and temporary. I wish he could somehow see the joy he created across the centuries.
My ability to make music is actually as bad as your false attacks on my skills in other areas.
I have taken years of piano and guitar lessons and can not get any instrument to make noises that wise people would not flee.
I greatly appreciate the skill of those who can.
I love most all music. But I can not make it.
One more then I’ll stop promise. If there was ever a gift from god its music.
Please do not stop.
“Last night was my Daughter’s 21st Birthday.
She wanted a party, and we had a big one with all of her friends.
Black, brown, yellow and white, as well as LGBTQ
We got her very straight Martial Arts teacher dancing with a Puerto Rican Queen in Rie Died Drag.
Many are my friends too, and they cover a much broader spectrum than posters on TNM.
I talked for half an hour with a woman from BLM about dealing with elderly parents with dementia. I lost my father to Vascular Dementia in 2013.”
I am very sorry about your loss Dave.
It was quite a beautiful post, its the way we should be. You found your intersection point with me.
We do not all get along on all things.
Some of us can not get along at all.
But so long as the use of force is restricted most of us need little more to get along.
My father was 83 when he died.
He was the last of my parents and inlaws.
For most of us it is likely our parents will die first.
Vascular dementia was the worst death of either of my parents or inlaws.
But I have a close friend who lost his wife to Alzhemers – that is worse.
It goes slower.
Regardless it is all part of the circle of life.
Thank you for your sympathy.
If your parents are still alive – I hope you have them for a long time.
I hope that when you lose them, it goes as gently as possible.
Unfortunately neither I nor anyone else has control of that.
looks like Trump has the Right’s stomach turning too:
More irritation with Drama Queen Donald:
This is an excerpt from a professional organizations e-mail concerning a survey of physicians and insurance acceptance. A little long, but worth reading.
“New Medicaid patients were the least likely to be accepted by primary care physicians that took new patients: 71.6 percent of that group accepted new Medicaid patients, compared with 77.4 percent that accepted new Medicare patients and 94.2 percent that accepted new patients with private insurance.
It was unclear how those percentages changed from prior years because CDC previously did not compare the acceptance rates based on a subset of primary care physicians that accepted any new patients.
“Currently, there is no apples-to-apples version of the new data that matches up with previous CDC reports that looked at physicians accepting patients with various payers as a share of all such physicians,” a CDC spokesman said in an email.
The results are similar to a large 2016 survey by the Physicians Foundation, which found that 39 percent of primary care physicians either did not see Medicare patients (22.2 percent) or limited the number they saw (16.8 percent). That was a decrease from 2012, when 32.9 percent of primary care physicians reported that they were no longer accepting or were limiting their number of Medicare patients. Likewise, the 2016 survey found that Medicaid patients were the least accepted group of patients, with more than 41 percent of primary care physicians saying they did not see them (16.3 percent) or limited the number they saw (24.8 percent)”.
One of the issues with any survey like this is the fact it does not provide geographical information, so one can not determine if there are places in the country where a medicaid patient can not find a doctor at all. But this is information that one never hears when the politicians are talking about how great Obamacare is. If you can’t find a doctor, what good is it?
And the reason for refusing to treat these patients? It cost more to treat some in the Medicare and Medicaid group of patients than the overall reimbursement received for that service. Some doc’s in our area even limit their days working to 4, refuse government sponsored patients, cut the cost of their staffs salary by 20% (4 days compared to 5)and make more than if they were open 5 days and treated medicare and Medicaid patients.
Another reason to refuse to take medicare and medicaid patients is that if you do you are required to charge medicare and medicaid the lowest rate you use for any patient.
You can not offer an uninsured patient a discount for need.
You can not offer someone poor a better price.
You basically can not discount your services for any reason and not give the government the same price you gave one patient.
Price controls do not work. This is about as near as the word of god in economics as you can get. They cause scarcity – medicare patients can not find doctors, or price increases or both.
Dave you are wrong about pricing for medicare and medicaid. Yes, you have to charge everyone the same, but you can discount anyone anything you want. medicare pays about 50% of what hospitals charge, medicaid pays about 20% of what hospitals charge. There is a community needs program where anyone making a certain percentage of poverty guidelines can get free care or grossly discounts billis, An managed care usually pays somewhere around 50% to 75% depending on size of the contract.
And the majority of these payment plan discounts are based on average, becasue one patient may have charges of 10000 and have a discount of 50%, while another has charges of 8000 for the same procedure due to a faster recovery and discharge and their discount will be 35% since the reimbursement is based on the services received and not the charges generated. ie, hip surgery replacement $50,000 regardless of charges.
Ron you seem to misunderstand what I am saying.
I am not talking about what medicare patients are being charged.
I am not talking about what you can charge a patient if you enroll them in a buch or programs or fill out a raft of paperwork.
What I am saying is that if you are a doctor and an indigent patient shows up in your office. You can not discount services to them on your own as an act of charity without getting permission from government to do so.
I am not the expert you are on certain areas of this.
But this is not a new claim and not mine.
Sharon Angle famously got “feathered” over it in Nevada,
There are myriads of stories of doctors dropping medicare entirely so that they could control their rates.
There are even recent stories.
Over the past decade or so there was a semi-abortive rise of straight fee for service clinics and providers. No insurance, no medicare, just published low fixed rates.
These have struggled – primarily do to fights with government. But some have survived.
My daughter would not have been able to become an EMT without these.
Regardless, I do not care much what you can do with medicare and medicaid patients inside of medicare and medicaid. That is both incestuous and inefficient.
If any market is subject to price controls you get scarcity and/or high prices.
Sorry Dave, but I stand on my previous comments. I can find nothing that precludes a doctor from offering discounts to any patient. Medicare/caid pay based on a fee schedule. They could care less who discounts what. That is how all insurance contracts work. A percent of fee schedule.
The Medicare statute contains a prohibition against a physician or provider from charging the Medicare program an amount substantially in excess of the practice’s usual charge.
https://www.healio.com/ophthalmology/news/print/ocular-surgery-news/%7B9cbb2500-f78c-47f5-941d-019cd97d2a91%7D/charging-for-non-medicare-patients-at-less-than-the-medicare-rate
I tripped bunch of other laws and regulations.
The gist of which is that if you are not worried about the possibility of getting charged with fraud it is possible that some discount situations are legal.
But there are all kinds of rules – including some that only make sense if you are government.
Waiving co-pays as an example is sometimes treated a fraud by medicare.
It’s all terminology. A physician charges X to all patients, then discounts different rates to different patients. What is asinine is the farther regs to back years when Medicare paid based on charges and now they pay based on DRG’s and fee schedules. But physicians do discount self pay patients just like discounting managed care. They charge X, discount Y and the patient pays Z.
Ron;
The statute itself contains language that I am looking for – though purportedly it is not enforce and the “penalty'” is that you are excluded from medicare.
But some of the items in the helio and other articles are much worse.
Yes, there are instances where discounts are allowed
but there are a plethora where it is not, where it is considered fraud and subject to criminal penalties.
I keep trying to get you all to understand the evils of regulations and the need for bright lines.
If you are a three doctor practice – you can not afford to even read all the regulations that apply to you much less the assorted explanations regarding them.
You can not afford to pay a lawyer to do so. You solve the problem with simple rules of thumb – do not charge different people differently and you will hopefully not get in trouble.
If you are a large organization – a hospital with campuses statewide tThen you have a team of lawyers to deal with just this.
Equally important you have political clout. No one is going to charge you with anything, and there is zero risk of anyone going to jail no matter what you do.
Finally, it should be trivially clear from the sources that medicare is a massive price control system.
Price controls do not work. They have not anywhere ever. If you need an example of price control failures – you can look to Venezuela right now. They have hyperinflation and long lines to buy almost anything – it is is available at all.
Our entire Healthcare and insurance system is a massive array of price controls.
It was before PPACA and remains so.
So why does it surprise you that prices rise much faster than inflation and there are shortages.
Why does it surprise you that doctors are getting out of medicine, that they are refusing to take medicaid or medicare patients, and that there is massive consolidation,
That increasingly the small businesses that are the root of innovation and cost reduction in every industry are disappearing.
1/3 of the hospitals in the US were Catholic and charitable. These are disappearing.
That is what the left wants – to destroy private charity and replace it with public charity.
This is also a horribly dangerous and innefficient game.
When I decide who I give to – those organizations have to appeal to me.
When government decides – it is deciding who I give my money to.
Not only does it decide to give money to things I oppose, but having control of how my money is given empowers government.
The very orgainzations receiving government charity are tremendously politically active giving money and resources to get politicians to give them my money.
Who thinks that is a good idea ? Who thinks that is not the road to corruption if not actual corruption.
I am not sure what you are talking about – but I think you are talking about writeoffs.
Which is not the same thing.
Patients with poor credit often get a 100% discount on medical services.
They receive the services, they do not pay, and eventually the service provider writes off the payment and reports a credit issue.
I am talking about up front price negotiation not back end negotiation.
The incentives are radically differetn.
Again Dave, I am saying I can go to my doctor and negotiate what I pay them. Nothing stops me or a private insurance from doing this. This is how managed care companies do it!! Up front before the physician becomes part of their provider profile.
There appear to be some bizzare exceptions specifically for managed care organizations.
BTW private insurance usually has restrictions requiring that you do not charge other patients a lower rate. But private insurance can not jail you for doing so.
Private insurance can not prevent you from discounting their contract 50% and another insurance 60%. If you don’t want to do it, you make sure that is not in your contract with them
In a bizzarre way you are making some of my points.
First as you noted in a prior post “its all about terminolgy”.
i.e. it is all about deceptive language.
With respect to this post. A contract can contain most any provision that is not barred by anti-trust law. And that is almost impossible to establish, as anti-trust law does not say you can nto do X, it say if you are too big we get to decide what you can do.
Regardless, you can have a contract that says if you do business with me – you can not do business with a competitor.
You can have a contract that says if you sell to me, you can not sell cheaper to a competitor.
Dave, go to physicianpractice.com and search on this subject! As long as Medicare is not charged more when both cash transactions are compared, it is legal! You CAN discount self pay accounts. And if physicians discounted to Medicare rates for others, they would go bankrupt, so that is not an issue now.
“As long as Medicare is not charged more when both cash transactions are compared, it is legal!”
How is that not the same as – you can not charge medicare less ?
Dave, I am using a small device and finding a previous comment is near impossible. I believe you commented physicians can not give self pay patients discounted ( at all). That’s when I said they could.
I am not interested in a semantic debate. I do not think that what I said was that “physicians could not give self pay patients discounts.”
Regardless, the actual argument I am making, one I have made many times, one that has been made by many others over the course of decades is that medicare requires that providers may not provide a service for lower cost than they charge medicare.
I have found atleast one site that states that is explicit in the medicare statute – i.e. what congress wrote, it is not merely a regulation. I have not bothered to read the statute myself.
What has been clear as a result of your posts and my own research that the situation is in my view WORSE.
That though the statutory provision exists – it is not enforced, and in its stead a plethora of sometimes counter intuitive regulations, often with criminal penalties make it near certain that only huge health care providers can afford to risk varying rates for any reason.
It is separately self evident that Medicare is a massive system of price controls – and we know price controls create scarcity or increase costs or both.
And unless you and your physicians dot your eyes, cross your t’s and consult an army of lawyers you risk being charged and convicted of fraud.
Your argument regarding managed care providers is meaningless.
It is inarguable that larger institutions can:
More easily conform to complex laws
Are less likely to be convicted of breaches of laws.
I think Sessions has integrity. But I am pretty uniformly opposed to all his policies.
This should give you a clue.
What should also disturb you is that much of this nonsense was either actively supported or enforced while saying otherwise under Obama.
I heard this on TV last night, it’s just idle speculation, but some people are hypothesizing that there is a plan to move Sessions to DHS, to replace Gen. Kelly, enabling Trump to appoint someone else as AG, who could limit the Mueller investigation to Russian election interference, and set a reasonable deadline by which evidence of such collusion must be produced.
I would guess that Sessions would have to be re-confirmed in that case, and the new AG would have to be as well. But it would certainly eliminate two major distractions for the President: 1) the ever-expanding, never-ending, always leaking Mueller investigation and 2) the Game of Thrones White House infighting and leaking (no, I don’t watch GoT, but I’ve heard enough about it to understand the analogy).
I don’t know though….almost seems too perfect a plan to be true. Something that a screenwriter would think up….
The senate has already informed Trump there will be no confirmations of a new AG this year, there will be no recess appointments since they will leave someone there to pound the gavel to open and close a session, probably rotating senators so no one is stuck in D.C. and he has been told that if he does anything with Sessions there will be hell to pay. One senator already said they will open hearings on his interference of an investigation if he fires Mueller or fires Sessions.
Basically the senate has told him he is on his own, they are not supporting him much in anything he wants to do since he has gone off on many of them in his tweets and he is on his own island when it comes to Russia, Sessions, Mueller, etc.
Sessions was well liked in the senate among all the senators and with many of the opposition party and they are siding with “one of their own”
Sessions was well liked ? That is why his confirmation was a close call ?
We are having a game of posturing between the congress and president.
What the senate or congress says they will do and what they will do are not inherently the same.
Further Trump does nto respond well to threats
I do not think Trump cares much if th house or senate start more investigations.
Those are far less of a threat then Mueller.
Ron, I think that the idea ~ at least as far as the person speculating about it was concerned ~ was that this plan would have to be with the express understanding and buy-in from Priebus, Kelly, Sessions and the prospective AG (the speculation surrounded Cruz as that person).
So, it would be Sessions who would request the new assignment, since Homeland Security is his primary issue, particularly as it regards illegal immigration. He would call off his Senate defenders, and say that this was his preference, not something he was being forced into.
The speculation further hypothesized that all of the Trump tweets about Sessions have been a set up for this plan. The evidence cited for this was thin, primarily that, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, Sessions has said that he considers Trump to be a strong leader, with the right vision for this country, and Priebus, in an interview with Hannity praised the new White House move as well.
Like I said, I’m not buying it, but nothing would surprise me………
I do not buy this.
BUT I would rather have Sessions in DHS than as AG.
All kind of speculation is rampant.
I am happy to agree with those that think the WH stepped on its own feet in the past week.
Ruining what would otherwise have been a good week.
I do not think the SC should exist. That was a mistake. Not merely a political one but a legal one as well.
That said much of what is said about the mueller investigation is leaks and rumours.
Given how badly those have proved thus far, I do not automatically beleive them.
If Mueller actually is following louise mensch onto the grassy knoll – he should be fired.
But we do not know that and it is a big mistake to presume the media is accurate.
If have zero doubt Mueller will overstep. But doubt by so much as the media reports.
Those supposed facts about ObamaCare – including those “losing insurance” ?
http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/28/media-keep-butchering-the-facts-about-ob
Any Trumpanzees (including the Main Trumpanzee Himself) who, after watching this clip, doesn’t agree the Russians meddled in the last election, is feebleminded.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-theyve-said-about-russian-election-interference
I do not recall anyone claiming that Russia did not attempt to interfere in this election.
As Pompeo in the first fe seconds of your video noted – this election and the one before that, and …..
Hayden noted that their efforts were incredibly successful -= DUH!
Here we are almost a year later debating the legitimacy of the election, and Putin is still periodically able to troll the left.
I doubt the Russian’s have EVER done so little to so great an effect.
I would note – like your posts, the enitre 5min video is completely absent EVIDENCE.
We have debated whether Russia hacked the DNC.
No one on you video says they did.
What they say is:
Russia “interfered” – what does that even mean ?
To the extent they define it, that is some unspecified hacking,
social media trolling, and crap on RT.
The last two if True are NOTHING.
AGAIN are you arguing that social media trolling or RT stories altered the outcome of the election ?
Just to be clear – I do not care if Russia pays people to Troll Social Media or runs Stories on RT. We can not stop those, and we do not want to. Any effort will be some form of censorship. You can not silence Russia empowering someone to decide what voices and messages can be heard and which can not.
Aside from unspecified hacking – what is it that Russia did that NYT, Wapo, the DNC, did not do ? If we are shuttering “fake news” – who gets to decide what is fake and why is CNN and NYT still publishing ?
At the same time. Russia “interference” in this election was effective in ONLY ONE WAY.
It has provided the left with a phone excuse for why it lost.
In that Russia triumphed in spades.
And that poses an incredibly serious problem – partly for the country, but mostly for the left.
We learn from failure. Until the left confronts the fact that they FAILED.
Until they cease scapegoating Russia and face the fact that they failed
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343337-schumer-dems-not-russia-are-to-blame-for-loss-to-trump
They are not going to be able to learn
Lets just say that somehow you miraculously manage to accomplish whatever it is you are after.
The electorate is still very angry with democrats.
Depending on his successes or failures as a president Trump may lose the rust belt voters that won him the election. But that will not alter the fact that they were unhappy enough with the left to vote for Trump.
But let’s get into the rest:
Social Media – I know that Left Wing nuts think that “trumpanzee” just live in Russian social media, or that the entire right has RT on their bookmark toolbar.
But I here members of the US intelligence community saying that kind of rot and decide that the whole IC needs fired and rebuilt.
Because the argument is unbeleivably stupid.
Can you name a story from RT or Russian Social Media Trolls – without googling it ?
I can not think of a single one.
But far more importantly can you name ANY story from the election that negatively impacted Clinton that was not True and had Russian involvement ?
You have Brennan claiming that CIA analysts are the best in the world – and PROVING by his own remarks that is wrong.
When an analyst offers something that fails the rules of logic – they need fired.
Regardless, need I go through the list of intelligence community failures since say 1980 ?
These people who are supposedly so good on Russia completely missed the impending collapse of the USSR – I do not mean they were a little off, I am they were completely shocked. BTW Brennan was one of those analysts that got it wrong.
Further you are making an incredibly stupid argument to me.
It should be crystal clear by now that I have zero trust in government experts.
That it does not matter whether they are in the IC or department of agriculture.
That they have an incredibly long history of getting things completely wrong.
Another Week Of Eroding The Presidency.
The DoucheBag Supreme:
Knocked, disparaged, insulted Sessions over and over.
Unleased MiniMe Mooch on his own cabinet.
Made an improper speech to Boy Scouts.
Told police they should rough up suspects.
Lied about consulting with his Generals to exclude trannies from the Military.
Told an audience in Ohio that, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln, he was “more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.”
Remained silent to mounting alleged criticism of him from other members of his staff ( Tillerson, McMasters) and allowed his long time Chief of Staff to Officially learn he was unemployed on an airport hanger, via a news release.
And of course on the way to a humiliating defeat of the Obamacare replacement bill, he lashed out at Republicans once again, threatening to decertify their health insurance supplements, and threatening the Alaska Senator with strong arm financial retaliation.
Dysfunction, as Trump voters were warned, is inevitable with a turd like him in Office. You sold your souls for this goofball, and the checked has bounced!
Yep, about how I see it.
This is the inevitable results of electing a President who lacks character and competence.
I voted for the only presidential candidate on the ballot with EITHER character or competence – he actually had both.
Clinton has neither character nor competence, all she has is political debts to pay off, poor character and a record of incompetence.
I can’t disagree. Baring a giant change in the pattern of events, history will give its failing verdict to trump and trumpism (as it has to his partial Russian equivalent, Yeltsin, who is utterly unloved and disrespected by today’s Russians. Drunken Yeltsin they all call him). Yeltsin’s fate awaits trump. trumps fate, unfortunately, will affect mine and my children’s. Bad dream.
2017 2Q growth was 2.6%.
It needs to remain there for a while to consitute a trend,
Regardless, it has been rising since Trump took office.
I worry about my children too – but Trump is no threat to them – already backed in messes from the left are.
How about some specifics:
We have been through the BSA speech.
I got no problems with it.
You are free to believe it is “improper”
I am free to beleive it is not.
There are things Obama did that I do nto like – is that the definition of improper.
He should have gone to the 100th aniversary of the BSA rather than phoning in pablum.
That is not an impeachable offense.
It is not “improper”
There is alot of confusion on the TG military ban.
I think it was stupid.
I do not think a presidential tweet is a presidential order – and aparently the military thinks so too. That is about all we are certain of.
I have no idea if Trump consulted generals (or admirals, or ).
But neither do you.
What you know is that The military is not implimenting the ban without a direct order.
That is appropriate.
I also think the tweet was a political mistake.
Here is the “rough up suspects” speech.
I do not think saying you do not need to protect suspects from their own stupidity constitutes a request to “rough them up”
I think we have a problem with police conduct and that police need to be encouraged to be more careful. I think Trump’s remarks demonstrate he is clueless about the presumption of innocence – but nearly everyone is so that is not news.
I think his comment was wrong.
But it is still misrepresented – in otherwords the media AGAIN is lying.
When you lie – even about a bad person, you undermine your own credibility.
So Trump has an ego. Who cares ? What is new ?
With respect to purported criticism from cabinet members – be specific.
What I have learned is that the media rumors about Tillerson are false.
That sound’s nothing like what you are claiming.
In fact it is the opposite.
I think the left wants Tillerson out – because he has done well – despite his ties to OMG Russia!!!!
I am glad the Republicans took Obamacare repeal to the floor.
I am glad they lost.
I do not think it was a humiliating defeat.
In 2018 the public knows who voted how.
If you beleive that PPACA is that important to people – they may vote opponents out.
On the other hand they may vote supporters out.
We will see.
Regardless, we know how senators voted.
Jay;
I guess I do not have a problem with the namecalling.
But if you try to claim to be tolerant, or assert that others are more hatefilled than you,
you should expect to be called a hypocrit.
And the hypocracy and hate of the left is why you lost the election – not Russia.
Dave: I don’t have a problem with the name calling either. Trump and his ilk loosened those bounds of civil restraint; I’m now an example of the trickle down effect of it.
I don’t claim to be tolerant of suffering fools, or foolish ideas. And really, you’re like a slow pitch lob ball for swatting long distance fly balls.
There are multitudes more hateful than me.
The Left didn’t lose the election: the Nation lost.
I believe no rational person with a whit of judgement can believe, in light of the shit-pile of dysfunction, the lowering of standards of rationality, the increasing roil of diviseness Trump has deposited into the culture, that Hillary would have been a worse President.
If I was a Democrat (I’m not), I’d be secretly rejoicing at the undermining of the Republican Party by Trump’s block-headed machinations. This article may shed some light on that, though I’m sure in your usual nit-picking fashion, you’ll find Alt-Universes of facts to dispute it:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/trump-priebus-unbound-215440
Sorry jay, but Trump did not start it.
The left did.
One of the reasons so many people like Trump – is specifically because he is not civily constrainted in the face of the sanctimonious fake civil hostility and name calling of the left.
Much of the country has gotten tired of being called racist, homophobic, sexist by the left should we deviate even slightly from the most extreme of your values.
Look at the left imploding into venemous hissy fits.
First you banned and fire bombed the Milo Yanopolis and Anne Coulter types.
Then you went after the innocous charles murray types merely for asking questions you did not like.
Now you are hacking away at the left. Professors are leaving Evergreen, Harvard Princeton and yale – for such crimes as not talking halloween too seriously.
If a indead is foolish we demonstrate that with facts, logic, reason, argument.
If you can not do so – then it is not your opponent that is the fool.
I am sure there are multitudes more hateful that you.
Is that what you want on your tombstone – “less hateful than others” ?
As to tolerance – it is a value the left claims to hold dear.
I did not chose your values for you – you did.
You make your own hypocrisy, I don’t
“I believe no rational person with a whit of judgement can believe, in light of the shit-pile of dysfunction, the lowering of standards of rationality, the increasing roil of diviseness Trump has deposited into the culture, that Hillary would have been a worse President.”
An incredibly long string of words that say nothing with a conclusion that does not follow.
I do not like Trump. I can enumerate most of the specifics about why.
I do not beleive that the “lesser evil” is good enough – regardless of who you beleive that is.
Still it is pretty simple to demonstrate that Clinton would have been worse.
By the only criteria I can get from most on the left – the will of the voter – that was and is still true. So long as you can not provide a coherent principle identifying when that value of yours is not true – you own it, and its consequence – Trump.
The recent argument coming from the left appears to be – democracy is fine – except for stupid voters. So what – do we need a literacy test ? Should we prevent blacks, or women from voting ? Should we limit voting by IQ ? either you beleive in an equal right to vote – or you don’t. Best as I can tell you do – except when you do not like the result.
As to other factual arguments.
Trump worries me on Foreign Policy – But Clinton left us with a choice between Russia annexing the crimea and a hot war with the only other large nuclear power.
Clinton and Obama’s foreign policy Tenure – worse than Bush and that is pretty bad.
Trump could still screw up. He stirs things up wherever he goes.
But thus far he gets results – atleast more than Clinton/Obama did.
The Trump economy is really young. 6 months is not a strong basis for a solid conclusion.
But thus far Trump has better growth coming out of what was supposed to be a stable economy, that Obama had exiting a recession.
Clinton gave no reason to beleive she was better than Obama.
During the election Clinton promised stupid freebies right and left.
Probably those were lies.
But Obama actually delivered on ObamaCare.
And the fear that Clinton might have on her promises scared the crap out of people.
Most of us are both smart enough to want free things and to know there is no such thing.
SCOTUS. Gorsuch is too new to be certain, but so far he is a hit.
With him replacing scalia we are unlikely to get more nonsensical decisions that can not be made to work in reality.
Trump’s campaign policies on Trade were bad, So were Clinton’s.
Trump’s campaign promies on immigration were bad, so were clinton’s.
Trump’s economic policies conflicted with his views on immigration and trade.
Hopefully he will follow his far better economics.
Clinton was economically clueless – as was Obama.
We would likely have had less drama with Pres. Clinton.
but only because the Press would only have grudgingly covered the investigations.
There is already far more to investigate in 2016 in Clinton’s campaign that Trumps.
Anyway, there are lots of things I do not like about Trump.
But few that Clinton is not worse.
The both have poor character.
Bill Clinton proved you do not have to have good character to be a good president.
That really really bothers me, but still it is true.
So where are these major ways Clinton would have been better than Trump ?
Because aside from wishful thinking, I can not see them.
Finally, you do not like some of Trump’s policies.
Fight them in congress. Atleast some of the time I will be there with you.
But if you want me to reverse an election you need to demonstrate to me some place where he has used force immorally – preferably one that Clinton would not have done the same.
Draining the swamp does not meet that criteria.
I will agree that getting rid of Prebius burns bridges with parts of the GOP.
That Tension has existed throughout the campaign.
The GOP has been engaged in an internal power struggle since atleast 2008.
Actually much longer. The GOP is a bigger tent with more numerous factions than democrats. That should have been obvious with the recent ObamaCare repeal votes.
But most of the stresses in the GOP are out in the open.
Before the election I thought that democrats were facing a potential civil war after the election – even if Clinton won.
I was wrong. That Civil war was conflict free – the far left won. The Democratic party shrunk.
I am reading some polling that suggests that as bad as things are right now for rpublicans and Trump – they are worse for democrats.
The Generic ballot atleast in the contest areas is +10GOP – I am not sure republicans have had that big an advantage in my lifetime.
Democrats approval numbers are way below Trump’s.
Clinton’s approval numbers are below Trump.
The left has succeeding in getting everyone to hate Trump – even more.
By making them hate republicans, democrats and clinton more still.
Trump wins that arrangement, as do republicans.
If you were a democrat – your should be taking Schumer’s advice
Trump hatred is not going to win democrats any elections.
US election interference NOT including coups and monitoring.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: The Story of Government
Programs that don’t work as intended ought to be cut.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/26/good-intentions-bad-outcomes-the-story-o
Here is a better picture of what much of the right is thinking right now.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2017/07/28/president-chaos-and-the-keystone-kongress/
NON TRUMP INFO SHARE:
I don’t know if I mentioned this before, but my favorite new cooking utensil is this Air Fryer. The link will explain the advantages; and they’re relatively inexpensive.
Here’s Tonight’s recipe:
AIR FRYER FRIED CHICKEN
Refrigerate after dipping 2 to 24 hrs
Cook 20 minutes at 390 ° F.
Ingredients
• 2 pounds chicken parts (your choice of cuts)
• 1 cup buttermilk
• 1 or 2 cups flour
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 1 tea spoon pepper
• Baking Spray
• 1 Lg Egg
Cooking Process
• Rinse and place chicken in bag with enough buttermilk to cover. Refrigerate for 2 to 24 hours.
• Mix flour and salt/pepper together (you can also try Ranch dressing mix or your choice of seasoning) in a bag.
• Remove chicken from bag and pat with paper towel to remove excess moisture.
• Dip chicken in egg.
• Put chicken into bag with flour mixture and toss to coat.
• Spray lightly with baking spray for extra crispy skin (optional).
• “Fry” in air fryer for 20 minutes at 390 ° F.
https://www.google.com/search?q=air+fryer&safe=off&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS692US692&hl=en-US&prmd=svin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0hOman7LVAhXhh1QKHVCABOcQ_AUIEygD&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=qu1lbpq1YsU28M:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9jwetnPYzaw
My son is a huge Gordon Ramsay fan.
When we can get him to cook he makes some amazing dishes.
“After failing to do anything with Obamacare, Congress has gone on recess without addressing the debt ceiling.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has warned Congress to address the debt ceiling for the past seven months and do something before recess. Mnuchin said the government needs to raise the debt ceiling before September 29 or it will run out of money to pay the bills.”
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/07/congress-will-face-debt-ceiling-decision-immediately-after-recess/#more-222215
Priscilla, how many times when the government has “shut down” in the past did it really shut down? Other than a handful of national parks closing and the sob stories you hear about school kids not getting to see something the govt does not close. Even when people don’t get paid, they still get paid when they return and vacation days are not charged. More political propaganda.
The implimentation of a government shutdown leaves a great deal of control with the president.
Pres. Obama deliberately shutdown some government facilities – such as national and even state parks in order to cause pain to republicans.
Despite the fact that many federal parks are privately run and are actually revenue producing, state parks are run by states, and many federal parks have no operating cost.
To a limited extent Trump can do the opposite and target Democrats.
There are many serious problems with govenrment shutdowns – because our law and policies have idiotic provisions – government employees who are sent home will ultimately get paid no matter what – so a government shutdown is an extended paid vacation for government employees.
In general shutdowns cost money rather than save money – such is the stupidity of the structure of government.
The politics also tends to favor the left because people who are delayed receiving something or even worry that they will be delayed inevitably flood congress with calls.
One of the largest problems in our political system is that those who pay the bills have little to no voice. While those who collect have the ear of politicians.
Hitting the debt ceiling and a government shutdown are significantly different.
In the former government can continue to do whatever it pleases – except borrow.
The executive would have to determine what is paid and what is not.
There is arguably constitutional guidance.
Regardless, the objective of the executive would be to rapidly reduce the curren operating costs of government to match revenue.
In a shutdown the executive has no authority to spend – except on “essential services”.
The determination of what constitutes an “essential service” is political.
Agreed, Ron. The whole “government shutdown” thing is just BS.
But passing a budget and addressing the national debt is critical. And Congress is desperate to avoid it.
There is discussion of a return to “regular order” – first by republicans and even now by democrats. Both are using it to tar and feather the other.
The fact is that nothing close to regular order has been followed in congress for more than two decades. And even before that it was frequently ignored.
The government by “continuing resolution” process actually empowers party leaders of both sides and sets things up for unscrutinized and unpopular amendments.
It is possible to add almost any amendment to a CR or worse actually incorporate some provision. That creates “must pass” legislation with terms that could not get 50% of congress to vote for otherwise.
“Kelly said he’d be willing to serve in either a Trump or Clinton White House but didn’t endorse either. Whomever wins, he added, ‘will be in desperate need — and I mean desperate need — of military and foreign policy advice, because the world out there is just getting crazier and crazier.’ …”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/08/01/daily-202-john-kelly-proves-he-can-manage-up-on-his-first-day-as-chief-of-staff/597fdfab30fb045fdaef1031/?utm_term=.7c3e69936fbd
Looks like trump finally did something right. Competent people like Mattis and Kelley, who are dedicated talented smart people who live in the real world, who are willing to serve the country, period, are heros in my book. If he can tame trump and restore our lost dignity and sanity (and just flat out competence) I will build a shrine to him in my back yard. It sounds like he lives in the real world regarding all the things that concern me, including the Meuller investigation. If he can turn off the wild BS and perpetual string of infantile and damning lies coming from the trump administration on the Russian influence of the election, give Meuller peace and time to do his job and let the chips fall where they may without any more obstructive interference that would go a long way to restoring national order and sanity. It will give conservatives what they mostly seem to want, an end to the daily freak show and a shift of the spotlight to policy and legislation.
I would be delighted if Kelley becomes the brains of this administration and saves it from the trajectory it has been on. well, it is still early, perhaps I am just wishful thinking, fantasizing. But I do not think trump will be able to fire Kelley and stay afloat. He needs Kelley and Mattis, may they make the most of their chance to serve the nation. Let trump address rallies and let competent people run the administration.
Agree on all you said, with an emphasis on “IF”
You and I may despise trump and his circus, but we love our country more than we despise trump. You and I just want the (relative) sanity turned back on. I can take a conservative president, a GOP president, I just can’t take a president who sounds as loony as lil Kim half the time and has as much intellectual weight and dignity as Berlusconi and as stable a demeanor as Boris Yeltsin, who has the wish to borrow governing methods from putin.
This is Trump’s platform
Are you telling me that if Kelley effectively manage to impliment it that you are not going to be even angrier than you are now ?
1 Allow states to legalize marijuana if they chose to do so
2 Legalize drugs to take profit away from drug cartels
3 Defend the Second Amendment of our Constitution
4 Nominate United States Supreme Court justices that will abide by the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States that includes upholding the Second Amendment
5 Expand and bring back programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street
6 Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves
7 Immediately add an additional federal investment of $20 billion towards school choice
8 Give states the option to allow these funds to follow the student to the public or private school they attend
9 Establish the national goal of providing school choice to every one of the 11 million school aged children living in poverty
10 Work with Congress on reforms to ensure universities are making a good faith effort to reduce the cost of college and student debt
11 Ensure that the opportunity to attend a two or four-year college, or to pursue a trade or a skill set through vocational and technical education, will be easier to access, pay for, and finish
12 Make America energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and protect clean air and clean water
13 Rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents
14 Allow parents to enroll in tax-free dependent care savings accounts for their children or elderly relatives
15 Provide low-income households an Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit
16 Create a new, dynamic market for family-based and community-based solutions.
17 Incentivize employers to provide childcare at the workplace
18 Provide 6 weeks of paid leave to new mothers before returning to work
19 Strengthen the U.S. military and deploy it appropriately in the East and South China Seas
20 Put an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards
21 Bolster the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism
22 Enforce stronger protections against Chinese hackers and counterfeit goods
23 Adopt a zero tolerance policy on intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer
24 Close parts of the Internet to prevent ISIS from attracting recruits
25 Increase cooperation between the United States and Russia
26 Work with Congress to fully repeal the defense sequester and submit a new budget to rebuild our military
27 Increase the size of the U.S. Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers
28 Rebuild the U.S. Navy toward a goal of 350 ships
29 Provide the U.S. Air Force with 1,200 fighter aircraft
30 Grow the U.S. Marine Corps to 36 battalions
31 Invest in a serious missile defense system to meet growing threats
32 Emphasize cyber warfare
33 Pay for this necessary rebuilding of our national defense by conducting a full audit of the Pentagon
34 Peace through strength will be at the center of our foreign policy
35 Advance America’s core national interests, promote regional stability, and produce an easing of tensions in the world
36 Rebuild our military, enhance and improve intelligence and cyber capabilities
37 End the current strategy of nation-building and regime change
38 Ensure our security procedures and refugee policy takes into account the security of the American people
39 Work with our Arab allies and friends in the Middle East in the fight against ISIS
40 Pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations to destroy ISIS
41 Defeat the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism just as we won the Cold War
42 Establish new screening procedures and enforce our immigration laws to keep terrorists out of the United States
43 Suspend, on a temporary basis, immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism
44 Establish a Commission on Radical Islam
45 Declare American energy dominance a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.
46 Eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Federal government spending
47 Ask all Department heads to submit a list of every wasteful and unnecessary regulation
48 Reform the entire regulatory code
49 End regulations that force jobs out of our communities and inner cities
50 Issue a temporary moratorium on new agency regulations that are not compelled by Congress or public safety
51 Immediately cancel all illegal and overreaching executive orders
52 Eliminate our most intrusive regulations
53 Decrease the size of our government after a thorough agency review
54 Increase funding for PTSD, traumatic brain injury and suicide prevention services
55 Increase funding for job training and placement services, educational support and business loans
56 Transform the VA to meet the needs of 21st century service members
57 Better support our women veterans
58 Fire the corrupt and incompetent VA executives
59 End waste, fraud and abuse at the VA
60 Empower the caregivers to ensure our veterans receive quality care quickly
61 Hire more veterans to care for veterans
62 Embed satellite VA clinics in rural and other underserved areas
63 Defund Planned Parenthood
64 Ensure our veterans get the care they need wherever and whenever they need it
65 Appoint a VA Secretary whose sole purpose will be to serve veterans
66 Use the powers of the presidency to remove and discipline the federal employees and managers who have violated the public’s trust and failed to carry out the duties on behalf of our veterans
67 Ask that Congress pass legislation that empowers the Secretary of the VA to discipline or terminate any employee who has jeopardized the health, safety or well-being of a veteran
68 Create a commission to investigate all the fraud, cover-ups, and wrong-doing that has taken place in the VA
69 Protect and promote honest employees at the VA who highlight wrongdoing
70 Create a private White House hotline, which will be active 24 hours a day answered by a real person
71 Stop giving bonuses to any VA employees who are wasting money, and start rewarding employees who seek to improve the VA’s service
72 Reform the visa system to ensure veterans are at the front of the line for health services
73 Increase the number of mental health care professionals, and allow veteran’s to be able to seek mental health care outside of the VA
74 Ensure every veteran has the choice to seek care at the VA or at a private service provider of their own choice
75 Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
76 Work with Congress to create a patient-centered health care system
77 Work with states to establish high-risk pools to ensure access to coverage for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage
78 Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines
79 Maximize flexibility for states via block grants
80 Build a wall along the Mexican border
81 Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced
82 Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans
83 Triple the number of ICE officers
84 Implement a nationwide e-verify
85 Deport all illegal immigrants
86 Detain all illegal immigrants until they are deported
87 Cut-off federal grants to any city which acts as a “sanctuary city” and refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement
88 Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa
89 Cooperate with local gang task forces
90 End birthright citizenship
91 Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs
92 Require companies to hire American workers first
93 End welfare abuse
94 Require employers to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers before issuing new green cards to foreign workers
95 Increase standards for the admission of refugees and asylum-seekers to crack down on abuses
96 Temporarily halt Muslim immigration as long as the threat of ISIS persists
97 Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator
98 Force China to uphold intellectual property laws
99 Put an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards
100 Place a 45% tariff on Chinese exports to the United States
101 Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
102 Impose a 35% import tax on Mexican border
103 Impose a 20% tax on all imported goods
104 Mandate a 15% tax for outsourcing jobs
105 Introduce a deficit-neutral plan targeting substantial new infrastructure investments
106 Pursue an “America’s Infrastructure First” policy
107 Refocus government spending on American infrastructure and away from the Obama-Clinton globalization agenda
108 Provide maximum flexibility to the states
109 Create thousands of new jobs in construction, steel manufacturing, and other sectors
110 Put American steel made by American workers into the backbone of America’s infrastructure
111 Leverage new revenues and work with financing authorities, public-private partnerships, and other prudent funding opportunities
112 Harness market forces to help attract new private infrastructure investments through a deficit-neutral system of infrastructure tax credits
113 Implement a bold, visionary plan for a cost-effective system of roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railroads, ports and waterways, and pipelines
114 Link increases in spending to reforms that streamline permitting and approvals, improve the project delivery system, and cut wasteful spending
115 Employ incentive-based contracting to ensure projects are on time and on budget
116 Approve private sector energy infrastructure projects to better connect American coal and shale energy production with markets and consumers
117 Work with Congress to modernize our airports and air traffic control systems, end long wait times, and reform the FAA and TSA
118 Incorporate new technologies and innovations into our national transportation system
119 Make clean water a high priority
120 Link increased investments with positive reforms to infrastructure programs that reduce waste and cut costs
121 Appoint tough and smart trade negotiators to fight on behalf of American workers
122 Direct the Secretary of Commerce to identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm our workers
123 Tell NAFTA partners that we intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement
124 Instruct the Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator
125 Instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China
126 Use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes if China does not stop its illegal activities
127 Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves
128 Become independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests
129 Open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands, eliminate moratorium on coal leasing, and open shale energy deposits
130 Encourage the use of natural gas and other American energy resources
131 Rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions
132 Create a dynamic booming economy that will create 25 million new jobs over the next decade
133 Reform policies with a pro-growth tax plan, a new modern regulatory framework, an America-First trade policy, an unleashed American energy plan, and the “penny plan”
134 Boost growth to 3.5 percent per year on average
135 Order an immediate review of all U.S. cyber defenses and vulnerabilities
136 Instruct the U.S. Department of Justice to create Joint Task Forces to coordinate responses to cyber threats
137 Order the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide recommendations for enhancing U.S. Cyber Command
138 Develop the offensive cyber capabilities we need to deter attacks by both state and non-state actors
139 Reduce or eliminate most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich
140 Eliminate the income tax for single individuals earning less than $25,000 or those married and jointly earn less than $50,000
141 Create a 15% flat tax on businesses
142 Eliminate the death tax
143 Reduce or eliminate most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich
144 Introduce a one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate
145 Reduce or eliminate corporate loopholes that cater to special interests
146 Simplify the tax code into four brackets from seven brackets – 0%, 10%, 20%, and 25%
There is another if. If the opposition party would allow that to happen. No way. They will do everything to destroy him and his adrministration just like the GOP would have done with Clinton.
Hopefully we will all be happier with Kelly.
For many of the reasons you cite.
But I want to address those.
You want to “tame trump” – Trump was not elected by people who wanted him tamed. He was elected by people who want him to go like Jesus through the temple.
The dignity of the presidency went out the window when Clinton was felated in the oval office – if not long long before – say when Woodrow Wilson screened the KKK propoganda film “the birth of a nation” in the whitehouse.
I understand your desire to change Trump’s style. I may share much of it.
But your concept of dignity or your idea of sanity are not constitutional requirements for the job.
The Obama whitehouse was by most measures one of the most “sane” and “dignified” in a long long time. If that is the measure – Obama is one of our best presidents.
But by more important measures Obama was one of the worst presidents.
Much of the purported chaos and insanity at the moment is in dealing with the mess Obama left.
As things progress I question how even progressives can continue to support the Mueller investigation.
The more we know the more this bites democrats, not Trump.
A criminal investigation requires a crime – what probable cause do you have that a crime has been committed ?
If you want a broad counter-intelligence investigation – that is done by the IC, not a special prosecutor.
For a special prosecutor you need a crime and a target that is in the direct chain of command of the investigators.
There was no SC for Clinton because she was Sec. State. – not in the chain of command for DOJ and FBI.
Probably when Bill Clinton met AG Lynch an SC should have been appointed.
Probably when AG Lynch told Dir. Comey to spin the investigation – and SC should have been appointed.
If you want a political investigation – you do that in congress.
Right now we have Republicans calling for an SC investigation of Clinton or of Obama Whitehouse Unmasking.
Only the latter MIGHT have required an SC during the Obama administration. Neither do now.
An argument I make constantly is that Government is only allowed to operate under limited jusitifiable laws.
Even if you do not accept that, even left wing nuts beleive in equal protection of the law.
That means govenrment must operate under the law and it must apply the law blindly without regard for race, or position or party.
The same or similar circumstances must be treated the same – regardless of who the allegation is against or who it is made by.
If we do not have that then we do not have the rule of law.
You complain of the chaos in the whitehouse – and yet you argue for chaos.
I want to see Trump’s tax return. I want to see his business dealings scrutinized.
But we do not start investigations based on what a majority want, or what a few in power want.
If you do not like what I beleive are the standards for determining when we may have a SC – then you tell me what your criteria are:
Please explain how we have an SC for Trump/Russia – which remains without a crime and without substance, when we did not with Fast & Furious, The IRS, The VA, Benghazi, Unmasking, FusionGPS, Clinton Foundation, The Sec, State using a private email server to thwart FOIA requests, and mishandling classified information, The DNC apparently hiring incompetents, criminals and possibly foreign agents to run their House networks and giving that TSSCI clearance ?
Snore, you put me to sleep faster than a boring lecture by a Flat Earth acolyte.
The snark may be funny, sometimes even I laugh,
but it is not argument.
Is it your view that we should determine government actions by whose remarks get the most laughs ?
This is supposed to be the new moderate – I would presume that means a place where ideas are debated – with facts, logic and reason.
I like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. But I do not take them seriously.
Are you serious ?
How did Russia “influence” the election ? What is “influence” ?
Are you saying they hacked voting machines ?
I am all for not merely investigating that, but fixing that.
Are you saying they hacked the DNC and exposed that the DNC was corruptly favoring Clinton. Are you saying that the public should have to forget what they know about Clinton because they might have learned that the DNC was corrupt through Russia ?
If the DNC had been hacked by a reporter, or if the emails had been stolen by a staffer – they still would have been acquired improperly and illegally.
Are you saying that clickbait stories on RT changed millions of peoples votes ?
No doubt Russia targetted our election.
But their only actual “influence” was that left wing nuts beleive absent evidence that but for Russia they would have won.
While the increasing body of evidence is that Russia was playing BOTH sides.
And provided actually damaging though false information about Trump and nothing about Clinton.
As best as I can tell you think that your anger and outrage requires a human sacrifice.
How are you different from the Russians – or worse the USSR and Mao’s China.
Trump was elected to persue and agenda.
Towards the top of that agenda was “draining the swamp”
If Kelley allows Trump to effectively pursue that – I do not think you will be happy.
I beleive that when you say you want Kelley to reign in Trump, what you mean is that you want Kelley to stop Trump from doing what his supporters elected him to do.
He hasn’t drained any swamp, he’s polluted it more.
Kinda like your incoherent mutterings confusing rather than clarifying.
Yes, the swamp creatures are fighting back, and you have taken sides with them, against that of voters.
Regardless. Trump could do more, but more so than any president in my life he has actually tried to keep his campaign promises in some form. Even those I did not like.
I do not relish defending Trump.
I do not like his style – but I get my vote on that in 2020, and it will be a small factor in many.
But I am more offended by the behaviour of his enemies.
I recently read an article that was atleast partly an interview of the Lebanese president.
He is part of a shared government with Hezzbolla, At the same time he is a vigorous oppoment of Hezzbolla – they killed his father.
Anyway much of the article was about the fact that Trump is radically changing things in the Mideast, That is he disempowering Iran, Syria, and Russia, which under Obama had become the dominiant political force in the mideast because of the US abdication.
That as a consequence fighting terrorism is both possible and successful.
And that there are prospects of broad peace.
There is alot that needs done, and no guarantees but the nations of the mideast have more hope today than since just after Obama took office.
How has Trump influenced any of that?
You’re full of Dodo ideas.
“How has Trump influenced any of that?
You’re full of Dodo ideas.”
Are you serious ?
Flynn was targeted because he was behind exactly the anti-putin, anti-iran, pro-saudi policies that are the exact opposite of the Obama policies.
These have gone through anyway.
Trump has all but repudiated Obama’s Iran deal.
He has diminished Russia’s mideast role to near irrelevance,
He has destroyed Russian surogate Assad’s airforce and threatened direct confrontation with Russian pilots.
It is way to early to be certain of the effectiveness of anything Trump has done in foreign or domestic policy. But in myriads of areas the initial results are very encouraging.
Wow, this last comment is babble wrapped in muddle.
What the hell are you talking about with Flynn? Who targeted him for that?
The rest is Ill-informed blabbering nonsense.
I was never in favor of the Iran deal (I called it the Iran Sham Deal) and I hope it gets dissolved. But Duplicitous Donald has re-certified it TWICE! Oh right, he slapped some ticky-tack sanctions on Iran after his last recertification as a distraction to supporters for GOING BACK on his promise to IMMEDIATELY overturn US participation in the deal. And have any of his show-sanctions been implemented yet?
Guess who is pushing for meaningful Iran sanctions? Bi-partisan Senators on both sides of the aisle, that’s who. The Senate has been acting independently of Dufus Donald: packaging Iran Sanctions with the Russian sanctions they just sent to him ( which he just falsely claimed he never received) Those Iran sanctions, by the way, were modeled after executive orders from Obama and Bush-2.
Trump has diminished Putin’s role in the Mideast, and destroyed Assad Air Force? Stop swallowing those stupid pills, please – they’re bad for your mental digestion. After Trump sent those missiles to knock out Assad’s planes, are you ignorant of what Happened? Russia expanded its air role in the Syria conflict, and is now by far the dominant power in the air war.
And do you have your head buried under your pillow about warnings? After the downing of the Syrian jet, BOTH Russia and Iran subsequently warned the US they would respond with force if future red lines were crossed. Have you noticed any forced response from US Military since then?
And what happened to Trump’s tough talk about stopping North Korea’s nuclear advancement? Did you conveniently forget his promise to deal with that IMMEDIATELY on taking office?
And what happened to his PROMISE that Mexico would pay for the Wall? Or didn’t you notice that $Billion plus Taxpayer funded bill the Republicans just passed in the House?
Stop being a Trump Toady.
Flynn made enemies int he Obama administration – none of this is secret.
He was fired as Obama’s DNI because:
He opposed dealing with Iran.
He was a harsh critic of much of the intelligence community because he felt the were fixated on political intelligence – what does Merkel think, rather than intelligence concerning actual threats to the US.
Flynn made no secret that as Trump’s NSA he was looking to change that.
Absent Flynn Trump has done everything short of repudiate the Iran deal.
The balance of power in the mideast has changed radically under Trump.
Iran and Russia have been significantly diminished.
Former allies have much greater influence.
With respect to Iran – are you really saying that Trump is dealing with Iran in the same way that Obama would have ?
Sorry, the Iran deal is dead in all but name.
And we may yet see that.
I oppose sanctions – whether against Cuba, or Russia or Iran.
It think they are stupid and that americans trading with vile regimes is our most effective means of changing them.
I am scared about a nuclear Iran and more scared of an nuclear North Korea.
But the most effective and only legitimate means we have of dealing with nations with or seeking nuclear power is to make the attempted use of nuclear weapons incredibly costly.
Our ABM systems need work. But they are still better than nothing and they are improving, and they are our best hope at dealing with NK or Iran or whoever decides to get Nukes next.
But there is a difference between dropping sanctions because they are stupid and ineffective and getting in bed with Iran and dissing our actual allies in the mideast – as repugnant as many of them are.
Though again Washington’s advice to trade with everyone and get in bed with no one looks very sound.
With respect to Russian military in the mideast.
The last time Russia was heavily deployed in the mideast – the USSR collapsed.
Putin is propping up his regime through military incursions trying to quell economic unrest at home with nationalist reactions to military force abroad.
But Russia does not have the resources to sustain all of the military commitments it has made.
If as you say the Russian Air presence is greater in the mideast post the destruction of Assad’s airforce – great, let the russian’s burn their wealth propping up Iran and Syria.
Regardless, serious progress against ISIS did not start until after Trump was inagurated and has progressed rapidly since. And it has done so at the cost of very very few US lives.
And yes, shortly after the thrashing of Assad’s airforce Russia was PUBLICLY told that US pilots would down Russian aircraft that attempted to interfere in US operations.
Whatever “red-line” iran or russia drew the US said F$&K it.
But most significantly – we can argue details all you want – our relations with Iran have worsened, and our relations to the Saudi’s and other Mideastern powers improved at the expense of Russia.
Assad may or may not remain, if he does he will be permanently dependant on Russia,
and Putin can not afford the military role he has taken on long term.
The Russian economy peaked at 2.2T in 2013. It is 1.2T right now.
That is a nearly 50% recession.
Our great recession went from 14.7T to 14.2T
Do you have any idea how bad things are in Russia ?
Russia desperately needs $100bbl oil prices – which have not been seen since 2013 and are highly unlikely anytime soon.
This is also screwing over Iran and Venezuela, and making the Saudi’s friendlier.
North Korea scares the crap out of me.
I will agree that in the past 6 month’s Trump has not ended the threat of North Korea as a nuclear power.
Our best chance of that was during the Clinton administration.
Regardless, we have seen more progress in the past 6 months than the entire preceding 20 years.
South Korea, China and Japan are all working with us.
Trump is flogging the crap out of the chinese.
Maybe as he says – they can do more.
But they are already doing far more than they ever have before.
Frankly Trump has very nearly made China his bitch.
He has thus far not imposed any of the sanctions he claimed he would,
and I hope he is bluffing.
But he has very effectively used the threat to get China to cooperate in ways they have never done before.
THAAD is being deployed in South Korea.
just as sanctions – I think the wall is a stupid idea.
But as bad ideas of the federal government go it is pretty cheap.
The entire cost of the wall is less than 1/10 the direct cost of PPACA for one year, and about 1/50 the indirect cost.
I would love to get rid of all our stupid spending boondoggles.
BTW Trump continues to assert Mexico is paying for the wall.
I suspect he means through tarriffs.
Regardless, he is trying to build it.
Whether you or I like that or not.
I am not that sure he will succeed.
But to his supporters what matters is that he tries.
They are going to blame the left and Rhino’s for failure.
This is a part of the problem with the GOP on PPACA.
Trump voters do not for the most part want repeal and replace.
They want repeal.
Large portions of them were hurt by PPACA.
Very few were helped.
I think Trump made a mistake promising replace, and I think the republicans did to.
Atleast your last post seems to try to address actual issues, rather than
The “Trump = Russia” nonsense that is already burning and burning out the left.
I do not agree with all of Trump’s platform.
Worse there are many parts I agree with he is not following
I actually hope he moves Sessions to DHS because that is a far better place for Sessions than as AG. But I do not think that is actually happening.
I think Sessions wants to be AG.
But quibbling aside, Trump is actually doing much of what he needs to, to keep his base happy. Polsters are going nuts trying to figure out why Trump’s negatives seem to have a floor – the same level they were on election day.
While everyone else’s negatives keep going down.
Trump voters are sticking with Trump.
Democrats are increasingly demoralized.
The generic ballot cap is +10GOP I do not think that has ever been more favorable for Republicans.
There is a long way to go to 2018 and much can go to hell between now and then.
But absent starting an unpopular war, or tanking the economy,
Not only my crystal ball but many of the experts are predicting that Republicans hold the house and gain 2 seats in the Senate.
If the economy remains at 2.6% growth republicans will do better than that.
I also keep pushing this business integrity point which you are totally clueless about.
Trump stood up to Carrier and Ford and GE and scored some short term victories.
In the long run he changed nothing – but Trump voters still saw him stand up for them.
A big part of what the left does not seem to understand is that mostly they just need someone to recognize them. To not take them for granted, to know they are their.
Further the lefts attacks on Trump backfire with them.
The more you call Trump a racist homophobic hater.
The stronger his support is.
Because his voters know you are talking about THEM too.
I am not exactly sure how a billionaire from NYC managed to convince working class voters across the country that he is one of them. But he inarguably did.
Bill Clinton did and that is the last democrat who managed to.
Anyway, I would suggest looking past why you hate Trump and pondering why his supporters love him and why they are loyal.
A major part of that is they think he has more integrity than the left.
They trust him. They do not trust you.
They are using different measures of what trust means and what integrity means than you.
But then you can not see the difference between me and them. You are incapable of understanding any perspective besides your own.
Another recent article noted that Russia and Putin are in extremely bad straights.
That Putin has remained in power despite a disasterous economy because he has made the Russian people feel like they were a world power again.
Since Trump’s election Russia’s global role has diminished.
Their economy weakens, they are being shutout in the mideast
We are providing military aide to Ukraine.
Congress is enacting sanctions – and trump actually wanted more severe ones.
So I ask you:
How is Trump Putin’s puppet ?
Why is it you think Russia wanted Trump as president ?
Acts not intentions matter.
http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/bart-hinkle/a-barton-hinkle-column-good-intentions-bad-outcomes/article_4d5362dd-40d2-5d92-b94f-51fb84a82daa.html
The cost of regulation
Roby, Dave is right about Democrats wanting Kelly to control Trump so that he cannot pursue the agenda that he campaigned on. I get it…as Ron says, had Hillary been elected, Republicans would have been opposed to her agenda, which would have basically been a continuation of the Obama agenda. But Hillary would at least have had the media running interference for her, covering up her mistakes, and hiding her corruption.
I believe that General Kelly has the patriotism and the humility to understand that Trump was elected on some very specific campaign promises, and that it is not his (Kelly’s) job to push his own priorities, but to impose the organizational discipline on Trump’s White House that will enable the President to pursue his.
We will see soon enough whether or not Kelly is able to do this, but getting rid of Scaramucci was a good start.
Apparently he could NOT do the Fandango.
Scaramucci, Scaramucci, will you do the Fandango?
Nice!
Priscilla;
I hope that Kelley calms down the tempest that is the Trump white house.
Just as Jay, and Roby hope.
Though on many things I disagree, I have no problem with the left challenging Trump’s policies. Republicans would have done the same.
What I have a problem with is the hypocracy.
The war on Trump is billed by the left and media as a war on his legitimacy, his competence, … there is no hiding that it is personal.
But regardless of whether you like Trump’s style, he was elected to enact a platform.
If Trump fails as president – whether because of his personal foibles or as a consequence of a soft coup – Trump voters – and many of the rest of us want the swamp drained.
To a very large extent trump’s enemies are the swamp creatures or their keepers.
Alas, since JB has refused to defend his title, I must strip him of his Ad hominem Award and present it to the new CHAMPIOOOOON! : JAY!
Thank you thank you thank you!
I will cherish the award with the reverence and respect it deserves, and try to live up to its honored expectation whenever that’s called for..😎👍
Jay, Russia is weak.
It may be in nearly as bad a position as it was in 1989.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-retaliation-economy-idUSKBN1AH4S1
‘
Dave, North Korea is VERY weak – that doesn’t stop it from being a dangerous enemy.
And ‘weak’ is a relative term.
And when Russia under Stalin and Kruschev was VERY VERY weak, they still were a BIGLY problem.
The only thing really weak, are your arguments.
I agree with nearly everything your said.
North Korea is a weak country with a huge military and nuclear weapons.
That has been true for two decades.
All that has changed is that they have an increasing nuclear threat and the potential cost of confronting them increases.
Russia is also a weak country with a huge military and an enormous number of nuclear weapons.
It is unlikely that we will face a Putin lobbing nukes at everyone when he faces loss of power.
But it is possible that in the chaos of a collapse loose nikes end up in the hands of people we would prefer they did not.
I do not have the answer with respect to dealing with North Korea, or Russia, or Iran.
I do not think Trump does, nor do I think Clinton does.
I hope the results do not end up horrible. I do not think there is a way to know that they will end up better under Trump than Clinton.
We do not know what will work.
The Resistance Is Unwell
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-resistance-is-unwell/
I don’t think this administration has accomplished much so far except division. Disapproval has been holding steady at nearly 60% his entire presidency, unprecedented in my lifetime. There is meaning to that. He has no mandate. If he is going to get anything done he had better figure out a way to reach out, which as a start would come be being a lot more normal and stable and thus inspiring the respect that a POTUS should. At some point a real crisis will break out and he will need to generate a lot more respect than he is generating now.
Kelley at least was a move in the direction of sanity (finally). Lets hope that sanity breaks out. People here and everywhere moving one step away from their alternate universes would be a good sign that we are not going to piss away the good strong things in America by splitting into 2+ different species.
I dunno, Ricks post was about the basic decency of Americans outside of politics. For a while we were even talking about having a beer by the pool somewhere. Now we are back to the same old same old pattern, driven most of all by Dave’s need to try to force the world into his universe, which solves nothing, it generates a lot of posts a lot of heated division, nothing more interesting.
I am with Jay (and Ron too I believe) in strongly disapproving of the trump circus, but note that even Jay and I are stilling pulling much harder for the US then we are against trump. trump will go away someday, the US will endure. Destruction of our common ground must be fought, compromise must be sought, moderates must somehow use their power to find the sanity in the middle. Neither left nor right have the numbers to prevail.
Roby, I have to agree with everything you said! One thing we need to keep in mind is Trumps approval is about where it was with the voters in election day. The difference between 40% and his vote % was those holding their nose and voting against Clinton.
Now for a point of interest. Obama, and his inner circle supporters, are trying to convince Duval (former Mass governor and black) to run for president. The very first comment in the article said they are doing this because he would appeal to a large number of voters in SC that did not vote this time, meaning he would get out the black vote.
To me, when the first reason you make is to get out the black vote because the candidate is black, that is promoting division in the country. It is not picking the “best” candidate that appeals to moderates, added to the liberal base, that is best for the country.c
I find those like Burr and Warner, leaders in Senate, refreshing since neither has used politics in there investigation. That is the type leadership this country needs from both parties.
Ron, I can only hope that we have hit bottom and that this sad phase will wake people up. I think it will take a catastrophe to really pull people back together as the Americans they are when politics is not being discussed. I have a feeling that life will provide that catastrophe that shows us how weak we are when we fall into the cesspool of partisan politics without thinking deeper than our own group.
What kind of catastrophe do you immagine ?
The big catastrophe’s facing us right now are the collapse of PPACA.
Followed much latter by the collapse of Medicare and SS.
And a growing debt that radically limits govenrment action in the midst of a crisis.
My sense of the parties.
Both parties have their own problems.
Over the past 2 decades those of the GOP have been more public.
There is no single definition of republican. There are myriads of flavors, with each waxing and waning and forming coalitions to gain power. Republicans looked unified in 2009 – because all or nearly all did actually oppose much of what Obama sought.
The same is true of democrats at the moment.
Regardless, for republicans to accomplish anything right now they have to get near unanimity and that is close to impossible for republicans.
Conversely democrats have allowed their party to be taken over by progressives.
They appear today to make up the majority of democrats.
But nationally they are much weaker than “conservatives” as a whole.
Progressives own the democratic party, and in doing so they make the part unpaletable to independents.
Within the GOP overtime these problems look to be slowly resolving themselves.
the fiscally conservative socially liberal groups rather than neo-cons, social conservatives and moderates are slowly gaining power.
Conversely the democrats do not appear to be addressing their problems.
Whatever the purported democratic reset is at the moment, it mostly looks like the old version. Democrats still seem to think they are going to be able to buy voters with free things. Democrats need to figure out how to appeal to white working class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan ans so far they appear clueless as to how to do so.
Trump’s approval rating is low. It is also the same as it was on election day.
Clinton’s approval rating is lower still.
As is congresses, democrats, republicans, the media, government as a whole.
That is as it should be.
We do not trust the government – that is great.
It does not deserve our trust.
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt”
Regardless, an increase in the scale of a minority opposing government infringement on liberty is sufficient to end that infringement.
Trump has sufficient mandate to deconstruct government, to drain the swamp.
He does not have a mandate to grow it.
You can disagree. But aside from being moral and philospohical facts that conforms to human nature.
Outside the extreme left many of us are annoyed at the palace intrigues.
But only a minority of the left is hysterical about Trump’s actual governance.
Roby
How have I used force against you or anyone else ?
You ludicrously misuse “force”. When you play egregious games with the meaning of words, there is no trust.
All of our conflict arises from the opposite. From the efforts of the left to actually use force on others, and the willingness of some many moderates to aqueiss
You note that humans are basically decent outside politics.
That is very nearly my fundamental point.
With few exceptions we can trust people in their own lives.
But we can not trust them to govern the lives of others.
A great deal of the country disapproves of the Trump circus.
So what ?
If we disapprove of the presidents tie – do we impeach ?
What does pulling for the US even mean ?
American greatness, american exceptionalism does NOT come from our govenrment.
You are looking for what is great and what is good about this nation where it is not to be found.
Our common ground is what it is. Our political conflict is over the idiocy of the left in believing that common ground can be created by force.
America is the most diverse nation in the world – something even the left celebrates.
It is that diversity – the extremely narrow scope of our common ground that is the root of our success. No one is looking to destroy our common ground. Just end the pretense that it is larger than it is.
We are not sweden. We are not lily white, with 95% of us coming from the same church, same tribe. We do not share much common ground. But that common ground that we share, that and that alone is what is essential to a just society.
Trump will go away, the nation will endure.
But sanity is NOT in the middle.
It is in the least common denominator of our values.
Our common ground, is those things we actually share – not what one group or another wishes we share.
Our common ground is not some compromise in the middle.
It is those values and principles we share – near universally.
Common: belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members of a group
Americans have the least common ground of any nation on earth and that is what makes us exceptional it leaves us the greatest freedom and results in the most rapid improvement in our lives.
If we got together we would likely get along.
We might compromise on some things – where to get lunch,
We might persuade each other on others,
Where we could not compromise and could not persuade we would accept each others differing views. We would do nothing if we could not agree, or each do our own thing.
That is how people get along in ordinary life.
The more abstract we make things, the more distance we have between each other, the less we have to look at the faces of those we are seeking to impose our views on, the easier it is.
I am just asking you to grasp that you we should take great care when we are doing through govenrment something we can not accomplish through ordinary voluntary agreement.
The whole idea of a “mandate,” is interesting to me. If you are elected, particularly with a convincing majority of the electoral vote, I consider that a majority. I understand that some define “mandate” as an overwhelming landslide victory, but the truth is, that a mandate is simply a victory on the merits.
Ron, I have to disagree that Trump’s victory was based entirely on antipathy to Hillary. That was certainly a big part of it, but anti- Trump voters formed an equally large number of Hillary voters. Trump’s victory flipped a large number of Obama districts, as well as increased the number of first time voters, as well as voters who had not voted in many years.
Bill Clinton’s approval ratings were not dissimilar to Trump’s at this point in his presidency. It was his willingness to accept that much of the GOP “Contract with America” was what the voters wanted that restored his popularity. Of course, his own inability to discipline his deviant sexual behavior later caused his impeachment, but even after that, his approval ratings stayed relatively strong, based on the public’s belief that the Republicans had overplayed their hand, and on his strong support from the media. So, I’m not particularly persuaded that approval ratings equal political success, or that disapproval signals political doom.
Roby, I socialize, quite amiably, all the time with people with whom I disagree politically. And, I’ve said more than once that I (most of the time, anyway!) look forward to reading your disagreement with me, and you have, over the years, often influenced my thinking on particular matters. I’m strongly of the opinion that it’s ok to have strong opinions…the problem arises when people become angry and intentionally divisive, resort to name-calling instead of reasoning, cherry-pick “facts” and statistics, and retreat into what Rick calls “Amen Corners.”
I hope that we can meet up for our “beer summit,” and I’m sure that no fisticuffs will be part of the gathering 😉 (I don’t drink beer, though, so we’ll have to also have wine or vodka….unless vodka will give the impression that I endorse Russian collusion!)
“I consider that a majority”**
Mandate, MANDATE, damn you, autocorrect!!
I am strictly a wine drinker, and not much at that.
1/2 glass puts me to sleep.
In the 1948 Presidential election, Truman (an underdog to win, like tRump) eked out an electoral victory, by SMALL margins; but though he had a bigger electoral victory than tRump (Truman – 303; Dewey -189 — tRump 304; Clinton 232) Truman was not considered to have “a mandate” because of the overall tightness of the race, and widespread perceived dissatisfaction with Truman among the electorate at election time – no mandate despite that fact he also WON the popular vote by 3-million.
A ‘mandate’ isn’t a legal term; it’s a decidedly vague concept; just ‘winning’ an election isn’t enough to claim you have a mandate to carry out policies antagonistic to a majority of the citizens you are to govern.
Again I agree with pretty much everything you are saying regarding mandates.
I would add that whether one has a mandate depends on why people voted for you.
Obama did not have a mandate in 2008 despite an overwhelming victory for democrats.
People did not vote for democratic policies.
The voted out republicans for failure.
Further there is still a difference between growing government and shrinking it.
Roby raised the issue of “common ground” – though there are other constraints on government, it is still true that government can only act within our common ground.
Where we are significantly at odds government may not act.
Trump’s platform was rooted in the recognition that government had exceeded that common ground. He does have a mandate to bring government back inside the scope of our common ground.
I disagree a bit on mandates.
But I will continue my distinction between doing and undoing,
between further infringement on rights and reducing infringement.
Super majority support should be needed to do something.
PPACA never should have become law – for many reasons, but among them because it has at its best enjoyed plurality support.
That should never be good enough to increase government power.
The same applies to Trump, this election did not give Trump the mandate necescary to increase the power of government.
But the reverse is true. Nothing more than strong minorities are necescary to reduce government. Trump has an absolute and strong mandate to “drain the swamp”.
as an example.
You are correct that Trump’s victory was not based solely on antipathy to clinton.
Trump has a solid core of supporters that do not seem be prepared to abandon him.
These are people who were and remain enthusiastic about Trump.
But Trump would not have won but for voters holding their noses and voting against Clinton.
Democrats could have beaten Trump with a good candidate.
I am not sure who that is. I am not sure that democrats are capable at the moment of fielding a good candidate. I do not think democrats understand why the lost well enough to figure out how to win. I do not think that the majority of democrats are capable of choosing the candidate that could win. The power in the party is too strong and too far left.
Bill Clinton likely would have destroyed Trump in this election.
But there is no Bill Clinton running.
Conversely I have seen some analysis that suggests that Trump likely would have beaten Obama had he been able to run again.
As you note there is more going on than just Hillaries poor character.
Good point, Dave. Maybe it wouldn’t have taken anything more than having Hillary do one campaign event in Wisconsin during the final weeks of the campaign.
But, I do think that there is another point to be made about Trump’s victory, and it also helps to shed some light on his difficulty in pursuing his agenda so far.
Trump campaigned enthusiastically and energetically on 4-5 very clear and specific issues, while Hillary campaigned on her gender, her resume and Trump’s unfitness for office. Even leaving aside her email scandal, her collapse at the 9-11 ceremony, and James Comey’s letter, she gave prospective voters next to nothing with which to justify their vote for her. I remember Jay and Roby becoming annoyed with me for repeatedly asking them to identify one single actual accomplishment of hers….but I don’t think that she ever identified one. Lots of important jobs, no real significant accomplishments in any of them.
That said, campaigning and governing require two separate skill sets, as does running a corporation and governing. I’m not sure that Donald Trump realized until recently (maybe not until last week, maybe not yet) that he needs to acquire some new “governing skills” if he’s ultimately going to have a successful presidency. I think that appointing Kelly as COS probably signals that he might finally be figuring this out.
I hope so….
There are two distinct issues regarding this campaign.
Even if Trump had narrowly lost – this would have been a huge defeat for the left.
I keep trying to get through to people that a majority can not impose its will by force on an significant minority. There are many reasons for that, moral, philosophical as well as practical. If you can not accept the moral and philosophical you should atleast grasp that if 51% of the population attempts to impose its will by force on 49% who are going to resist – you are going to need a very powerful police state.
Every law and regulation you create increases the size of government, because even if most people will just obey ALL will not.
Aside from the moral and philosophical reasons the minority has a veto because imposing your will on them by force is expensive.
The other is the the tactics of the left failed. Identity politics backfired.
One of the reasons Trump was and remains popular is because his supporters seem him as much like them. When the left says hateful, hating, haters, Trump’s supporters knew the left meant THEM. And Trump stood up and fought back for them.
I am not sure what it takes to get the left to see themselves in the mirror.
To very very many of us we can not tell the KKK from much of the left and the media.
I do not think this NYT article is all that good – but still it is the NYT calling out the left for hete mongering.
Today some significant black democrat came out and basically said F$%K the blue collar whites. Who needs them the Democrats should just try to get 70.000 more black votes from Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee.
Just what we need to aim for – a black party and a white party.
Both Trump and Rand Paul made major efforts to reach out to black and other minority voters. I am not sure that worked that well for them. But atleast they tried.
Management is management.
I would be far less critical of Trump.
He has put excellent OUTSIDERS in charge of most departments.
He is very actively slashing the upper management throughout government.
He is essentially doing something similar to what Romney’s Baine Capital did with businesses it took over. Step in, put in very good outsiders, get right of dead weight, reduce the depth of management and get rid of distractions and focus on the core job.
So long as Trump is focused on shrinking government, deregulating, then the differences between public and corporate government are quite small.
It is when you look to expand government – when you seek to legislate that things are much different.
I would further note that many others have noticed that the chaos in the whitehouse enables the rest of Trump’s cabinet to act mostly unnoticed.
I beleive Ben Carson said pretty much that yesterday.
I think most of us would like the war between the press and the whitehouse to end.
But I actually think it has served Trump more than his enemies.
We have gone 9 months since the election and Democrats are still in total disarray.
They stand for nothing. I think they are on their second post election reset and still do not get it.
Mueller is a threat to Trump but probably not that great a threat.
But the left and the media pushing Trump/Russia conspiracies all the time is burning everyone out – and the left and the media lose when that happens.
Meanwhile out of the spotlight the Trump administration is quietly building up accomplishments. Four more quarters like the past two and democrats are in serious trouble in 2018.
Further I do not think the purportedly negative impact of various problems or failures, is near as great as claimed.
I do not think the failure to pass ObamaCare Repeal will harm Republicans in 2018.
The GOP managed to get LOTS of votes on record. Senators – republican and democrat are going to have to defend those votes in 2018. There are 8 Democratic Senate Seats up in red states in 2018.
We had similar predictions after the Shutdown – and yet the elections a year later went very well for the GOP. Far too many on the left seem to think that to remain credible with voters republicans must pass legislation. I think the worst think that could have happened to the GOP would have been to pass ObamaCare Lite.
Regardless, one of the big changes to much of the GOP that was brought about by the Tea Party is the unwillingness of increasing numbers of republican voters to settle, to compromise. The Tea Party made it clear to the GOP they were prepared to see the GOP lose seats rather than fill them with “rhino’s”.
As I have said before – often losing is a better choice than compromise.
Regardless, I think that if the current war between Trump and the media and the left continued endlessly AND what has been going on “behind the scenes” continued.
Republicans will gain in 2018 and Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and he will be deemed a transformative president.
As I keep trying to tell people – 2018 and 2020 will be about the economy. Not Russia.
Dave, you say often losing is better than compromise. There are fragments of seconds where my brain agrees and then reality sets in and I remember the impact of 2008 that gave us Obamacare, billions in debt, and unlmited regulation by. E.O. Under extremely few instances will I ever agree having government contolled by the current Democrat party is better than compromise and control by the Republicans.
The examples you give make my point.
I am not particularly worried about ObamaCare. It is an unsustainable disaster.
It has been an albatross arround the necks of the left.
Had republicans “compromised” it would be slightly less bad and take slightly more time to fail. But more importantly, republicans would atleast in part own it, and they would never have reaped the political benefits of its failure (both politically and in practive).
The unwillingness of republicans to compromise pushed democrats to behave lawlessly.
Again a political victory.
There is a reason that Republicans control nearly 2/3 of the machinery of government in this country right now – and it is not their willingness to compromise.
It is the failure of democratic ideas, and the fact that Republicans did not participate means that the ownship of failure is clear.
Republicans now have significant control. They must deliver what they can.
But that does NOT mean pass tons of equally ill considered legislation to democrats.
It means they must undo the improperly enacted crap that democrats imposed lawlessly – mostly Trump is doing that.
Republicans must return to “regular order”, the rule of law, lawful governance.
That is very difficult, and incredibly slow – as it should be.
To the extent I have any problems with that – it is the argument I keep making.
Undoing the expansion of govenrment power should be easy. While expanding it should be hard.
Roby, I socialize, quite amiably, all the time with people with whom I disagree politically. And, I’ve said more than once that I (most of the time, anyway!) look forward to reading your disagreement with me, and you have, over the years, often influenced my thinking on particular matters. I’m strongly of the opinion that it’s ok to have strong opinions…the problem arises when people become angry and intentionally divisive, resort to name-calling instead of reasoning, cherry-pick “facts” and statistics, and retreat into what Rick calls “Amen Corners.”””
Priscilla, thanks for your openmindedness (at least someone around here opens their mind occasionally!) Our worst moments have come when current events led us to to continually beat the same issue to death. At some point people should be wise enough to disengage, before the tempers inevitably flare, feelings are ruffled, and the whole thing just becomes dismal and boring. I think we have been fairly good not staying rigidly trapped in the same solutionless pattern of debating some sore point ad nauseum. Not perfect but pretty good. When people just dig themselves into their trenches and lob the same grenades over and over, what is the point? The internet is great at matching up incompatible personalities looking for an outlet to heave dung at someone. I hate it when I go in that direction.
As to the meet up, I very seriously suggest that you 4 or 5 folks meet in Joisey somewhere and invite me and others who live at a distance via skype. That is a thing that could happen pretty easily. If anyone who is not prone to pressing their political point beyond my endurance happens to visit Vermont, who knows, I may even put them up and have that beer. I will travel to Albany if that gets organized, but it would be so much more work than jersey, probably would never happen. I am flattered at the thought but… As well, you might get Ron to come if you meet in Joisey, or you Philadelphia area people could move halfway to Ron (Ha! DC!). Having a beer is just a stock phrase, like having a Coke (you’ll get Pepsi as your coke or wine as your beer). Mike is probably not going to make it very far from Texas, or Jay from California but skype can be a conference call and we might get the whole gang involved.
I am musicant8888 on skype (for anyone who is interested in dirty jokes or funny python voices).
Socializing is different.
Like Priscilla I live in a world with people – many close friend that are extremely disparate politically (and in other ways).
Those differences are one of the reasons I am libertarian. It is the only ideology that fights for your right to think what ever you damn well please.
I would be interested in Joisey or Skype. It is probably not possible for me to make albany.
Philly works too.
dhlii1 on skype but I am not up most of the time.
you can email jbsay@thebrokenwindow.net.
You might have noticed – I do not mind beating an issue to death.
I do not even mind the ad hominem – mostly.
What I mind is the lack of arguments.
Conservatives are not particularly good at defending their positions.
Progressives are abysmal.
Most here I do not think really fit moderate – whatever that is.
One of the most important reasons for free speach is it is how we test our ideas, or thoughts, our values or principles.
It is the crucible. We should express our ideas, we should expect they will get vigorously attacked and we should do our best to defend them, and if necescary revise them because of what we learn.
“You might have noticed – I do not mind beating an issue to death.
I do not even mind the ad hominem – mostly.
What I mind is the lack of arguments.”
Er, yeah.
Dave, people here give you solid arguments and facts constantly, you just have an amazing talent for dismissing them out of hand. So, people who have been here for a while often stop even engaging you there. Your mind is welded shut. By definition, only your own arguments are valid to you, and you have the worst case of that I have ever witnessed in anyone anywhere.
Take that very unproductive trait and marry it to your continual over the top attempts to force people to come around to your philosophy via an avalanche of words that bury all competing thoughts under their volume and you have a style that I cannot deal with. Its just not worth entering a discussion with you, though I periodically forget that and try again.
Yes, Dave, words have force and can be a force. We have all encountered salesmen who use words to sell unwanted products to unwilling customers and it works sometimes, people get badgered and pestered until they relent. It happens all the time, in peoples personal lives, in business, in politics people get forced by words into doing something not in their interests or desires by some person on a never say die mission using only words, words, words. You are that salesman attempting to wear others down by sheer volume of words. You have a fanatical devotion to your cause, believe that no one resisting you has any valid points and you seemingly have the time to do it hyperactively without any end in sight. Look at TNM by scrolling down TNM. Your icon and words fill up the space top to bottom, trying to find some other posters words ain’t easy. Can I get TNM in my mailbox? Only if I want my e-mail jammed day after day with notifications that Dave has had another impulse to beat a dead horse.
You do it, you say for “fun”. Editing your one basic repetitive thought down to a digestible form and not trying to shove it down others throats in a torrent day after day, month after month, year after year would ruin that for you it would not be “fun.” Whether its fun for others is not your concern.
Ironically, you are the guy who proves why the “I can do want to, no one can stop me, its immoral to stop me” impulse behind libertarian thinking is an very imperfect philosophy. Some people have little or no respect for other people’s boundaries. Those people are not a small problem. If those people did not exist there would be a better chance for libertarian principles. But they do exist and always will.
You will get absolutely none of what I just said and declare yourself the victor, yet again. There needs to be a word that means boring, only much much stronger.
Roby “Some people have little or no respect for other people’s boundaries.”
Please do not make this comment in a statement limited to Libertarian philosophies. In many ways, Liberals and Conservatives have much less regard for boundaries than others. A Libertarian that accepts the thinking they can do anything that even impacts others is not really a Libertarian, that to me sounds more like a Millennial.
This is not ideological.
Roby is conflating his absolute right to control what he hears, with a power to control what others say. Just as he conflates words with force.
No Roby, People here – particularly those on the left have NOT given me solid arguments.
or facts.
Both are notoriously absent from nearly all the arguments on the left.
On very rare occasions the left offers paper thin sound bite arguments and facts that have been repeatedly refuted. Yes, I dismiss those – using facts and logical arguments.
That is how one deals with bad facts and bad arguments – you refute them.
Which I do.
We used a great deal of space here arguing about the Minimum Wage.
Well the data is now coming in From Seattle (and more slowly from other places).
And it is bad.
Yet, the left is still pushing this nonsense.
The rules of logic determine what arguments are valid – not your or my personal views.
Fallacy is not valid argument. Humans did not spend thousands of years determining the rules of logic and identifying fallacious forms of argument for pleasure. They did so to make it easier to separate good arguments from bad ones.
Though I have some fun trying to find new ways to make arguments refuting leftist nonsense. Roby, this is not even close.
The very few arguments you make are rooted in ridiculously errors about the past that are pretty trivial to check. Absolutely – you are not alone in making those arguments. In fact you are in the company of a great many left leaning intellectuals.
But facts and logic are not decided by concensus – not that there is consenus on most of these.
Regardless, I will be happy to take most any issue that we disagree on, and address it in excruciating detail.
Most of the arguments of mine that you do not like are hundreds of years old.
They were valid then and remain valid now.
Not this stupid “force” nonsense again.
I have not held a gun to anyone’s head.
I would like to convince you – just as you would like to convince me.
Though I have only one absolute key point – and that is about your actual use of force.
You can beleive and live your life in accordance to any fallacious values you wish.
You can do so in concert with any that you can persuade or can persuade you to join them.
You may not use actual FORCE to compel others who do not share your views to live as you wish.
Doing so is YOU using force, not me.
Further doing so is incredibly dangerous.
When you start using force against others, you justify their using force against you.
The above is probably our most fundamental point of disagreement.
Yet, I have never heard you provide any clear explanation of when you are allowed to use force to impose your will on others and when you are not. That is actual anarchy.
No Roby, words are not force.
The fact that words work sometimes does not make them force.
Micheal Phelps has more hours and miles swimming than I do by many orders of magnitude. The tremendous disparity between his swimming and mine does not constitute force.
No one FORCES you read my posts. No one FORCES you to respond.
If you do not want to see notices of posts from me in your inbox – there are tools to deal with that.
You are making just about the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
You are arguing that freedom = force.
You are making an argument that inevitably leads to totalitarianism.
If instead of me arguing against you, there were 10,000 others with similar values to mine making the same arguments – would that be force ?
You are literally arguing that who says something matters.
An argument is true or false (or fallacious) regardless of who makes it.
It does not matter whose gravatar appears beside each post – only what that post says.
Why do you think you get to decide what is fun for someone else ?
I love music. I love guitar music. I have appreciated your music posts.
I am gathering that you spend alot of time playing and practicing the guitar,
does doing so give you pleasure or does doing that day after day, month after month ruin it for you ?
Ironically, you are the guy who proves why the “I can do want to, no one can stop me, its immoral to stop me” impulse behind libertarian thinking is an very imperfect philosophy
Ignoring the word libertarian and the ad hominem – you are correct.
But your statement neither reflects my nor libertarian philosophy.
Do I need to repeat the justifiable constraints on freedom again ?
You complain that I am repetitive and tedious.
But you make the same misrepresentations constantly.
Why would you expect to get a different response to a stupid and fallacious misreprentation ?
Libertarianism is not anarchy. Your inability to explain when force is and is not permissible is anarchy.
I have plenty of respect for your actual legitimate boundaries.
But again you seem to think that you are allowed to use force to control the speach or behavior of others outside your won actual private space.
I am not intruding on you in space you own or control.
You are really trying to argue that if I only said something once, you might be inclined to give it thought, but because I have said it multiple times you won’t ?
I would suggest that maybe I annoy you, I intrude in your space because my remarks bring to the surface the cognitive dissonance of your own views.
I do not like making arguments about what is going on in someone else’s head.
But you raised the issue. You claim your space is being invaded.
That would be the space in your head.
I do not own the space in your head.
I have no control of the space in your head.
If my words take any root in your head – that might be because some part of your head actually understands them.
You have a hang up about winners and losers.
You are unlikely to change my mind on many things – not because I am always right or I pay not attention to good argument (or bad argument).
But because you make no new arguments, and no good ones.
I do not care who wins or loses and argument.
I care about what ideas, values, principles are right and which are wrong.
Which work and which do not.
That is what matters to me – not winning.
My daughter uses “boring” when she means something she is afraid of.
You post a long remark, is there a single valid argument in it ?
I am not even sure there are any actual arguments in it.
“Please do not make this comment in a statement limited to Libertarian philosophies. ”
I was not trying to say that Libertarians are the egregious offenders. What I was trying to say is that those people, who like dave and Millenials and also like small children who have not had their Id corrected as yet via good parenting, are the reason why the impulse to just let people do what they want to is an attractive but imperfect philosophy. Dave himself provides a strong example of why this philosophy runs into large problems.
You are going to have to forgive me but I have been listening to Daves Shtik of “I Dave am substantive and the things I believe are absolute truths based on my exhaustive and perfect logic.” In fact, the vast majority of what he writes is shit, typing, not writing. Ten years of listening to the endless output of this self-satisfied logic-proof holier-than-thou hypocrite makes a few periodic outbursts on my part a human necessity.
This is supposed to be the blog of a very thoughtful moderate man, Rick. Instead it long ago got hijacked by an attention-seeking child with a deep contempt for the very idea of moderation and moderates, a man who needs to provoke endless reaction to prove once again to himself that he is correct about everything and that no one can dispute him with logic and facts. Its wildly inconsiderate of others and its a damned shame the effect it has had on Rick’s attempt to make a moderate haven.
I don’t suggest censoring Dave BTW, I’m just using my own right to speak to say what a %^&$# Dave flavored mess he has made here and how sick I am of this man-child and his childish intellectually bankrupt “me first” outlook.
Libertarianism is NOT anyone may do as they please.
But ignoring that misrepresentation and addressing the rest of your argument.
Free people often make poor choices – I would note that real world evidence demonstrates that the harm caused by elites making choices for all of us dwarfs that when individuals make choices for themselves.
Regardless, you claim I provide a counter example – please elaborate.
“I Dave am substantive and the things I believe are absolute truths based on my exhaustive and perfect logic.”
I would suggest checking your eyes. I have not written anything like this.
Where have I appealed to my own authority ?
I invite you to check facts – yours, mine, To check logic.
Your “absolute truth” assertion is nonsense. It is not true nor what I beleive.
If there are absolute Truth’s we do not know them.
Just as we can not know the position and acceleration of a subatomic particle concurrently.
But the absence of absolute truth does not make all belieifs all truths equal.
If I make a logic error – point it out.
My arguments are not inherently true because your responses are all fallacy.
They are just the only arguments on the table, because fallacious arguments are invalid.
I would be happy if you made strong arguments. But you do not.
I wrote a long reply to this whiny drivel.
but it just repeats things I have said over and over.
Your entire post is a long tedious draw out argument about me.
I am tired of fighting with you about me.
If you want to continue wasting your time in amatuer psycho-analysis of blof posts,
and presume that somehow means something, I can not stop you.
“No Roby, People here – particularly those on the left have NOT given me solid arguments.
or facts.”
A remarkable statement. Dave, name one time in the ten years you have been here that you were wrong and someone, anyone, here left, right, or libertarian showed you you were wrong about some issue using substance and facts. Just one single case in ten year where you conceded a point someone was correct and you were in error. I asked you this a year or so ago and you stated that there were no such cases, but perhaps you have changed your mind in the meantime, so I am just checking.
How does your response have anything to do with my statement.
What is the point you are trying to make in this post ?
I can guess, but I try not to speculate about what others think.
As to being wrong – I am not keeping score.
I have a few specific recollections, an I recall having apologized either for error or for inappropriate remarks.
I do not recall your asking me this before – a month or a year ago.
Nor do I recall the answer you claim I gave.
Regardless, being right is not particularly difficult. It requires nothing more than not stating as a fact something that you have not verified first.
I do not see that as some feat deserving of a medal.
Though I wish some of the rest of you would take as much care with the few facts you cite.
Do you think it is somehow arrogant to get facts correct ?
I think in most instances it is a simple tasks that most anyone ought to be able to do.
I would like to believe that I am not unusual in checking facts before making factual claims.
I would further note that we debate a variety of topics – many of which do not fall into “Right vs. Wrong”, or involve predictions of the future.
I have frequently expressed my views on such things. In some instances I have disagreed with you. Many of those questions and debates do not have a right/wrong answer.
“Roby is conflating his absolute right to control what he hears, with a power to control what others say.”
Alas, Dave you are completely wrong. What I said was
“I don’t suggest censoring Dave BTW, I’m just using my own right to speak to say what a %^&$# Dave flavored mess he has made here…”
Now, since you are not capable to accurately reading what others write, just as you are incapable of logic outside of programming logic, you are going to miss this point too and insist that I must be trying to control what others (You) say. I am doing no such thing. I am merely venting my frustration that this site has been overwhelmed by an illogical and utterly conceited kook, a kook who has contempt for the idea of moderation, which is the founding idea of this site. There is no chance I am going to change you, you will continue yammer away 10, 20, even 30 times per day at times.
But, since you believe that I am trying to control something, and I am using only words, its clear that you can actually see that words can be an attempt to use force, in the event that they are applied to YOU.
I don’t expect that you will understand that your daily dump of words here is an attempt to force us to accept your views. But I do expect that some others here will understand that.
Roby: “I do not claim to be for gun control, and I just pointing out that there are lots of bodies here bleeding out from gunshot wounds, and well Guns! Guns! Guns!”
Freedom is messy, but it is far better than the alternative.
Roby, if as you (falsely) claim my words constitute force against you.
Then yours would constitute efforts to censor.
Neither are true.
Unlike you I do not claim to read others minds, but I do read your words.
I think it is fair to say you are not happy with things as they,
I also think it is fair to say that you would change them if you could.
Logic is logic.
Reduce written expressions to symbols and there is no difference between them and computational logic.
As a generalization a “fallacy” is a statement that can not be reduced to logic.
Ad hominem is a fallacy as an example – not because the insults are false (they may or may not be), but because they do not constitute a valid logical expression.
They pretend to offer the truth value of a statement, but they do not actually do so.
This is also why I have suggested removing the adjectives from some statements and seeing if they still mean something.
If my remarks are “illogical” that is relatively simple to prove. Please do so.
You’re kidding, right?
Your comments here are a compendium of illogical idiocies.
And you lack the perception to understand correction.
But, admittedly, you’re GREAT at rationalizing.
“You’re kidding, right?”
No I am not kidding – not even slightly.
The rules of logic are fairly simple.
Further there are plenty of resources online
That should help you to identify actual logical fallacies or logic errors.
Either you can demonstrate that “Your comments here are a compendium of illogical idiocies.” or you are engaged in misrepresentation.
Actual arguments are not unsupported naked assertions.
If you are going to claim something is true – then you should be able to support it.
“And you lack the perception to understand correction.”
Perception is an independent issue. that you are equally obliged to demonstrate.
If my perception is inadequate you should be able to demonstrate that.
“But, admittedly, you’re GREAT at rationalizing.”
Rationalization (as a negative construct) required an error either of fact or of logic.
Further you now have two problems.
Your argument is “ad hominem” – an attack to the person, and therefore a fallacy.
It is false.
Every time you mention infallible logic I’m reminded of this guy with infallible logic, your logical doppelgänger
Is there an argument there ?
Or are you just presuming based on the Caine Mutiny that there is no such thing as logic ?
Or just more ad hominem ?
You do realize that presuming that you know me well enough to identify a doppleganger is just hubris ?
So to recap – in your world – there is no logic and anyone who references logic is unbalanced, at the same time you are omniscient and can just devine what is true and what is not from thin air ?
I do not have any more contempt for moderation than I do for a hammer.
Moderation, compromise, … are all tools.
Regardless, problems with simple curves as solutions have three possible solutions.
They can slope up, down or have a maxima/minima somewhere between left and right.
Moderation is absolutely wrong in the first two cases.
In the latter case the probability that the maxima/minima falls near the center is not great.
Libertarianism is inherently “moderate”.
It posits the near tautology that zero govenrment and 100% government are wrong.
That optimal government is not at either extremes.
That proposition should be obvious to everyone – but you have never been willing to agree to even that.
That leaves the question of where the maxima is and why.
I have answered both of those questions, neither you nor anyone else here has tried to answer either.
It is in theory possible that my answer is wrong.
But it is certain that if you have no idea where the maxima is or why that you can not be right.
In your world view government just is. Its scale is however large you want it to be at the moment. Your desire for some particular size of govenrment is all that is necessary.
On occasion you speak of rights – claiming that healthcare is somehow a right.
Yet, the only definition I have ever gotten from you of a right is something that government grants you.
The exact opposite is and must be true. Rights are bars to govenrment.
If rights come from government then they can be ignored by govenrment and therefore do not exist.
Trying to control is not the same as actually controlling.
Your (or my) posts here do not constitute a use of force.
They do not constitute and attempt to use force.
Yours often are the overt intention to use force.
your intention to use force is not itself force.
But I do take it seriously.
The actual use of force absent justification is immoral.
Not the intention, not words.
“your daily dump of words here is an attempt to force us to accept your views.”
False.
“your daily dump of words here is an attempt to express your views.”
correct.
“your daily dump of words here is an attempt to persuade us to accept your views.”
sometimes correct.
Is the concept of force really this hard for you to understand.
Words, are not force.
Thoughts are not force.
Actions are force.
Government is force.
If humans could resolve everything through voluntary agreement
government – force would not be necessary.
A church, a union, a civic group, a corporation
are all examples of voluntary cooperation towards some shared goal.
Government is not voluntary, it is force.
If you doubt that – opt out of obeying the law.
The New Normal – if the President is a brazen liar and bullshitter, who cares?
http://amp.nationalreview.com/corner/450077/if-president-lies-does-it-matter
What is WRONG with this tRump guy?
Doesn’t it scare you to have a pathological liar as President?
When is it we have not had a pathological liar as president.
Atleast one article you linked to had the comment that Trump was a BullShitter not a liar.
I think that is a very accurate statement.
Trump has to make everything seem bigger and better than it is.
But then those who attack him have to make everything more important and worse than it is.
But to your question – no I am not really that concerned about the trivialities that the left fixates on as lies.
What I care about is not “bullshitting”, but whether I can trust him to keep an actual commitment. Thus far he is doing better at that than any president in my lifetime.
Even when I hope he would not.
Dave says: “When is it we have not had a pathological liar as president”
We’ve NEVER had any ‘pathological liars’ as President in our lifetimes,
Dave; that assertion shows an abysmal ignorance of the term.
More troubling, it shows you are unable to differentiate acceptable levels of dissembling from dangerous pathological fabrications by a person in high office governing a nation, meaning your judgement is screwy.
Yes, politicians frequently lie, for political advantage or to protect their reputations. But lie-a-minute Donald Trump is in a more select category. The frequency and breath of his lies are unprecedented in American politics. For example Nixon & Reagan & Clinton were protecting political reputations from charges leveled AT them. Trump on the other hand lies spontaneously, reflexively, chronically: the regularity and irrelevance of his lies having NO PRECEDENCE in past presidential office holders. Trump is one of a defective kind.
During the campaign PolitiFact tracked Trump’s statements. They concluded an unprecedented 70% were false, 11%’mostly’ true, and 4% completely true (compared to Clinton with just 26% deemed false).
No surprise: away from the political podium, Trump’s self-aggrandizing dissembling was notorious for years: “Those who have followed Trump’s career say his lying isn’t just a tactic, but an ingrained habit. New York tabloid writers who covered Trump as a mogul on the rise in the 1980s and ’90s found him categorically different from the other self-promoting celebrities in just how often, and pointlessly, he would lie to them. In his own autobiography, Trump used the phrase “truthful hyperbole,” a term coined by his ghostwriter referring to the flagrant truth-stretching that Trump employed, over and over, to help close sales.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658
And now, more lies to impress reporters and the public: through lies; and more lies; and lies to back up lies. Character (or lack of it) is Destiny; thusly Deceptive Donald’s ludicrous, nonsensical, obtuse, persistent lies, have deceptively flown out of his mouth nearly daily for decades, and contine now at accelerated rates. Like his assertion during a sit down with the Wall Street Journal last week that he “got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful.”
But the Boy Scouts ademently denied Wednesday that the head of the youth organization, or anyone else called Trump to praise his speech to its national jamboree. Trump spun the phone call up cosmetically, to cover the charges of inappropriateness for that speech, with as much believability it turns out as his plasticized comb-over hides his bald pate.
And a similar denial of a non existent phone call was issued yesterday, by Mexico after Trump fraudulently claimed during his Monday cabinet (with new Cheif of Staff Kelly – any bets how long that’s gonna last?) that the president of Mexico called him and said very few people were now coming across the boarder because “they know they’re not going to get through…which is the ultimate compliment.” But Mexico’s Secretariat of Foreign Affairs issued a statement Monday saying that Nieto “has not had recent communication via telephone with President Donald Trump.”
Get it now? Trump-ski made it up-ski. He’s a pathological liar. His urge to fabricate is chronic, provoked by whatever situation the PPL (Presidential Pathological Liar) finds himself in, combined by the innate propensity of his personality to cover himself in glory-ski.
And you have your own pathological dysfunction, a chronic pedantic tendency to be a windbox earbasher. No matter what anyone here says, you’ll contrarily nitpick it into submission with senseless sleep inducing redundancy. Which is why I wrote as long a comment as this one; hopefully your swallow enough for a good case of word indigestion.
I think that shows your ignorance of the degree of misrepresentation of past presidents and politicians overall.
Hillary Clinton’s lies have been more dangerous than Trump’s.
Obama’s lies have been far more costly – and possibly more dangerous.
The left seems to beleive Bush’s lies got us into Iraq.
News today suggests Trump has purged many Iran Hawk’s from the whitehouse.
He made it clear to the whitehouse that while he loaths the Iran deal and does not feel bound to it, he is not interested in steps that might lead to war with Iran.
In the same news cycle we are hearing that he is very angry regarding Afghanistan.
That he is prepared to put resources into afghanistan.
But that will require a measurable plan with clear goals and objectives and a rigid timeline for getting out. There are strong suggestions that if he can not get that, he is ordering us out.
Neither of those sound like a dangerous president.
Both sound much more reasonable than the prior two.
You are really buying Politifact ?
They were just taken to task for identifying a remark by Obama as false, and identifying Trump’s observation that the same Obama remark was false as false.
Do you read your own comments ?
You say Trump lies about irrelevant things – and therefore is dangerous.
How is lying about irrelevant things dangerous ?
According to you other presidents lie to protect their political reputations from charges leveled at them
How is that not an accurate characterization of most of what you call trump’s lies ?
Please distinguish Trump’s purported lies from those of other presidents in some meaningful way ?
Trump absolutely engages in Self Agrandizing. Again a pretty common quality in politicians. Trump despite being a Billionaire does so in the fashion of a typical blue collar worker. While Clinton and Obama does so like upper class elites
It is just style.
I have no doubt Trump behaved much the same in business.
Trump has the ability that you do not, to distinguish between actual commitments, and “bullshitting”.
Trump has done very well with respect to keeping his campaign promises.
In 6 month’s he has done better than Obama did in 8 years.
You do not get to be a Billionaire if the people you deal with can not trust your commitments. No one is going to do business with someone who screws everyone they do business with.
“If they gave Pulitzer Prizes for pithiness, journalist Salena Zito’s analytical couplet on the surprise winner of Campaign 2016 would get one. The press took Republican Donald Trump “literally, but not seriously,” she wrote, whereas Trump’s supporters took him “seriously, but not literally.”
Do you think Trump supporters are going to impeach him because he seems to have a thing about exagerating crowd sizes ?
And that everything that he does or tries is described as “huge, and big, and beautiful” ?
I have problems with trumps character.
I have had problems with that of every president in my lifetime.
Still hung up on the boyscouts.
So you are hung up because a leak of a confidential statement by the president to his cabinet that we have no means of knowing is accurate is contradicted by some govenrment official in Mexico who may or may not know anything.
Even if everything is true – I do not care.
How is this in anyway consequential ?
I would note that we get these kinds of leaks all the time – and nearly all prove false.
As usual, you’re proving yourself an abysmally wrong windbag.
Let’s start here:
” So you are hung up because a leak of a confidential statement by the president to his cabinet that we have no means of knowing is accurate is contradicted by some govenrment official in Mexico who may or may not know anything.”
Today the White House confirmed Trump didn’t speak by phone with Mexico or the Boy Scouts. Duh.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/03/politics/donald-trump-mexico-boy-scouts-lies/index.html
Your link continues to prove my point or better that as Zito asserted sometime ago – you take Trump literally but not seriously.
I do not find the distinction between what was reported to have been said by the media, and white the whitehouse is saying to be consequential.
And again to have a conflict at all – you have to treat double hearsay as literally correct.
And again you are fixeated on the inconsequential.
You have diefied Obama who “phoned” in a 45sec video to the BSA’s 100th aniversary and crucified Trump who actually showed up.
You make it impeachment worthy that the word “call” is used in tweets to say communicate.
Obama public lied, about matters of consequence, directly to the american people.
He lied about things that people likely relied on in chosing to vote.
If you want to villify Trump over this literal parsing of inconsequential remarks – no one can stop you.
If you wish to get picayune over tiny details then you too, must be equally precise.
Did Trump tweet “phoned” ? Did the illegal leak of a double hearsay from cabinet meeting specify that Trump said “phoned” ?
But I have pointed out for whatever harm that does Trump – it does more to you.
Why does something this inconsequential mean so much to you ?
Why do the lies of Obama and Clinton over consequential matters mean so little to you ?
Obama’s lie that PPACA would reduce the insurance costs of the average family by $2500/year is a multi-trillion dollar lie.
The lie that Benghazi was a spontaneous protest over an internet video that no one had seen, influenced the outcome of an election.
But the distinction between conversations with some boy scout leaders and a call from the BSA matters to you ?
I think most of us grasp that you can not precisely parse the double hearsay unattributed criminal leaks of classified cabinet meetings.
More naive dumbbell nonsense:
“You do not get to be a Billionaire if the people you deal with can not trust your commitments. No one is going to do business with someone who screws everyone they do business with.”
Nobody trusts Trump. His reputation as a conniving untrustworthy litigious businessman precedes him. That’s how so many lawyers have gotten rich, working for prospective Trump partners. Like his former Hong Kong real estate partners, who outlawyered him and were able to dissolve their partnership and sell off the property they owned, without consulting him. He had a hissy fit about it, but the Chinese were smarter than him, as has often proved true with numerous other business deals he got short shafted.
Trump is at best a pipsqueek billionaire (if in fact he is – those pesky hidden taxes would reveal his true net worth). But he got to be one through family loans and inheritance, and would be richer than his self reported worth if he had invested that money in high yield Index Funds and not in risky real-estate and other businesses, which frequently failed (casino bankruptsies ring a bell?). That’s not my uneducated opinion, but one made by analysts at Fortune:
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
“Nobody trusts Trump. ”
As you seem to be into trivial parsing.
How about some actually consequntial parsing.
63M people “trusted” trump more than Clinton to be president.
Even today polls indicate Trump would defeat Clinton as greatly or more than election day.
That constitutes trust.
Trump’s business dealings are all voluntary.
No one is obligated to engage in a deal with trump.
By defintion anyone who deals with Trump at all, trusts him sufficiently to do so.
Trump’s inheritance is well documented and in comparison to his current worth quite small.
Further as is noted he has subsequently gone bankrupt. That means he lost whatever he got from inheritance.
Trump’s documented donations to his own presidential campaign are larger than his inheritance.
Given what Trump purportedly inherited and what he has claimed his net worth is the index funds he would have had to invest in would have had to have an 18% ROI consistently over more than 40 years. I do not think there is any fund that has managed that.
A 5% return would mean that he spent almost his entire inheritance on his presidential campaign.
You note all his failures – which is fair, but can not grasp that those require him to have also been incredibly successfully in the rest of his ventures.
You flog the word risky as if it inherently means high downside and no upside.
You highlight his failures and yet can not grasp that after them people continued to trust him, to bet on him, and that both he and they did extremely well.
Business deals do not happen without trust.
Democrats took note of the fact that freely exchanging with someone was rooted in trust in 1960
The same is true today.
Me as annonymous
Extra!Extra! politicians Lie!
What concerns you more ?
“Some people said it was the single best speech ever made in that chamber.”
I just finished watching the video of a excellent debate between Cenk Uygur, founder/owner/star of The Young Turks online network and Ben Shapiro.
The debate was hosted at the 3rd annual Politicon (which I never heard of until this week), a gathering billed as the “quintessential non-partisan event of the year,” which draws a largely millennial crowd. Others appearing at the event included: Ann Coulter, Jake Tapper, James Carville, Senator Klobuchar, Roger Stone, Bill Kristol, Paul Begala, and Rob Reiner, to name a few.
I would highly recommend watching the debate ~ it is exactly what a political debate should be, and Uygur and Shapiro are both outstanding intellectual spokesmen for their respective sides. They enthusiastically disagree on almost everything, and take some well-aimed verbal jabs at each other, but the debate never devolves into ad hominem, nor does the moderator take sides or interfere, other than to keep things moving along.
All is not lost, if this is where non-partisanship is heading.
I watch Cenk and Ben as Well as the Coulter debate.
Both were good. Coulter surprised me. She was a bit more libertarian and less conservative that I would have expected.
But she is not going to be my hero anytime soon.
At the same time these types of debate – Tucker Carlson does a different form nightly,
are relatively shallow tests of ideas.
Ideas are not tested in jousting matches, but by bring presented, and thoroughly examined.
Debates have time limits and structures that are really measures of who is the better debater. I do not think Cenk stood up well against Ben. But it would have been even worse had the assertions each of them lobbed been subject to serious examination.
I agree that Uygur is not the pure debater that Shapiro is. His arguments were often based on misrepresentations of his own facts, as well as Shapiro’s. If the debate had been scored on points, Shapiro would likely have won easily.
But when it comes to political showmanship, which is what this debate was about, Uygur stood up quite well. And he was able to weave leftist talking points into his arguments pretty skillfully, such as the “you didn’t build this” argument that Elizabeth Warren is known for.
On the other hand, the debate was far more substantive than anything that I have seen actual politicians discuss, and that was encouraging. On the healthcare issue, in particular, I thought that the discussion was valuable.
Most of all, it was interesting and civil, not the kind of thing that we generally see on cable news, with participants spouting mindless, off-topic talking points and yelling over each other.
I would love to see a cable news program that featured this type of debate. CNN tried it when they had Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders discuss healthcare, but I thought that the moderators were too intrusive, Sanders went into his usual schtick (millionaires and billionaires, oh my!!), and, at certain points, Cruz became preachy, as he is prone to do.
Nevertheless, I’d like to see more shows like this.
I enjoyed the politicon debates and agree with you that they are more substanitive than much of what we see elsewhere. The discourse was also civil, but many of the arguments were appeals to emotion – which is what works in those forums.
But a real debate on issues is not time limited for either side and provides the opportunity for each side to both make their points in detail and criticise those of the other.
I do not watch any cable news, aside from youtube clips in some internet editorials.
I do not care much about the traditional media. I think they are rapidly diminishing in importance.
There are several places on the web that provide excellent forums for real debate.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/
is one of these typically addressing a new issue each month and getting essays from the leading people on each side of the issue, and then organized responses and counters.
I honestly do not understand why we are continuing to debate healthcare.
PPACA is inarguably far worse than what preceded it. It has had no actual impact on health. This “people will die” nonsense is immoral. It has enormous costs, the combined, direct govenrment cost, direct cost to individuals in higher premiums and indirect cost to the economy is close to $1T/year.
We are now fighting because Trump is threatening to cease Insurance company subsidies that have already been determined by the courts to be unconstitutional.
You do not threaten to end an unconstitutional subsidy to get what you want.
You just end it. Then let congress deal with it, or not.
Now here is somone I could vote for!
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-mark-zuckerberg-running-for-president-in-2020-pollster-2017-8
I would love to participate in his guaranteed income program That would allow me to perfect my golf game and have gaurenteed inome to boot. Dang, maybe this liberal stuff is not bad!!!!
And another great thing about that is Dave’s taxes would be funding part of the cost. He’ll love that!!
Of course I am opposed in principle to guaranteed income programs.
That said, I would agree to replace the entire social safetynet with some form of Universal Basic Income.
It is a bad idea – but a less bad idea than the social safetynet.
Its disincentives are weaker than those of the safetynet.
Its economicially distritive behavior is less consequential.
But it is likely impossible.
https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/893212000347709440The
MORE: In sign Russia investigation is ramping up, Mueller impanels grand jury in Washington, D.C., WSJ reports cbsn.ws/2v3h2lP
As the FBI should have done reqarding Clinton.
I would note that contrary to prior leaks all GJ subpeona’s issued thus far have been confined to the Trump/Russia campaign issue.
That’s your opinion, which ain’t worth much.
What? President Money Pants won’t give the Secret Service a discount for protecting an empty apartment?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345243-secret-service-vacates-trump-tower-command-post-after-lease-dispute?amp
And if he has discounted the space you would be calling that a crime.
There ya go once again, jumping to unfounded conclusions.
Unfounded ? It is pretty obvious that regardless of what Trump does, you are going to be offended.
Well we can add another lie to Trumps “chest of fabrications” and this one can have lives depending on the lie. For months Trump has said the military is in charge of military operations and decisions. Now we have an issue with the possibility of Gen. Nicholson, Afghan Commander, being fired. Now we find out:
“Mattis told Congress ( during a previous congressional review) that the strategy ( how many troops would be stationed in Afghanistan) would be decided upon by mid-July but the plan has been delayed for months amid sharp disagreements between national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who is arguing for an increase of several thousand troops to help turn the tide in the fight against the Taliban, and the President’s chief strategist Steve Bannon, who is opposed to getting the US more deeply involved in the conflict.”
Appears the White House is playing politics with our militaries lives and the generals are not making the decisions.
Add it to Trump’s Lie Chart
Sorry Ron
But I have been following this too.
Trump asked for a plan regarding Afghanistan that had clear measurable goals and objectives and a clear timeline for getting out.
He agreed to authorize additional troops if necessary to do so.
The military has come back with demands for more troops without any plan.
The military is in charge of military operations and decisions.
But neither Trump nor most of the rest of us are interested in giving them carte blanche to waste lives and money for nothing.
Regardless, post – if accurate, and it has many details different from what I have read,
makes this a dispute between Trump advisors.
Regardless, I find this interesting news.
I find this evidence of differences in strategy and priorities between Trump advisors.
I do not find it evidence of incompetence or lying.
I also find it lacking in Credibility. Bannon is not on the NSC and his people on the NSC have all been fired.
Bannon is overall a Hawk, but he is noted for his opposition to Afghanistan nation building. Trump’s campaign promised to avoid nationbuilding.
There are numerous significant foreign policy pundits siding with Bannon and opposing nation building.
I have ZERO problem with Trump asking the military for a plan to destroy the Taliban and get out.
I have ZERO problem with Trump opposing further engagement in nation building.
Our military sucks at nation building. They are pretty good at killing our enemies.
Further decisions regarding nation building are NOT decisions about military operations.
It is my hope that Mattis and McMaster provide Trump with a Plan to destroy the Taliban and leave.
If they can not, then we should just leave.
Ron, we now have seen military deployments ~ as well as repeated deployments~ rise, while defense spending has been cut, and military personnel and their families have been experiencing extreme levels of stress, while being given very limited resources for dealing with that stress.
North Korea, China, Russia and Iran have all ramped up their military threats to the US and its allies. Our great NATO allies, particularly Germany, continue to rely on US military support without contributing their fair share of military spending.
My understanding of the power struggle in the WH is that McMaster, wants more troops in Afghanistan and Bannon wants our troops out. No one is advocating #1, but net result of the debate is that nothing has yet been done.
I don’t know how much thinner we can stretch our troops, but I know that it’s a problem with no easy answers. Bannon has apparently suggested mercenary troops in place of our volunteer soldiers, while the Pentagon wants to increase troops in hopes that “boosting troop levels will accelerate progress in training Afghan troops and its air force, and help counterterrorism teams pursue targets even more aggressively.”
I believe that civilian control of the military is something that should be safeguarded, and that the military-industrial complex is often at odds with the best diplomatic and political thinking.
So, I disagree that a president who does not want an increased level of intervention is necessarily wrong, because the Pentagon wants it. I haven’t seen evidence that Trump does not listen to the generals, but that he is hearing conflicting advice, all from advisors who make strong arguments.
If anything, I think that the attempts to bring this commander in chief down, in the midst of so many foreign policy crises that require his attention are extremely unwise.
Excellent post!
This question is not what strategy is to be used in afghanistan.
It is not what tactics,
it is not what troop levels.
It is not who is arguing what.
The question is not a military question. it is the question of our goals and the cost to meet them.
Trump ran and was elected on a platform opposing the nation building of the past 3 presidents.
Almost the entire GOP and particularly Trump ran on a platform opposed to the use of US military absent a compelling US interest.
The decisions regarding what resources including the lives of soldiers we are willing to sacrifice and what are our interests, are decisions of the president and in those he is answerable to the people.
They are not military questions.
Priscilla, what I can take from different sources is the Taliban is gaining strength and the danger to the current troops is rising. So while the white house plays politics wiith what to do, our soldiers are facing an increased chance of death or injury.
Time to stop screwing with peoples lives, get off the pot and make the decision to bring them home!
Its the indecision, fighting within the staff and politics getting in the way that I find unacceptable.
Ron,
I pretty much agree with you.
Afghanistan is the one place in the mideast that we have an absolutely clear right and obligation to go.
The Taliban as the afghan govenrment had provided resources to the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and refused to cooperate in bring them to justice.
We should have destroyed the Taliban – which we failed at, and gone home.
We had no obligation to put the pieces back together.
The govenrment of Afganistan is the responsibility of the Afghan people.
If they want the Taliban back they can have them.
If they engage in or sponsor terrorism again – we will be back.
We are good at winning wars.
We are abysmal at nation building.
Separately I would ask your source regarding the claim that more troops are needed because the Taliban is growing.
Maybe that is the case, but it is not as I understand the debate occuring at the whitehouse.
The conflict – as I understand it – with the caveat that this is all rooted in leaks.
Is that Nichols wants more troops to continue the same approach that has been followed in the past without success in afghanistan.
That Trump had previously agreed to provide more troops, but in return wanted a proposal that was not repeating the same mistakes we had been making for 15 years.
That the alternate approach – not from Nichols or McMasters is Bannon arguing to get out militarily and possibly to provide mercenaries.
I think the question of mercinaries is separate.
While it is troubling they are volunteers, and it is not much different from what we did when the USSR invaded afghanistan.
Regardless, I have zero problem with the Trump view – win this quickly or get out now.
I would also agree that if the military can not come up with some proposal besides continuing what has not worked for another decade, those people should be fired.
It might be arguable that another decade of US troops might make Afghanistan into a stable democracy, Even if True – that is not our job.
Certainly we should not be discussing decades of occupation of Afghanistan.
Finally, though there might be some argument that Trump should have moved faster on Afghanistan. My guess is this is coming up because the ISIS conflict is winding down and the resources are now available to confront Afghanistan.
Regardless, this is not a problem of Trump’s creation.
But it is one he will be judged on in 2018 and 2020.
“North Korea, China, Russia and Iran have all ramped up their military threats to the US and its allies. ”
Yes, we are stretched thin, very thin. I won’t say that I agree with every word of your comment, but the thrust of it is reasonable and you described the situation fairly and well.
In the end the only way to find out what would happen if we chose any option is to do it. We won’t like the results of doing any of them and whatever we do, it will be wrong according to many. And yet, we have to chose something. Foreign policy is a bitch, pure pain, no matter what choices are made.
Undermining the POTUS on foreign policy is not something that I normally would be for. What someone like myself should choose on that issue in the extraordinary case of trump is one hell of a difficult question. (The sooner its Pence in charge the better is my instinct, since I do not believe that trump is mentally competent at much, much simpler tasks let alone foreign plicy, which is entirely due to his own incredible behaviours.)
In practical terms if done within reason questioning the foreign policy of any administration is a duty of the opposition. It very often is not done within reason, politics being the art of inflaming the emotions of the voters.
Mostly I am in agreement
There is a very serious political question being debated.
We should hear the views of the left, the opposition, the military.
The current argument from the left is “Trump lied when he promised to stay out of military issues”. That is both untrue and irrelevant.
The argument you are making is “I do not trust Trump to make this choice”.
I can not speak to your Trust of Trump – though I would agree that we want presidents we can trust. As much as I defend Trump – I did not vote for him and at best he is more Trustworthy than Clinton, and that is not saying much.
Neither of those arguments confront the actual issue.
What should be do in afghanistan and why ?
The level of troops is the how. It is not an answer to what and why.
The question with respect to Afghanistan while about ethics and integrity, is not a right or wrong question. We can only do one thing. We will never see the results of alternate choices.
No matter what we choose it is unlikely we can know ever if the choice was right or wrong.
It is my view that if we can destroy the Taliban relatively easy – we should do that quickly and leave. If not we should just leave.
We have demonstrated our ability to impose regime change on most any nation at minimal cost. Should the Taliban return and continue to foster terrorism – we can take them out again. We are good at that.
The Afghani’s have the right to their own government. If they want freedom and democracy, they need to be willing to fight for it.
That is my view – what is yours.
What should we as a country do. What shouldn’t we do.
Ultimately the decisions is Trump’s
But we evaluate him – particularly those of us who did not vote for him,
not by all this “Argh Trump!!!!!!” nonsense, but by weighing the important choices he makes, and then by looking at the results.
While most of this appears to be about disputes between Trump advisors.
It sounds far more like the military is engaged in playing politics with the lives of our soldiers.
We have been engaged in “nation building” in afghanistan for 15 years.
How well has that worked ?
Dave, when there are not enough troops to protect the ones already there, you have three choices. Do nothing, bring them all home, or increase the numbers so they are less vulnerable to attacks from the Taliban.
So Bannon is wants #1. The military wants #3.Your thinking on who is playing politics is 180% opposite mine.Lets send Bannon to the front lines for a week so his fat ass has first hand info to base his decision to put more lives at stake.
Regardless, Trump said the military would make military decisions, not Bannon!!!!!
Another lie!!!!
First – forget Trump, or the military.
What do YOU want in Afghanistan ?
To me there is only one choice – get out.
The only question is do we get out now, or do we defeat the Taliban (again) first.
The military was asked for a plan to defeat the taliban quickly and leave.
Not one to occupy afghanistan for another decade.
They have failed to deliver what was asked.
I can not understand why you think this is a military choice.
Trump committed to more troops and resources when he was presented with a plan to defeat the Taliban in 18months.
The military has failed to provide that.
“Dave, when there are not enough troops to protect the ones already there”
How did that happen ?
“you have three choices. Do nothing, bring them all home, or increase the numbers so they are less vulnerable to attacks from the Taliban.
So Bannon is wants #1.”
No Bannon wants #2.
Bannon also apparently wants war with Iran. I agree with him on Afghanistan and do not regarding Iran.
Regardless, Trump has made clear, and I fully agree, sending more troops to afghanistan merely to preserve the status quo for 8 more years is not happening.
Bannon is a political advisor. in the instance of Afghanistan – his advice is political, not military and is correct.
This is NOT a military decision, it is a political one.
Trump asked for a plan to defeat the taliban in afghanistan quickly.
He did not tell the military HOW to do that.
He told them WHAT had to be accomplished.
This is little different from FDR in WWII.
FDR decided that our terms were unconditional surrender,
that we would prioritize defeating Germany,
that we would invade france from the atlantic in 1944.
Marshall, King, Eisenhower, Nimitz, MacArthur determined where to land, and how to defeat the enemy.
It is time to fire a few generals and re-assess.
“No Roby, People here – particularly those on the left have NOT given me solid arguments.
or facts.”
Dave, you have made a remarkable claim, that I and the others here do not use solid arguments or facts. I hate playing the endless argue with Dave game but this statement of yours is worth calling you on, it reveals you and your purpose here. The disrespect to us and the level of your own conceit are breathtaking, not the mention the degree to which your mind is welded shut.
Just give one example, only one example, of a case in your ten years here where you admitted that you were wrong, some statement you made was in error, someone presented a solid fact or argument that changed your mind, overwhelmed your facts and arguments. You have had thousands of arguments here, just give one time when you consider that you were not the victor in the argument. In truth you believe that you have a perfect record in thousands of arguments, its Dave 10,000 TNM posters 0.
You have been coming here for ten years to play the self inflating game of “you are wrong and I am right. ” “I know you are but what am I” is another one of your favorite games. If I really do not use “solid facts and arguments” and that has persisted over our ten years, then why are you forever interested in provoking me to respond to you yet again? Or anyone here?
The answer: you have a pathological need to be right and tell others that they are wrong, its an empty pit in your psyche that can never be filled.
Again, prove me wrong, just one case, one measly little case, where you conceded any point here in ten years.
Your reply entirely makes my point.
You get all irate because I state that you have made little in the way of valid (i.e. not fallacious) argument, and offered little in the way of fact, and your response is to double down on fallacy.
Aside from the fact that your response is false, it is also fallacious.
Bad Psychoanalysis of my posts is about as fallacious a response as you can make.
When your arguments are about the person, about their motives, their thoughts, their style, their or your feelings.
That strongly implies you can not argue the issue or the facts.
AGAIN, you rarely offer arguments that are not obvious fallacies, and rarely offer facts.
I have been after you for a long time to get you to commit to principles, and after endless efforts I got a few values. That is a start, but values are not principles. Without principles one can not determine how choices will be made between conflicting values.
No, you have made my point. You have proven that my diagnosis is correct and you could not stop yourself from doing it. You live to tell people that you are right and they are wrong, that they are incapable of arguing correctly, only Dave argues correctly. As to what lies underneath this obnoxious behavior, its fear. Far from being logical, you are not close to logical, since the point is to say whatever absurd illogical thing you need to say to be once again telling some victim that they are wrong, as always. No, you are not motivated by logic, and you don’t follow logic or understand it, you are based in your political arguments solely on fear. You are attempting to prove compulsively day after day to yourself that you are not wrong, its the the world that is wrong, not you. You are terrified of being wrong, so terrified that you need to find people to involve in your therapy. And it never works, you are never cured, you are still terrified of being wrong after years of this repetitive routine. Whether nature or nurture or a combination formed this defective mechanism of denial and negation, it does not matter, in the end the result is that Ricks site has become your site to play your game.
I don’t like what you do. What you do is not honest. You are not actually here for discussion of issues or an intellectually honest debate. Instead, you use people here, (some of whom mind it and some of whom may not mind it) by provoking them using the most provocatively ridiculous statements you can concoct to play your game one more time of “Dave is right and the world is wrong.”
I do feel sympathy for you, your thought process cannot possibly lead to any kind of truth because the motivation is fear of change, fear of actually learning something, fear that the Vandals could sack the Rome of your inner empire. You have shut the gates of your mind so completely out of fear.
Dave, for once in your life I am going to tell you something that is not a statement you can just deny or say no to:
Leave me out of your therapy. I do not chose to be involved in it, it is absolutely not pleasant or useful to me to play your game. Your game is not even useful to you, on the contrary you are simply going deeper into your fear as years go by.
I have said nothing about what you are capable of.
I have solely addressed what you have actually done.
Since you seem to like psycho-analysis ever transaction with you is a “crossed transaction”.
If I argued “the sky is blue” your response would be
something like “You always have to be right”.
You attempt to make every argument – not merely about me, but about my motives and intentions which are far outside your ability to know.
I am wrong on occasion, despite my efforts to avoid error, but you are making the incredibly stupid argument that I must always be wrong because I do not confess to error sufficiently to satisfy your ego.
To be clear – this is not about my ego. It is about yours.
I am here seeking the truth. I test ideas, arguments, facts, beliefs in debate.
That is one of the more important purposes for political free speach.
You are actually arguing that it is wrong to find the truth.
That if someone is consistently right, that is proof that they must be wrong.
And you are back pretending that you are inside my mind – now apparently I am motivated by fear ?
Where do “victims” come from ? Arguments are searches for truth not guests for victimhood.
Logic has rules – if I am offering fallacies – those are easy to demonstrate. There are long lists of formal and informal fallacies available. You should be able to find any I have made and identify them.
I have no doubt I have made many fallacious arguments here – debate with those on the left provokes those.
We are at the moment in the midst of a giant pointless ad hominem.
You have converted whatever argument of consequence we started with into a debate over the person making the argument and I have followed you into that stupid ad hominem.
Your attack on me is false – but it would not matter if it were true.
It is still fallacious with respect to whatever argument we started with.
You are correct – I am not motivated by logic.
Logic is not a motive. It is a tool.
I am not motivated by math or science either.
And finally my motives are not important.
The earth revolves arround the sun – regardless of my motives in arguing that.
Facts are facts,
arguments are true or false
regardless of anything about those making the argument.
Hitlers remarks are true or false independent of the fact that they were made by Hitler.
No degree of real or imagined sin, no real or imagined vile motive alters whether what is argued is fact or fiction, true or false.
We identify invalid forms of argument and call them fallacies – because they are DISHONEST.
You have continued this long ad hominem diatribe – attacking the person – me, rather than the argument.
You complain about the volume of my posts – and yet here we have long post after post, about my fears, my emotions, my terror, my motives, my thoughts as if you can possibly know them. But this should not surprise me. That is what you do constantly, this is your response to most any argument from most anyone.
You attack what you presume is in my mind rather than arguments – and then you call me dishonest ?
You attack my integrity – using as evidence your conclusions as to my thoughts and motives and you do not expect anger ?
There are innumerable ways to avoid being confronted by responses from me.
At the top of the list would be check your facts before posting, and do not make fallacious arguments.
Another excellent way to avoid moral criticism would be not to step onto a moral soapbox that will not bear the weight of your own hypocrisy.
Ad Hominem is one of the most insidious forms of fallacious argument.
When you attack the person of others. When you insult them or pretend to know their motives. thoughts, intents, emotions or mental states, you engage in a cross transaction and anger is the most common response.
I answered this idiotic claim that I have never admitted any error.
If you absolutely insist I will do the work necessary to go back and provide links to specific posts in which I have done so.
If I am going go to the effort to do so what am I getting from you ?
This entire line of attack of yours is both false and fallacious.
Being right nearly all the time about facts and arguments is simple.
All it requires is making valid arguments and checking facts.
I do not see that as meritorious.
It should be the norm.
It particularly should be today when checking things is easy.
Are you prepared to forgo arguments about what I or others Think, feel, intend, what our motives are.
Ad Hominem means to argue the person. It is what you do much of the time.
It is what this current argument is.
Ad Hominem need not be false, they need not be insults.
All it needs to do is to shift the argument to the person rather than the issue.
On free speach.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/04/campus_declarations_of_war_on_free_speech_134666.html
So I am going to see if we can get off Trump and on to a subject not related to Trump. Want to see what “moderates think about taxes.
So for this exercise, no comments about government waste, is government good or bad, if the current level of taxes are good or bad, just what we think of the following question.
Should a person not working, making millions in capital gains from investments pay a much lower percent of their income in taxes than someone working 40 hours a week making a middle class income?
I object to the criteria you have imposed – as they are relevant.
What taxes are for and how efficiently they are used is a significant factor in whether they are moral, or justifiable.
But skipping that and assuming that we magically have government that does no more than is justifiable, and that it does that reasonably efficiently,
It is neither right nor left nor moderate to presume that taxes must be paid.
Though Locke allowed that taxes were voluntary.
That you could opt out, but that if you did though you lost nothing that was yours by right,
you lost the protection of the state of your rights – though you can not escape the state protecting its citizens from your predations on their rights.
Locke’s purely voluntary scheme answers the question you pose quite simply – “it does nto matter”, because if you do not like the means by which government collects taxes then you can opt out.
Returning to the modern world,
Your issue begets other questions:
Why do you beleive labor has anything to do with taxation ?
Our founders and the constitution provided only for head taxes and tarriffs.
Each man paid exactly the same tax – we were all taxed equally regardless of our wealth, regardless of our labor.
In the colonial era there were also wealth taxes – much the same as property taxes but on everything you owned. Though I do not think these were constitutional with regard tot he federal government.
The 16th amendment permitting federal income tax was a part of a triumverate of amendments – women’s sufferage, and prohibition.
They were linked because both sufferage and the income tax were necescary to impose prohibition as government got nearly all its funding prior to prohibition from alcohol taxes.
Thomas Pain’s 2nd book of the Right’s of man is an interesting exegis of the regressive nature of alcohol taxes in 18th century england.
Economically taxes on wealth and capital are the worst possible way to provide revenue for the government. Even Christine Romer (Obama’s CEA) found that the negative economic impact of taxes on wealth and capital were double the projected revenue.
i.e. If government required $4T in revenue and it was acquired through taxes on wealth and capital, then the economy would be reduced by $8T by those taxes.
Progressives might assume that somehow that pain would be incurred primarily by wealthy people, but I would consider who would be harmed if the current economy were $8T smaller.
Whatever your philosophy of taxation, taxes on wealth and capital should for purely pragmatic reasons be low to non-existant.
Wealth taxes would be estate taxes and property taxes.
Capital taxes would be upper margin income taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes.
I would note that ALL taxes have negative economic impacts.
But some are worse than others.
The negative impact of income taxes drops as income drops.
Because like it or not the left is wrong and spending at the bottom has very minimal stimulative benefit. You can tax the crap out of the incomes of the poor and middle class and have significantly less negative economic impact than taxes on the rich.
Consumption taxes are the other major way of providing government revenue.
Consumption taxes are the least economically harmful of all taxes.
As noted the US government was paid for by tarriff’s and excise taxes on alcohol until the 16th amendment was passed.
Broad consumption taxes were not possible until the modern era – a sales tax on every transaction is nearly impossible without computers, which is why 19th century consumption taxes were production or importation taxes rather than strictly consumption taxes.
In the US in 2017 total state federal and local spending is estimated at just under 40% of total production/consumption. Though in some states it exceeds 50%.
So a sales tax that fully support all government as it is today would have to be about 40%.
Or about 23% just to support the federal govenrment.
With respect to your narrow question. There is no answer as the question is phrased.
There is no objective standard of “fair”.
We can make very good guesses as to the over all impact of different forms of taxation.
Taxing labor will do less harm – even to workers than taxing capital, wealth and investment.
But that only answers the pragmatic question, and unless you are a pure utilitarian that does nto answer what is “fair”.
But as noted – there is no answer to the question of what is “fair” ever.
With respect to rights – which is the closest thing to a moral answer – the person making money from capital gains has as might right to what is his as the person making money through their labor. There is no moral difference.
You have as much or little right to take what is someone else’s so long as they acquired it without the use of force or fraud.
The common good is best served by the utilitarian answer – do not tax investment, the overall harm is too great.
Hayek noted – which the left constantly misunderstands, that we can as a society (atleast economically) choose to do whatever we please. We can choose to have a broad and deep social safetynet. We can choose to have whatever tax arrangement we please.
We can choose to do this because it appeals to some mythical construct of fairness.
But we should understand before we make choices for reasons that we claim are rooted in fairness or altruism that the results we get are not likely to be the ones we wanted.
The road to serfdom
http://www.realclearlife.com/history/the-stab-in-the-back-theory-that-killed-millions/
Why are intellectuals almost entirely on the left.
This is by Robert Nozick on of the most respected Libertarian thinkers of the 20th century
I would further note this was written 3 years before his death and long after his supposed mythical defection from libertarianism.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/why-do-intellectuals-oppose-capitalism?utm_content=58551311&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
On the “stimulus value” of govenrment spending.
I would note that Robert Barro the #4 IDEAS RESPEC ranked economist in the world and the acknowledged expert on govenrment spending has found that government spending on average is .25-.35 efficient, i.e less than 1/3 what this paper finds needed to be stimulative.
This is likely to become relevant as though the republicans, democrats and Trump are likely to disagree on how to stimulate the economy, there is near universal agreement in washington that stimulus is needed.
I would further note that there are also several papers that analyze ARRA and find that it was on net harmful economically.
Click to access caporale-keynesian-stimulus-wp-mercatus-v3.pdf
Ok, Ron, here’s my answer
1) Investment earnings should be taxed differently than labor earnings. Taxing them the same is effectively double taxing investment earnings. And doing so discourages investment.
2) That said, a low capital gains tax pretty much defeats the idea of progressive taxation, because it’s mostly wealthy people that benefit (the old Warren Buffet and his secretary argument).
3) I like the idea (Gary Johnson is in favor) of a federal consumption tax on goods and services, but, as Dave points out, we’ve reached a level of big government (sorry, I know that was against your rules!) where scrapping the income tax in favor of a consumption tax might not be possible without a massive reduction in spending, which, realistically, isn’t going to happen.
So, I don’t think it’s fair, it doesn’t make sense, but there should be other ways to structure, i.e. simplify, the tax code so that it’s more progressive, and relies more heavily on consumption taxes. But how to do that? Beats the hell out of me.
Why do you want a more progressive tax code ?
Historically the less progressive the code is the higher portion of the cost of government is paid by the wealthy ?
Priscilla,
You make some good points.. I read about 1/4 of Daves comment and stopped since all he was doing was the “Dave lecture” and never got to the point of the question. I posted this since I was with friends and politics turned up in the discussion, leading to tax reform. This question came up and it was a split decision. Your comment about investment income being taxed at a higher rate came up and that was questioned since the principle when withdrawn is the basis and not taxed. Only the gain on the investment is taxed AND the question was asked why should someone who worked all their life and invested in a 401 or 403 program have that taxed as income, but someone investing in stocks and holding that for a year or so has that taxed as long term capital gains. Much of all retirement funds are either dividend reinvested in the fund or gains in stock prices, but they are taxed differently even though the gains are the same.
Our whole tax system needs rework and I am moving toward supporting taxing income generated by any source at the same rate. If I have invested $500k and it has grown to $1M in a 401/403 program, why should the whole $1M be taxed as income, but Buffett invest $500k in stocks, hold it a year and sells it for $1M pays capital gain rate on the gain. I can accept the fact my principle is taxed as income since it went in tax exempt, but why the difference on the gain?
Sorry my response was too long for you to read.
I will try to condense it.
You have essentially asked a question much like “what candy is best ?”
The question has no answer – atleast not without adding other parameters.
What is the actual objective of the taxes beyond funding government ?
Everybody intends to accomplish something else through taxation.
Are you interested in the tax revenue optimizing means of taxing ?
Are you interested in the standard of living optimizing means of taxing ?
Are you after the greatest good for the greatest number ? Sounds like communism, or socialism but it is actually utiliatarianism which is a form of libertarianism (not mine) because in fact we know economically that the greatest good for the greatest numbers are best accomplished by the smallest govenrment that secures individual liberty.
Are you after some form of equality – even if that means lower standard of living for all ?
Regardless you need to decide what your goal is besides funding government.
After that while we do not know perfectly have various types of taxes work.
We do understand them pretty well particularly relative to each other.
The behavior of different forms of taxes is pretty well understood – though that is ignored by those on the left.
Different types of taxes more efficiently raise revenue.
Different types of taxes are less economically harmful. .
Dave, I will try to be more direct and specific in the question.
Parameters: The same amount of tax collected under the current policies will be what is targeted to be collected under a new policy. Totally and completely revenue neutral. Whatever the government decides to spend is not part of the equation because the government today does not consider expenditures and collections. Each is completely separate and that is why we have massive debt and deficits. Fiixing that problem is not my concern in this question.
Question: Given that “X” number of dollars will be collected in any one year, is it better to tax income on the income that people who do not work to create that income at a lower federal income rate than the productive citizen working for a living who is taxed at a higher federal income tax rate.
This is very simple question. Stop throwing in the arguments about taxes being too high, too low, interfering with whatever it is interfering with and all the other issues you stated. I do not want to hear that.
Just want to know if Joe Millionaire that plays golf most days and makes tens of thousands off capital gains should pay a lower income tax rate than Paul the plumber that is working 40 hours a week and just making a middle class income.
Ron
Your parameters are mythical.
How and where you collect taxes matters.
$100M in receipts from Capital Gains is NOT the same as $100M in receipts from a consumption tax. They have radically different economic impact.
Further, we can not actually talk about receipts, we can only talk about tax rates.
Increasing Cap Gains taxes by 10% does NOT produce a 10% increase in Gaps Gains taxes.
All spending is not equal – not even close to equal.
We have massive debt today because the govenrment spends too much. It is that simple.
We are already well into the point where trying to increase govenrment receipts to address the deficit will create more economic harm that receipts.
We are likely at a point where increasing corporate taxes, increasing cap gains taxes, increasing upper marginal tax rates will produce at best small amounts of additional revenue at a significant cost to the economy.
Regardless, my point is that all these assumptions you wish to make – you can not.
They are very hypothetical. They are not real.
We are not playing with mathematical formula, we are changing parameters on a highly dynamic economy.
What we have is much like the Minimum wage debate.
Everyone would be for raising the MW to $15/hr if everything else remained constant.
But it does not.
This is a moderately good (and unfortunately long) video on the complex effects of debt and how it is paid.
This is relevant to your question – should those who labor pay more income taxes or those who do not.
Lets presume that the person who does not work for their income, is getting that income from government bonds.
If you tax the income from those bonds – that will decrease the amount the government can borrow or increase the cost of borrowing to the govenrment.
Regardless, it will be a negative effect likely far larger than the negative impact of taxing the wage earner.
Taxing non-government investment works similarly.
So which matters to you – some emotional beleif that the cost of govenrment should be born more heavily by those who invest or what method of taxing minimizes the overall harm of taxes ?
Again the point is the parameters that you want to make assumptions about do not fit with your assumptions.
I would also watch your language.
You said that the person collecting wages is productive, and assumed the person geting income from capital gains or investment is not.
There may be a great deal of difference in the labor they perform,
but labor is not inherently productive.
There is a famous story about westinghouse.
They have a generator that was not working correctly, it was inefficient and not “productive”. They spent weeks and could not solve the problem.
They brought in one of the very best engineers from GE.
He sat and listened to the generator for an hour.
Then he drew a chalk line on the side and said – move the bearing to there.
That corrected the problem
He sent them a $25,000 bill.
Westinghouse complained – he had only spent an hour and asked for an itemised bill.
They got back
Drawing Chalk line $1.00
Knowing where to draw chalk line 24,999.00
There is alot of complaints from labor in the US that while productivity has increased,
wages have not kept up with productivity.
But the reverse is actually true.
Less than 40% of the gains in productivity in the US are gains in labor productivity.
The rate of wages increases has exceeded the rate of labor productivity increases.
60% of US productivity gains are from capital – from the investment of the guy who you say is unproductive.
I have used this before. But if 20 men paid $10/hr can dig 400′ of ditch a day,
and they can be replaced by one man and a backhoe who can dig 2000′ of ditch in a day,
What should the backhoe operator get paid ? Should he get 8000/day – or $25/hr ?
There is no doubt that a man and a backhoe are more productive than 20 men with shovels.
There is no nodoubt that the backhoe operator is worlth more than a ditch digger.
But the primary improvement is the consequence of the backhoe.
And the person who put up the capital for the backhoe should get the lions share of the gains.
No your question is not simple,
and absolutely all the things you do not wish to consider. matter greatly.
But confronting you more directly.
Joe Millionaire who plays golf all day and lives off the capital gains of invested wealth should pay ZERO taxes.
Because anything that reduces his incentive to invest is far worse for everyone – including the ditch digger that we should never ever do anything that would negatively impact investment.
To be clear – I do not give a rats ass about Joe Millionaire.
I would not care much if you confiscated 100% of his income,
but for the fact that doing so would screw the rest of us more than him.
To be a bit more clear relative to your further exegis.
The “why” that you are asking is loaded with alot of your own unspoken or lightly spoken presumptions about fairness.
There is no plurality concept of fair much less consensus or super majority.
There seems to be an implied assumption that significant labor is entitled to some special treatment.
The labor theory of value has another name – marxism. I am not saying that to raise your heckles. It is just the truth. Marx was a brilliant economist (and a vile person), but history has proven him wrong.
Ultimately value is subjective – we decide what is and is not valuable, the value of labor is what a willing buyer and willing sellor will exchange.
There is no intrinsic reason that an investor should be treated more favorably than a laborer, but there are reasons that free markets tend to reward investors more than laborers.
Taxation that attempts to work against the natural forces of the market is going to be by definition less efficient, and more at odds with our actual as opposed to expressed values.
Dave you are becoming an obnoxious augmentative dumb ass in all of these comments.
You say “There seems to be an implied assumption that significant labor is entitled to some special treatment.” NO!!! Read my question and stop reading between the lines as there is NOTHING THERE!
So I turn this around.”There seems to be an implied assumption that the absence of labor generating revenue is entitled to some special federal tax treatment.”
WHY?
“Why ?”
Because if your objective is to raise standard of living, the worst thing you can do is tax investment.
Priscilla;
You liked the Cenk, Ben debates. Here is Cato vs. Heritage in a more structured debate.
https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/debate-libertarianism-vs-conservatism-3?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RZd1pXRXlNR00zWlRjMCIsInQiOiJuV1BIbkk5MUJyd3lpeTR0aHI3dWpqMEU0cG05XC95TUFVQ1NMWWgzZ3RjeGNHclgxRXpDXC9vSmRxWkJZYXRWdnYzNEYreUpGb3FPWjdBajlGbGE5d3ViSlZoQTNCMEl2TkV4MG5GTlwvRTZYTHZFZndweFpCcHBDcWdBRkFwbnN1RSJ9
1). Double taxation occurs because we tax corporate profits AND we tax Capital Gains,
And some capital gains derive from dividends or changes in corporate stock prices.
Sometimes there is an argument made that the income was taxes before it was invested and therefore the profits should not be taxed again later.
Ultimately – despite Ron’s efforts different means of taxing are not inherently more or less moral than others.
Taxation in all forms is taking from someone what is theirs without their permission.
It is not more moral to steal from the rich than the poor (or visa versa).
Government should be limited among other reasons because govenrments require taxes and all taxation should have to pass a very high bar of necescity to have any hope of being considered moral.
It is not moral to take from poor people to build swimming pools for the rich.
It would not be moral if we did it through government.
It is not moral to tax anyone to pay for the arts – as much as I value the arts.
Or to subsidize loans, or grains.
If we are to hope to morally justify taxation the use of taxes should be for those things that benefit all of us, national defense, law enforcement courts.
After we get past the moral question – which is fundimentally about WHY we tax, not WHO or HOW we tax.
Questions of HOW are pragmatic not moral.
We do not tax capital gains – once, twice, or thirty times because it is economically the most destructive form of taxation.
Ron seems to want to beleive that taxing labor is less moral than taxing capital.
We can do whichever we please but there is no moral difference.
But there is a significant difference in effect.
2). Why do we care one way or the other about progressive taxation ?
Consumption taxes are about the most regressive taxes in existance.
And yet they are the least economically damaging.
They are actually the least harmful even for the poor.
I addressed the morality of taxation already – whether taxes are morally justified depends on what the taxes pay for, not how they are levied.
I think progressive taxation is stupid – because it is more economically harmful.
Overall taxes always flow down hill.
All taxes are ultimately paid by those people who can not avoid them.
If we eliminated all income taxes and all consumption taxes and ran the governemnt entirely from corporate and business taxes (which is probably the next best choice to consumption taxes)
That would not change the fact that all business taxes are inherently paid by the customers of the business.
With respect to all taxes on those with large amounts of disposable income – i.e. taxes on investment in one form or another.
Investors do not need to invest. They will only do so when the reward is sufficient.
If the reward is not sufficient borrowers will have to find a way to change that – again by getting more from consumers.
All taxes are ultimately paid by what we produce – which is what we consume.
3). The impediments to changing tax forms are two fold.
Politics and uncertainty. That is it.
Regardless or the level of spending or the size of the sales tax – there is no obstacle to government that operates entirely on a high sales tax.
For the vast majority of us the impact would be neutral,
But it would radically change the way we make decisions for the better.
The 2nd thing that a single consumption tax based system would do is significantly increase the pressure on govenrment to reduce taxes.
One of the worst things about our current tax system is that most of us falsely think we are getting more benefit than cost.
As I noted before – all taxes are ultimately paid from consumption.
If we make transparent to people the real cost they are paying in taxes – they will vigorously oppose taxes.
The real story of How Sweden went from one of the poorest countries int he world to one of the richest.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich?utm_content=58405373&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Dave,
I have a open-ended, hypothetical question for you. Suppose some wildlife/naturalist decide to live a primitive existence in the woods. They raise a child there, this child becomes a man that is free from any government, schools, roads, medicine, or laws, other than the laws of nature. Let me call him “feral man”. Then there is this other guy that earns money and buys some undeveloped property that includes perhaps some walnut trees, a pond with fish, ect.
Let me call him “contract man”. If feral man wanders from wherever he grew up onto contract man’s property, how much right and/or how much force, if any, does contract man have to stop feral man from taking fish from his pond, walnuts from his trees? (I have a busy day ahead of me, , hope to read your response either tonight or tomorrow.).
Our rights do not change. What we own and therefore hold property rights in may change for any number of reasons.
How our rights are enforced may change.
Assuming a national sovereignity (i.e. NOT Locke’s opt out government),
then both “feral man” and “contract man” are equally protected by government, and equally bound by it, whether they like it or not.
Assuming Locke’s opt out government, feral man has the same rights as contract man but govenrment will not protect his rights. Contract man can come and steal from feral man, or assault him and feral man will be owed no protection of his rights by any government.
While contract man’s rights are protected by government both from other citizens and from feral man.
There would also be some complexities depending on where conflicts occurred.
Contract man might not be protected from feral man while on feral man’s property.
If you find these kinds of hypotheticals interesting you might read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, Utopia.
Dave, I think you did well explaining the role of government in my scenario, but perhaps I wasn’t clear on the question I was hoping you would answer. Perhaps I should ask it this way: From a moral perspective, how do you see contract man’s right to deprive feral man of access to things that were not created by contract man, but are rather part of nature, simply because a group of people (a country/nation) claim to own access to that nature? As feral man’s self-appointed lawyer, I would argue that feral man would claim joint ownership with contract man to all of nature, that contract man could take every fish from the pond, if he was able, but should not deprive feral man from attempting the same. Does the concept of acting in self interest lead to “might makes right”? If a person or group of persons see it in their best interest to stop feral man, is it right for them to do so? Your statement that “our rights do not change” does not answer what those rights are. In my scenario, contract man owns the pond and trees according to the laws and nation to which contract man belongs, but feral has never agreed to those laws. What moral right is there, if any, to impose those rules/laws on feral man?
I do not see that things are “part of nature” as significant.
I am not personally expert on this but it has been addressed long ago by other scholars.
As I understand the argument
If you want to presume that unimproved nature is somehow equally the property of all of us – fine, but they we all end up living as cave men.
I reality the value of nearly all property including natural property is the consequence of having made improvements to it.
Maybe we can all have some hypothetical claim to ore int he ground – but steel is the consequence of enormous investment and effort to convert that ore to a useful purpose.
Maybe we have an equal right to the berries that grow naturally on a plot.
But not to those that are the consequence of the enormous effort to cultivate the land.
Property is probably the most complex of all rights.
It does exist naturally.
The first right of people is self ownership – you own your own bodies.
It is also reasonable and natural to assume that where your investment or effort increases the value of something – that increase belongs to you.
But most of us tend to presume we do not own nature.
At the same time no successful economic system (save possibly one central american society about a millennia ago) has ever existed without strong property rights.
The social contract – regardless of how you concoct it is about securing our rights.
That is its purpose. We have no other critical need for government.
We would not form governments if we did not need our rights secured – including those to property.
If in your example “contract man” and “feral man” could each be fully assured without any government that the other would not be able to benefit at the expense of other. there would be no need for government.
You can not be “feral man’s self appointed lawyer”.
Because feral man opted out of the social contract he has no standing in contract man’s government.
While you could agree to represent Feral man pro bono – the court would not listen to you.
Because that government owes feral man no protection of his rights.
To an extent we address this same issue in the Trump EO’s.
There is a reason that the courts confined their decisons (often badly) to US persons.
That is because a random Yemeni who wishes to come to the US has zero rights in US courts. No government owes a duty to all the people of the world.
Mike;
While you have an interesting hypothetical, you have expanded it to cover numerous deeply philosophical points.
My answers for the most part presume at a minimum voluntary minarchy.
They would therefore also mostly apply to larger forms of government.
But you dance arround – or appear to anarcho-capitalism.
I beleive elsewhere I referenced Nozick’s anarchy, State, Utopia.
The hypotheticals you are addressing as well as far more complex ones are exhaustively addressed by Nozick, on a practical, moral, and philosophical level.
I would merely address one point. Even in anarcho-capitalism “might does not make right”
The unjustified use of force is improper in minarchy, in lockean voluntary government, in anarcho-capitalism. Any means of organizing society that accepts a contract in some form, requires individuals to forego the use of force except in defense, and to empower some arbitrator (typically government) to enforce contracts.
Only in actual anarchy is the use of force to advance your self interest legitimate.
Even in your mixed world – the anarchist can use force to persue self interest against other anarchists. But they can not do so against those in any other form of social organization – not even anarcho-capitalism.
Again Nozick pretty exhaustively deals with combinations, and also the likely evolutions of mixed arrangements.
With specific refenerence to your question of “morality”.
The use of force in anarchy is moral. The use of force to advance self interests becomes immoral the moment you introduce the concept of contract in anyway.
All contracts are essentially agreements to exchange without force, where breach of agreement is enforced by a third party. Even anarcho-capitalism has that.
Regardless, you can not contract with an actual anarchist in any arrangment that allows for anarchy. Contracts do not exist until both parties agree not to use their own force to advance their self interest. That is what a contract is.
The use of force outside of anarchy is immoral – because you have agreed that it is immoral as a part of leaving anarchy.
I do not mean to keep beating this but your questions about your hypothetical raised myriads of issues.
With respect to morality:
I am going to call feral man an anarchist – because that is essentially what he is.
I am going to call contract man an anarcho-capitalist – because that is the least that he can possibly be.
The anarchist is free to morally use force.
AT THE SAME TIME he can not claim the use of force against him is immoral.
Those go together.
The anarchist has the right to whatever he can take by force.
And no right to what he loses through the force of others.
The anarcho-capitalist has sworn off the use of force to advance self interests in return for a third party providing protection for him against the same use of force against him.
In actual anarcho-capitalism that might not be “government”.
But I am going to climb the ladder to minarchy and presume atleast minimal govenrment.
Government is MORALLY obligated to protect you from the use of force by others – regardless of whether those others perceive their use of force as moral.
If India decided that the US did not exist and therefore US citizens in the US had no rights.
The US govenrment would still be morally obligated to protect US citizens.
The fact that one party does not recognize the initiation of force as immoral, does not change the moral obligation of the government side of your social contract to protect you.
Well, trump has done a second good thing in a week. As an indication of what a news junkie I am not, I only just found out that (some) conservatives have completely lost it and want McMaster fired. trump has apparently squashed that and strongly supported McMaster. Maybe he is learning.
If he does turn around fire McMaster I will be, of course, disgusted and see it as further proof of an unstable dysfunctional freak show.
I think it is more complex.
Trump has strongly supported McMasters over Bannon and apparently Kushner and family with respect to Iran.
At the same time Trump has supported Bannon and his family over McMaster’s with respect to Afghanistan.
But most accurately Trump has stuck close to the platform he campaigned on.
This is a reasonable summation of what appears to be going on in the whitehouse regarding McMasters and Bannon or Iran and Afghanistan
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-the-world-going-h-r-mcmaster-21789
These raise a different question. Contrary to the press and left, Trump has for the most part put excellent people into his administration. But those people hold strong views and do not agree, with each other and often not with Trump. The results appear to be lots of power struggles.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. I think what we are currently seeing with respect to McMaster’s and Bannon or more accurately Iran and Afghanistan is about right.
I think McMaster’s is more right about Iran, and Bannon more right about afghanistan.
I think that a cabinet and whitehouse with strong advisors with strong ideas and the willingness to push them, often opposed by other advisors with their own strong and competing ideas is a good thing.
But it does not produce a calm relaxed easygoing environment.
What is it that the rest of you want ?
Do you want competing strong voices and conflict ?
Or do you want calmness and stability ?
I would note that I think we are following the right approach with Iran and with Afghanistan.
And that would not be the case if either McMasters or Bannon got their way.
McMaster is very much distrusted by the Trump base, because 1) he is seen as someone who has been aligned with John McCain, who clearly hates Trump, 2) he’s fired a number of people who were seen as Trump loyalists, particularly from the Bannon camp, and 3) he is suspected of being a leaker.
To your point, Roby, I think that Trump has been learning, and that he recognizes that much of this opposition is based on political infighting. I also think that Trump is smarter than people give him credit for ~ he’s not very articulate, I’ll say that ~ and, part of being a smart guy is knowing what you don’t know.
The Obama strategy in Afghanistan ~ fight a mission impossible, after announcing a date certain for withdrawal ~ was based on the idea that Afghanistan, not Iraq, had always been the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq, the “bad war.” So, essentially, it was not a military strategy at all, but a political one, and no general worth his stars would have recommended it. But Obama was the C-in-C, and it was what he wanted.
I think that McMaster has probably been trying to convince Trump that a better strategy would have a better outcome, but Trump is not yet convinced.
I think it is possible to posit that Trump is far smarter than many give him credit for – Scott Adam’s seems to think so.
I do not like Trump’s style. But that is an emotional response, not a rational one.
With a few exceptions I think it has been effective.
I think that Trump wants a relatively light organization, in which forceful voices compete,
I think Trump wants a fair amount of chaos.
I do not think that is some new development.
I think that Trump has chosen to support McMasters on some matters, and not on others.
I do not think he is inherently pro-McMaster’s or anti.
I also happen to think that the conflicts between McMaster’s and Bannon have resulted in what I see as the best outcome – Strenght without actual use of force with respect to Iran,
and the likely end to futile measures in Afghanistan.
I think most of us see afghanistan as the “good war”
But we are past the justified use of force.
We are into being long overdue to end occupation.
If there is some clear objective left to win that is winnable, we should do so quickly.
but REGARDLESS, we should be heading home.
McMasters is in the right place on Iran and the wrong one on Afghanistan.
The competion and chaos in the Trump whitehouse will hopefully give us the best in both situations.
I would further note that we should be careful about evaluating the trump administration in comparative terms.
Many of the posts here and much of the news is that Trump is evil and incompetent merely because of his style.
I am uneasy with his style, but the measure is still the accomplishments, not the style itself.
Trump keeps getting criticised for not being “presidential” – meaning not acting like the traditional president. Those who elected him did not vote for that.
They voted for draining the swamp. They voted for a fight.
Regardless, we should be careful about presuming that unconventional is wrong.
As one example – though Prof. Turley is probably one of the strongest critics of invetigating no-criminal conduct and noting that nothing Trump has done violates law.
At the same time he is critical of Trump for not providing layers between himself and controversy.
As an example there are few that Think the Trump organization should not have met with Natalia. But virtually every lawyer says that Trump Jr. Kushner, … should not have.
That sounds true in normal defense lawyer world.
It also is the norm in deep management organizations like normal govenrment and most politics.
Trump is NOT a deep management person.
He is a very small management team person.
Further a large set of his closest advisors are family.
If you are some dweeb who met with Russians to get dirt on Trump – you are safe because no one knows who you are, and because should law enforcement take an interest in you, you can roll on the next guy up.
That is what Turley calls “crush space”, and it protects those at the top.
Trump has little crush space.
But what he does have is people directly beneath him – who he trusts to make decisions,
AND they trust him to have their back. Much of his structure is nepotistic.
But Kushner and Trump Jr. could end up on the hot seat.
But it is unlikely they are ever rolling on Trump.
Their backs are protected and they know it.
“part of being a smart guy is knowing what you don’t know.”
You are singing my favorite song there, Priscilla.
I am sure the generals will never want to leave Afghanistan, they are the ones who know the mischief makers in the region and have some idea of what forces are lurking. Shall we stay and try a new strategy keep on trying to win something with no end in sight?, If we were to leave, a la Bannon (is that his desire?) will we like what grows there in our absence?
No good choices. The people who understand the region in the military and State Dept and perhaps some in the intelligence agencies are infinitely more knowledgeable than I am or average or even extraordinary voters are. They are certainly infinitely more knowledgeable than politicians are, with maybe a few very rare exceptions. McMasters had a quote recently to the effect that if people really knew what kinds of forces are at work in the world many people would not leave their homes. That is probably a fairly common view of the world by the higher military ranks.
When we finally got out of Vietnam, the Vietnamese communists, while doing typically wretched communist things in Vietnam and occupying Cambodia (after the Khmer Rouge had attacked Vietnam multiple times) turned out to be a lot less virulent in the long run than we had expected in terms of trying to greatly affect the world outside their borders. No dominos fell. Vietnamese terrorists are not plaguing us. Will the Taliban, Al Queda, Islamists etc. in the Stan region turn out to be as easy to live with if we leave?
All I can really say for certain is that we will have to make some choice in Afghanistan, choose between trying to approximate a win or leaving as gracefully as we can, and history won’t like it, whatever we choose.
Your response is schizophrenic.
There is much in it I agree with.
The generals have little incentive to want to leave,
The likely know more than the politicians about facts on the ground.
Probably more than Bannon.
I have far less confidence in the Intelligence community than you do.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Clauswitz – pretty much the authority that every general defers to.
And political questions are the realm of politicians.
Trump – as well as most of the american people, are not interested in Nation Building.
We have all had our fill of the Dick Cheney’s and Max Boot’s and Hillary Clinton’s and other neo-cons that keep selling us empire.
We had a legitimate basis to go into Afghanistan.
The justified objective was to destroy a regime that sponsored and protected and terrorist group responsible for an act of war against the US.
We have been free to leave afghanistan at any time in the past 15 years for any reason or none at all. There is no rational reason we should have had to stay 15 years.
As I understand it Trump has asked our military for a plan to inflict further significant damage to the Taliban and leave within 18 months.
He has assured them whatever resources they needed to accomplish that.
Their response appears to be – they can not accomplish that goal.
Let me be clear that is a POLITICAL goal accomplished through military means.
I am not aware of Trump dictating the means, only the goal.
Given the answer of the military, it is not merely within the power, but it is the duty of the president to fire people if he distrusts that answer, and/or to direct our military resources towards more achievable goals, and possibly choose to just leave afghanistan.
Regardless, all those people you think are more knowledgeable, have the job of figuring out HOW to accomplish the political objectives of the president and the electorate.
Not to decide WHAT those goals would be.
Marshall. King, Eisenhower, Nimitiz, MacArthur advised FDR they had a voice in what the military goals of the US should be.
But ultimately FDR decided:
Germany first,
Unconditional surrender,
to invade North Africa,
Then Italy,
and then the west coast of France.
As well as on the macro scale what US resources to direct at which competing demand.
I really do not like FDR, but he was the most brilliant US war time President with the possible exception of Lincoln
Today Trump sits in FDR’c chair. Trump, not McMaster’s, not Nichoi’s decides whether we stay in afghanistan or leave and how much of our blood and treasure will be spent there.
The role of every single member of the executive branch is to provide the president with their best advice. To do as the president directs, and if they can not or will not to resign or be fired. That is true whether the president is Bush or Clinton or Obama or Trump.
It is true whether the issue is military or domestic.
Just to be clear the only part of your post that I disagree with, is the suggestion that the large choice or staying or leaving, and the large goals such as destroying the Taliban, are political not military decisions and are the sole responsiblity of the president.
The “experts” after their advice and impliment the presidents decision.
Otherwise I agree. Afghanistan is an was a mess, and historians are likely to take a dim view of whatever we do.
I would further note that the current focus on afghanistan is likely driven by numerous other factors:
The winding down of the destruction of ISIS.
Discussions about Iran and what resources that might entail.
The situation in North Korean and what resources that might entail.
The resources expending in Afghanistan not only limit our options elsewhere.
The limit the credibility of any threat we make elsewhere.
Our negotiating position in the rest of the world is reduced by our current commitments.
I have been making some clever comments ( ! ) and replies in the last couple days, but they are not “taking” from my laptop. This is a test to see if I can get through from my phone…
Ah, there I am!
I wish to jump in here regarding “Trump’s intelligence” and intelligence or “smarts” in general. Both are so misunderstood in the everyday world and in the world of politics, especially on the left!
A random example to help introduce my point: Wayne Gretzy was arguably the greatest ice hockey player because he had a great “hockey intelligence” and could “see” the flow of players and the openings on the ice. Now, I don’t know how much Gretsky’s knew about geography, current events, or linguistics, but would a lack of knowledge in these other areas have prevented him from being a great hockey player?
Now of course there’s a big difference between the job of hockey player and the job of POTUS, right?
I keep hearing on NPR, CNN, and from Jay, etc., how Trump is destroying the credibility and stature of the U.S. around the world, yada yada, blah blah…
But let’s consider the rest of the world’s countries, ALL OF THEM, and their non-Trumpish, “politically correct” stances and statements—do you believe them? Are you comforted by them? China was “in” on the “Paris Accords” but I believe they are now the biggest polluters on the planet (I didn’t exactly measure the toxins myself; I have to examine multiple and varied sources) so isn’t much of the old world dignified posturing just a bunch of lip service? (I qualified with word “much” not “all”) Roby and I differ here. He likes things “classy” with cellos and violins and decorum…
This takes me full circle back to my stance on Trump back during the later stages of his campaign: the U.S. situation, domestically and abroad, had gotten to such a point (purposely not getting sidetracked here to describe all of that) that a different type of person was needed to change course–not a few clicks left or right, but an upheaval, etc.
Our modern FUBAR nation required the Gretsky of ugliness and Friend to U.S. commerce…I still don’t care that he is abrupt and krass and nowhere near the old world image of Presidential. In fact I like him more and more for what he has been through and for his convictions. I like Trump and I’m glad I voted for him!
I did not vote for Trump.
I do not regret that.
Nor do I regret that he defeated Clinton.
I do not like Trump – atleast not as you do.
He scares the crap out of me.
At the same time, I do agree with some part of what you are saying.
North Korea scares the crap out of me too.
Trump confronting them is my idea of Hell.
But not confronting them for another 8 years could be far worse.
We have screwed many things up so badly, that Trump might be the right kind of crazy to fix some of them.
Ha, same old Pat, er Joe. (and you can come back with same old Ian). Merkel in fact does give me a comfort that the various clowns. say Berlusconi do not. And B did not have a nuclear arsenal at his fingertips. I have as you can see my mind open a little, but as yet, no sale on the trump front to this observer.
And, You left out VIolas, I love Violas.
I am not sure that it is correct that the opinion of the world regarding the US has declined under Trump.
I am sure that I do not care much.
It is not the presidents job to run the US to the satisfaction of other world leaders or even their people.
I do not think most americans care that much about world opinion about us.
We care about our opinion of ourselves.
Trump is not a hockey player.
He is an international business person.
There is no job that is perfect preparation for president.
Possibly the closest other job might be governor.
Trumps background is likely as goof or better than any other elected position.
Like many here – on the left and otherwise – Trump scares the crap out of me sometimes.
Many of his choices seem stupid to me.
But Trump has been very successful – both as a business person, and winning election, and in his first 6 months as president.
And he has done that despite the things many of us think are stupid – or maybe because of them.
I do not think he is as smart as Scott Adam’s does.
I also do not think his “intelligence” is consciously cognitive.
I think it is more instinctual.
I think that may be part of what scares us. We do not understand his choices but they have worked so far.
Dave,
Thank you. Your answer was not what I expected and I feel like I understand you better for you having shared your thoughts on my scenario. (For anyone reading this that is not familiar with my previous shared ideas, let me state that I don’t agree with Dave, in that my belief system is that God has authority over man so an anarchist would not be morally free to do as he wants, he is morally obligated to follow God’s law, but that being said, absent of such a belief, his answer seems quite logical to me.)
Mike I enjoyed your “feral man and contract man scenario”.
Dave is Dave is Dave is Dave.
Ian Roby, I don’t think you minded me poking a little fun at your fondness for “refinement and decorum”!
I’m not the opposite, by the way, as you know I strive for peace, and law and order, and intelligent, loving culture, and I certainly don’t want a lot of Trumps, and I hope that there are enough good, intelligent people to hold things together during whatever bumps await us…
“Ian Roby, I don’t think you minded me poking a little fun at your fondness for “refinement and decorum”!”
Just don’t go all pompous logic-proof Dave on me and we will be fine, and likewise as long as you hold to what you held to when you were last here in force, which went something like ” I can certainly understand anyone who finds trump unlovable, unfortunate, undesirable, under educated, etc.” Or words to that effect. Cause to me he is still an abomination. As long as you accept that we’re good.
As to my refinement and decorum, at the moment I am sitting in front of the computer in my birthday suit, eating Ben and Jerrys and occasionally loudly farting.
Well, in any case, I could be.
What is your problem with reason, logic and facts ?
Do you honestly believe that fallacious arguments or ad hominem are good ?
You seem hung up on the mistaken beleif that I think there is some knowable absolute truth. I have never claimed that and in fact have stated that there is no knowable absolute truth.
But the absence of absolute truth does not make every idea, every argument, every opinion equal. It does nto mean that some things are not knowably absolutely false.
Is that something we disagree with ?
If not why do you keep making bogus misrepresentations about absolute truth.
You are welcome to, in fact I have quite openly invited you to challenge whatever I assert, to discredit it, do your damndest. That is how we test ideas.
But the crucible in which we test ideas is not filled to the brim with fallacy.
I don’t have a problem with the fact that you do not like Trump.
Neither do I.
But my dislike for him does not preclude me to thoughtlessly assume everything he does is wrong, stupid and evil.
I actually liked Obama alot. I also disagreed with him alot.
I try to talk about Trump in terms of facts.
I do not happen to like a significant portion of his campaign conduct.
But I am pretty sure that some of the conduct I find troubling got him elected.
Further if I was unable to live with the fact that politicians engage in conduct I dislike, it would be impossible for me to vote.
I think that character counts. I would like it if both parties did not run people not merely for president but for most offices with poor character.
I would find Trumps character uniquely offensive – but for the fact that democrats ran the most corrupt candidate since atleast Johnson – and probably longer.
Nixon could take lessons in corruption from Hillary.
I do not like the fact that political discussion particularly at the moment has devolved to “but your side did it first” or “but your side did it worse”
Worse still the attacks on Trump are absolutely devastating the Obama administration.
In Nov. 2016 I could atleast feel that the country had survived the first black president with no serious scandal reaching the whitehouse. My children are both minorities. The election of a candidate from Chicago with ties to people like Ayers and a long list of others – some of which were jailed was a serious concern.
Now we are discovering that the national security apparatus of the US was being used for political purposes atleast as far back as 2010 and escalating into the 2016 election.
Going completely batshit after the election.
Further I am not only a libertarian, I am a civil libertarian – that would be like the ACLU used to be, like Alan Derschowitz and Prof. Turley still are.
I really do not like siccing criminal prosecutors to investigate non-crimes – even of people I do not like. Worse still if we can knee cap the president of the united states for acts that require turning the criminal code on its head and reading the text backwards and sideways, then what hope do ordinary people have ?
A few years ago while normally employed I had a supervisor who actually noted on a review that I “exploded”. I was angry and confronted him about this as my conduct and demeanor were pleasant. Turns out that “exploding” was his spanish (the supervisor was mexican) translation of “loud gas”.
I have no ben & jerry’s and I have a house int he woods, with the AC off and the windows open and if I was in my birthday suit right now I would be frozen.
“What is your problem with reason, logic and facts ?”
Where did I say that I am opposed to logic, reason or facts? First Dave issue, you can’t read or you can’t stop seeing what others write as the the argument you WISH they would make instead of what they actually wrote.
I Love reason, logic, and facts and I and the others here, your derogatory opinions of our abilities to provide them and use them aside, use them all the time.
Logic, reason and facts are great, but of course they are not all, we also have our feelings, and desires, and fears.
You like to pompously pretend that you are the “logic guy” and we are the silly little feelings people who are not up to your standards of argument.
Its pure BS Dave, You are no more logic and reason and fact based than I am or any of the other here. Your conceit is both grotesque and insulting.
And, you are no less emotional than we are. As I see it, you are one of the most fearful people I have ever encountered and your posts are all about your fear that someone will make you do something against your will. That is your central topic, your fear. That is an emotion, one of the two strongest ones.
Now, I have doubt that you are going to get this distinction, but there are two Dave behaviors here, one of which I enjoy and have said many times that I enjoy: You make interesting observations, such as the ones you just made about your religion and your supervisor. Much of that post you made above was actually interesting and I read it with pleasure. You tell good stories, bring up interesting historical facts, like the insulting invective used in the earliest American politics, e.g. Adams. You can write welll, if you take the time and are not arguing.
The second behavior is arguing. You actually completely suck at it for a dozen reasons, including, but not limited to: Always being right, fanatically nitpicking other’s posts, believing that only you know the actual solid facts, always having the last word, the childish “I know you are but what am I” argument, abrasive (in fact highly insulting) denigrations of the ability to reason of all of the rest of us, the inability to ever back down or concede the smallest point, the drive to take up lost causes and make absurd statements to provoke a response, the inability to know when to quit and leave a topic that has been beaten to death alone, and lack of any interest in other people’s boundaries and the consequences of crossing them carelessly. That is not a complete list of the reasons that your arguing style is tedious, obnoxious, and ineffective, but its a start.
Now, you are going to deny every word of this, but possibly, just possibly, over some period of time some of what I wrote will sink in and get past your rejection mechanism.
Roby;
In some of your posts you have disparaged the use of logic.
Regardless, if you “love” reason logic and facts – use them.
Not ad hominem.
Rather than toss personal insults – actually use reason, logic, facts.
Do not keep saying I am “illgoical” and you are logical – use reason logic and facts to demonstrate.
A fallacious argument is not logic.
Flawed logic is relatively easily demonstrable logic has rigid rules.
You do not demonstrate that an argument is flawed by insulting it or the person making it.
None of this is “my standards”,
nor is this even a close call.
While you are wrong about my fears – that is irrelevant.
Further you make my point.
Your “you are fearful” is just another emotion rooted “ad hominem”.
It is irrelevant what my or your emotions are.
An argument about emotion is fallacious.
A valid argument motivated by emotion or donuts is still valid.
Ad hominem means “argue the person”.
It does not inherently mean “insult”.
I can be weeping pools of tears or quaking with fear until my bones rattle as I type.
A fallacious appeal to emotion, is an argument that attempts to trigger YOUR emotions.
My arguments are not appeals to your emotions – but they have clearly succeeded in provoking your emotions.
Regardless, I have not claimed to be less emotional than you are.
In fact I had an emailed debate with Prof Haidt specifically challennging the assertion that Libertarians are lacking in emotion and empathy.
I am an incredibly emotional person. Our emotions are an important part of who we are.
But I do not allow emotions to color my choices about decisions involving the use of force against others.
If we disagree and I use reason, logic and fact – that is called ARGUING.
It is not evil. It is the means of testing the merits of different positions.
You are saying there are two Dave’s.
The one who says things I agree with that I like.
and the one that says things I disagree with that I don’t.
There is only one Dave.
I suck at arguing because I am always right ?
Regardless the purpose of an argument is to test ideas.
It is my job to make the strongest case for mine, and your to rebut mine and make the strongest case for yours.
It is my job to present facts to support my argument and your job to present facts to support yours. It is mine to counter your facts and yours to counter mine.
You seem thoroughly confused about what the purpose of an argument is.
The single most important aspect of this election is that the lefts tactic of labeling everyone who disagree’s with them as hateful and intolerant not merely failed but was exposed as hate an intolerance.
Trump tipped the scales, exposing the ugliness of the left.
And far too many of you still do not get it.
Everyone who disagree’s with you is not a hateful, hating, hater – of drowning in fear.
Everyone who wants to think a minute before wasting another trillion on failed social safety net programs is not heartless.
Everyone who thinks that maybe a government takeover of healthcare might not work so well does not “want people to die”.
The left has gone so far over the top that comparisons to Mao, Stalin and Nazi’s are seeming to real and far less rhetorical.
At times I come at you with the sword of Damocles – when you step onto a moral soap box.
I am not apologizing for that. I am not backing down, and I am not going to work very hard to be civil.
I only speak for myself, but this election exposed that millions of us have a raw nerve because for decades the left has been calling anyone who holds differing views – hateful, hating haters.
It would not be possible for Trump to get elected but for the fact that so many of us are angry about the hypocritical moral tongue lashing the left has been giving us for decades.
When he stands up and bitch slaps the left/press we do not care about all his other faults.
And yet you remain blind to this.
Re-read your post. Substitute Roby for Dave and then tell me that you would not be angry, even violent.
I reread my own posts sometimes. I do not always manage to live up to the level of civility I expect. It is not appropriate to call your ideas stupid – even if they are. It certainly isn;t appropriate to call you stupid – which I rarely do.
But it is very difficult to hold myself to my own standards of civility when not only don;t you try but you do not even grasp how insulting, offensive and condescending what you say is.
Even if I could completely purge my arguments of the slightest hint of hyperbole and insult,
and there is a good tactical reason for some hyperbole, I can not alter the fact that if my arguments are true, the naked implication is the counter is false.
I am not going to refrain from making a good argument – because of how that might make you feel. The truth is only an insult if you are denying it.
Re-Read your own post. You are literally arguing that it is offensive and insulting to be right.
Re-Read your own post and pretend that I wrote that about you ?
You have successfully deflect whatever debate on whatever issue this started as into a whiny argument, that is different only in degree from “you are a hateful, hating hater”.
My response is as much ad hominem as the post I am replying – because you have changed the topic from whatever issue this started as to some attenuated form of you are a hateful, hating hater.
Whatever your complaints about my style they are trivial in comparison to the offense of yours.
Just to be clear, I am not just saying that you do not use reason, logic or facts very often.
I am not just saying that your arguments are commonly fallacious.
I am specifically stating that most of your arguments and those of the left are ad hominem,
sometimes better disguised than others.
Re-read your own post. You are litterally saying – I do not care if you are right or wrong.
I do not care if your arguments are valid or not. Your arguments are offensive to me and therefore you are wrong.
And it is exactly that argument – though usually not couched so complexly that has created the anger you are facing.
“The one who says things I agree with that I like.
and the one that says things I disagree with that I don’t.”
Not what I said. You might like to believe that is what I said but if you go back and reread, you have muddled it. Ask someone you know to help you read it if you are not capable of understanding my words accurately.
What I actually said is that when you are making observations and telling stories I often find it interesting. When you have entered your classic arguing to the death phase you are tedious, pompous, hellaciously wordy, and ineffective.
Dave, this all actually started from your own remarkably sweeping ad hominem insult several days back. It continues because you so very rarely actually correctly read other people’s posts and understand what they are saying. I guess its pointless of me to fault you for it, its just the way you are.
I’ve made my points, perhaps you will get some part of it without distorting it.
Wow!!!
I am having an incredible night!!
The City of New Orleans
Alices Restaurant Massacre
The Land is your Land
Coming into Los Angles
The Motorocycle Song
Deportees.
This is Judy Collins version which until tonight was the one I am more familiar with.
http://longspark.org/2017-performers/arlo-guthrie/
Several times I thought of you.
I thought of how much I love music, and that despite years of lessons I can not play anything and I can not sing. I am tremendously envious of those who can.
Some like my son can do so effortlessly, Some can do so with great practice.
But some like me, can not, and never will be able to make music.
There are many things in life that I am good at. There are things that come effortless to me.
I have abilities that other people envy.
But I am also unable to do things that others can easily do. There are even some things – things that I love and care about that I am not able to do as well as even ordinary people can do.
We are not equal. We would not want a world where we all were.
If anyone here thinks that I believe that I am better than they are – they could not be more wrong.
I am better at some things than many people are and worse at others.
Most of the things that I appear to be particularly good at, I find so easy that I do not understand why others think being good at them is somehow impressive. If anything I am frustrated because others are not able to do at all something that are very easy for me.
At the same time I am abysmally bad at some things that are trivial for some of you.
That is how we are.
I very rarely compete with other people at anything. I compete with myself.
Roby
I am high on life and Arlo Guthrie at the moment you can not get me down.
I would suggest that you try to read your own posts, and if you can view them as someone who is not you or does not share your politics. but I do not think that you can do that.
“When you have entered your classic arguing to the death phase you are tedious, pompous, hellaciously wordy, and ineffective.”
That may be true. But I do not start the ad hominem, nor do I make that heavy a use of it.
BTW the quoted passage above is just that – (mild) ad hominem. It may be true, but it is still fallacious.
“Re-read your own post. You are litterally saying – I do not care if you are right or wrong. I do not care if your arguments are valid or not. Your arguments are offensive to me and therefore you are wrong.”
Dave, I (literally) said none of that and no reasonable person would misread my words so completely. That is one of your major problems, you completely distort almost everything when you read it. Words, opinions, or information do not reach your mind accurately, so needless to say, well, garbage in garbage out.
Even if you Were the most logical person you still would make a hash of everything because of this.
You are never going to process anything I am saying accurately and I accept that.
I am not going to claim to know what you intended.
But when you resort to ad hominem you are arguing exactly what I said.
You are arguing that my personal offense invalidates your argument.
No you did not “literally” say that, but that is the meaning of an ad hominem response.
I am not distorting what you are saying.
I am examining its logical implications in a way that you did not think about.
Maybe you did not intend that. But I can only know your intentions from your words.
Regardless, what you are calling “distortion” is merely a logical approach like reductio ad absurdum.
It may or may not be what you intended, but it is a logical consequence of what you said.
I am not likely to process any of your remarks as you wish me to.
This has been one of my core points – the left is not logical.
Much of the time I do know what you want me to believe.
But accepting your argument requires rejecting logic.
Further, given that your arguments are not logical and often fallacious,
the response to an illogical or fallacious argument is always going to appear to be a distortion of what you think you are saying.
My hope is that if I confront you with the problems with your own logic that you will eventually grasp the contradiction. It frustrates me sometimes that the contradictions are not apparent to you. But you would likely be horribly frustrated to hear me sing or play the guitar or piano.
“Regardless, what you are calling “distortion” is merely a logical approach like reductio ad absurdum.
It may or may not be what you intended, but it is a logical consequence of what you said.”
Wow.
Dave, the general idea of a conversation, even a contentious one , is you tell me what you think and I tell you what I think.
You have a completely different model, you tell me what you think and then you tell me what I think based on something you call “logic”. And then you tell me I am illogical and immoral, like all the other leftists you encounter.
You are repetitively having a rigidly patterned conversation with yourself, the catch being that to have the conversation you want to have with yourself you first need to provoke someone to respond to you to get it going. Your conversation has nothing to do with reality or the other person’s actual thoughts..
Really, really weird.
So I tell you that the clouds are made of cotton,
and you tell me that the locke ness monster is actually in the great lakes
and we both go home happy ?
I have zero control of what you say and you have zero control of what I say.
But my expectation of the discussion of ideas is that not only are ideas offered, but that they are critiqued, and that the most effective and useful critiques are those using logic, reason and data.
Are you saying that you should be permitted to offer whatever ideas appeal to you
without criticism
and then your examined ideas should be implimented if they prove popular
or if sufficient numbers of the legislature push them regardless of popularity ?
No I do not tell you what you think – only you know what is in your mind.
I go to a great deal of trouble to avoid claims about other peoples thoughts, motives, intentions.
But I do read what you write and using logic and history evaluate how it is likely to actually work.
I would further note that you are probably familiar with the fact that as long as you follow a collection of rules you can re-arrange a mathemtical expression and that often makes it clearer.
The same is true of arguments and logic.
Much of what you are taking offense at is logically re-arranging your arguments in ways that do not actually change the argument, but make clear that it is not going to work as you expect.
If I am using something called logic rather than actual logic, it should be easy to demonstrate. The rules of logic are relatively simple.
logic vs. illogic is about as close to objective as we can get.
Fallacies are fallacies. While we all use them to small extent, they are still always examples of illogic. Ad Hominem is always illogical – it is often effective.
Appeals to authority are always illogical, they are often effective.
To some extent deservedly so. An appeal to a strong authority increases the probability that something is true.
Immoral is also pretty objective. The use of force is nearly always immoral.
Not always. But nearly always. When the use of force is clear – ordinary people have little trouble determining whether its use is moral or not.
We have more difficulty when the use of force is more masked.
The near universal moral failure of the left is that it is blind to the fact that all acts of government are uses of force.
Beyond that the left falls headlong into immorality by presuming that the use of force is always justified by the consent of the majority.
While I you can pretty much count on my raising both of those issues any time that anyone proposed some idea that starts with “government should do X to help people”
what provokes my strongest moral outrage is when you frame the same argument as
“government should do X to help people, and anyone opposed to government doing X to help people is immoral”
You do that all the time. You do it so constantly you do not seem to be aware of doing it.
Those on the left who have until recently preached a gospel of tolerance are among the most intolerant people now living.
I am reading about Venezeulla right now. One prominent left socialist is explaining the failure in Venezuealla because Chavez made the mistake of not shooting all the capitalists at the start.
How much clearer can it be that the left and totalitarianism are inseparable.
I do not know precisely what will happen in Venezeulla – but the odds favor that the next step will be totalitarian. That is frequently what follows the failure of socialism.
The subsequent totalitarianism need not be left totalitarianism.
It could result from ever greater uses of force by the Mudoro government to stay in power.
It could be the result of a right wing coup.
I would also note that from the begining to the end the failures of Venezeullan socialism have been constantly blamed on mythical capitalist subversives.
This is no different except in degree with the leftist nonsense in the US that our ills are caused by greedy businesses.
In venezuella shortages are purportedly caused by greedy capitalists.
Those on the left are blind to the fact that govenrment caused shortages always spike prices. Prices do not rise based on greed. They rise because at the current price the demand is greater than the supply. When government controls cause supply problems prices rise. See – US education – both public and college. See US healthcare, See US Health Insurance. See the Price of SUV’s and pickup’s in the US.
All these and much more are examples of high prices caused by government interference in supply and demand.
You can pretty much universally guarantee that when the left is screetching “greedy businessmen” the the problem is government interferance in the laws of supply and demand.
The long term free market trend in the price of anything is downward.
That trend is not smooth, and there are often sudden spikes and collapses,
reflecting the exhaustion of a resource at current technology followed rapidly by its abundance as a result of either substitution or new technology.
My arguments tend to be repetitive – because you continue to make the same errors.
The arguments are almost rote – for several reasons.
The very same logical errors and fallacies as so incredibly prevalent.
I take a bit of care to express the same argument in the same way.
Changing the way an argument is expressed often leads to misstating the argument.
I have occaisonally erred by trying to make an argument in a more creative way and ended up making an argument that was not what I intended.
This is much the same as my noting that sometimes what you are writing means something different than I beleive you wanted it to.
Your observation about my responses is in some broad sense correct – though the details as you expressed them are radically wrong.
I read posts by others,
I do read them looking for insights, and have more recently taken to occasionally responding with praise and agreement.
I do not go looking for posts I can attach the argument I want to make to,
I look for arguments in posts that I want to respond to.
It is not the same.
Mike;
We are probably not so far apart as you think.
I do not frame my arguments in terms of God.
I do not believe it is necessary.
I grew up Catholic. I was deeply “religious” in a way that is way to complex to explain as a teen and young adult. Today, I continue to call myself christian but I am not sure if that is true.
At the same time, I am deeply spiritual – in the sense that I think there is more to life than we are born, we live, we die and we look after our own self interests in the middle.
I am VERY EXTREMELY politically libertarian. That is a politicial philosophy. It is an economic philosophy. But it does not answer questions of how we should live our own lives.
It does not answer what our duties and moral obligations are in our own lives.
I do not beleive that govenrment has any business at all in charity.
I do not want to be told that I have to contribute to Planned parenthood – when I want to give to save the children. I do not want to be told that I have to help the poor in my neighborhood when I want to help muslim refugees from Burma.
I do not know if I am christian. I do not know if there is life beyond this one.
But I do know that we are called as individuals to visit prisoners, to feed the hungry and help the afflicted. I have never regretted anything I have done to help other people.
Robby, Moogie, Jay and others on the left would likely find me incredibly responsive to many of their values. What I oppose is their being imposed by force.
Every religion – but particualrly judiasm and christianity are rooted in free will.
That is the core to libertarianism.
It is not the role of government to make us into good persons.
At best it is to punish as for very specific forms of being bad.
But you can not be a good person, unless you have free will.
You can not choose to be charitable, sober, decent, caring, unless you can choose.
You can not choose to be good, unless you are free to choose to be bad.
I have no illusions that libertarianism will solve every problem in the world.
Though I do beleive the evidence is compelling that it will not make our problems worse.
Making drugs legal will not end drug abuse.
Giving people the freedom to make bad choices, will not result in their all making good choices.
With respect to your world view – which is not so far from yours as you think.
The anarchist is free to do whatever they please – that is what free will means.
Just about every beleif system with a god, also has free will.
God will not force the anarchist to do anything.
The christian god, expects us to choose to act morally.
For me while that likely includes much of the same conduct that you describe as obeying god’;s laws. It also includes not depriving others of their free will either.
However we are judged it is on the choices we make, not what is done for us or that we are forced to do. Taking free choice away from another is immoral, as much or more so than ignoring the hungry.
Taking someone else’s free choice is playing god.
Dave,
Usually I try to clarify whom I am addressing because I know different people will perceive what I say differently depending on many variables. For example, when I call a place of business, they often first give me the information I seek and then they will sometimes say : “Would you like to save money on X ? ” I then usually tell them: “No, I do not want to save money.” Which means I’m not interested at the time to listen to their sales pitch, when in fact I would like to save money, I just do not believe they can deliver and there is too much marketing to waste my time on every sales pitch.
I really try to restrain myself from “pushing” any of my religious beliefs on this site. However, I believe that one reason some of us go “round and round” about one issue or another, is that there is a core belief, be it a religious belief or other belief that makes another person’s incompatible and all the illustrations and arguments will not change that. Thus one thing I attempt to do is “suspend” my own beliefs, temporarily, to see if I can better understand someone else and perhaps bring a little more peace and harmony to this world.
For me, while discussing with you, I suspended my belief that anarchy is impossible. Even if there is lack of human structure, which does occur in various times and places to varying degrees, my belief is that there always exists God, and His government and His laws, thus there is never anarchy, there is never a human that can morally break those laws. But, suspend that one belief for a moment, and you are correct in saying that we are not that far apart in what we believe. Without God’s government and laws, I would totally agree that raping, robbing, and murder would all be moral within the pursuit of self interest albeit, often cooperation and contracts are more advantageous.
Mike;
I do not typically frame arguments in spiritual terms because I do not have to.
Because while I have strong if not specific spiritual values, what matters in a debate over govenrment is the scope of govenrment.
Christ said “render unto caesar that which is caesar’s”
With respect to your hypothetical – I tried to address it in the form you provided it,
at the same time trying to make the points I wanted to make.
Anarchy is most definitely possible – most of human history has been in some from of anarchy.
Up one level or organization, Anarcho-capitalism is also possible.
One of the common “stump the libertarian” questions is “provide an example of a libertarian government”, with the presumption that because there is none, that it is not possible.
That is a fallacious argument for multiple reasons. Libertarians can not even agree on what constitutes a libertarian govenrment. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. It is minarchy.
We have had myriads of govenrments of all kinds of different scales.
The historical evidence is that regardless of form so long as a govenrment is sufficient to maintian the rule of law, that smaller is better.
The US in the 19th century was libertarianish, and incredibly successful.
Singapore and Hong Kong are or were libertarianish.
While there has never been a pure libertarian government there is a actual example of successful anarcho-capitalism that is millennia old. The relations of the nations of the world to each other – world government. It is very messy. But it is highly unlikely to ever change to another form.
With respect to your God centric argument, We have free will.
That inherently starts us in the state of anarchy. Your god expects you to behave according to his laws by choice not by force.
Free will is the foundational principle of most religion, and most of western philosophy.
The foundations of morality and much of “god’s law” rest on free will.
Raping, robbing and murder are all the use of force to infringe on the free will of others.
Mike H: “my belief is that there always exists God, and His government and His laws, thus there is never anarchy, there is never a human that can morally break those laws.”
The never-ending cycle of an Invisible Chicken laying the First Egg continues unabated.
Infinity starts with one.
So much for decorum. Now we have to try to get the image out of our heads of you with BEN AND JERRY’s ICE CREAM!
There is no absolute correct brand of ice cream. The brand is irrelevant. Government has no right to use force to make us eat Ben and Jerry’s brand of ice cream. The question has no merit. An anarchist is free to fart in a myriad of ways. No morality for farting exists.
We have truly entered the trumpian.
Pat: That was pretty funny! I try to refrain from saying much when it is joking at the expense of someone else, but I couldn’t resist complimenting you on your cleverness. “… no correct brand of ice cream.” Good thing you did not include gelato in that, them would be fighten words!
Absolutely wrong!!!!!!
The correct brand of ice cream is the one currently on sale at the grocers – 2/$5.
Particularly if it is cherry or raspberry with chocolate bits.
Trying from my laptop again…
I am free to choose to not purchase cherry or raspberry with chocolate bits, unless General Mills and Unilever buy out all the other ice cream producers, and then only produce cherry or raspberry with chocolate bits exclusively, at which time the Confections Resistance will have to make its own underground chocolate and vanilla. This is a test.
Dave, I have wanted to debate with you. You provide insights that are often intellectually brave and bold, and for this reason I have wanted to have friendly debate with you, but it is also my opinion that unfortunately your insights are encased or surrounded by a sheer volume of statements that are off-point and contentious in that they are additional debates in themselves. I wouldn’t be able to get close to the truth with Bill Clinton either if he started asking “what is the meaning of the word ‘is’?”
Up there in my previous comment I’m making fun of your style, not you the person, as I have never met you, and I’ve read enough to know you’re a good responsible American doing his thing. But, man, you are convoluted and elusive. I can’t pull up alongside you to debate a particular point because you keep launching “depth charges” of ancillary statements to keep me at bay. I don’t have time for all those maneuvers.
Peace!
Debate’s are contentious. That is their nature.
They are more so if those debating feel strongly about what they are arguing.
It tend’s to be worse over the internet because the lack of direct personal interaction makes attacking the person easier.
I noted before that I just started actually using twitter and found that it is a really nasty place. You expect to find posters in comment sections of blogs that engage in nothing but snark and ad hominem. You do not expect to find well respected ivy league professors of constitutional law posting like 13yr old boys.
But the internet somehow does that to us.
Everyone has noted I post alot, and the posts are long. The latter is a tradeoff against the former. I have been published several times. Getting a complex issue into 600 clear words is hard, it takes enormous amounts of work.
Writing what comes to your mind is just a question of being able to type as fast as you can think.
With respect to staying on point. Quite often the problem with some argument is a premise or assumption that is not clearly or explicitly part of the argument.
Ron asked for opinions about Taxation method A vs Taxation method B.
There is no wrong answer to a question about “opinions”.
If I answer that taxing pink flying elephants at 100% is best, that is correct,
because it is an opinion.
meaningful evaluations must have a context. I believe Ron was looking for a “moral” answer, that taxing labor is less moral that taxing something else.
But taxation is the use of force to take what is someone else’s.
That is where the moral question is.
To the extent it is every justifiable, WHY, is much more relevant than HOW.
While I am being a bit specific to Ron’s question.
My point is that you can frame any argument in such a way that all answers are equally true by embedding enough assumptions.
Youtube is a tremendous resource. If you watch clips of those famous for debating – particularly those who field questions unprepared, you will find one of two techniques.
Politicians typically transform the question asked into the one they want to answer.
While people like Friedman challenge the underlying assumptions in the question.
Because nearly all of us try to frame our questions to get the answers we want.
I frequently transform any question I am addressing here into one about the use of force.
Why ?
Because that is often the only part of the question I care about.
If you want to use government to do something I think is stupid.
The issue is not that you wish to do something I think is stupid.
It is that by using government, you are forcing ME to do something I think is stupid.
The answer would be the same even if you were looking to do something I think is smart.
You must always justify the use of force. I think this is a good idea is not sufficient.
We can argue about what constitutes sufficient justification for the use of force.
but we all know “this is a good idea” is not sufficient.
I am a plain vanilla, or vanilla-chocolate chip person, myself. And that is my definitive and final comment on this matter 😉
Big win for the US at the UN Friday, with a very tough economic sanctions package on the Norks. Two things on this:
1) Nikki Haley is possibly the toughest, most kickass woman in politics today ~ and, despite her endorsement of Rubio in the primaries, and subsequent lukewarm support of Trump in the general election, Trump saw fit to give her a highly visible and important cabinet level position.
2)It would be interesting to read more about exactly how the Trump administration used its leverage to get Russia and, most of all, China, to vote with us on these sanctions. Maybe some of the hardline trade policies that we have been hearing about were opening bids for negotiations on this.
I don’t know ~ this could all be due to the fact that no country on earth wants to see WWIII, and that is what NK can potentially instigate. But, it would be a good thing if the media would stop with its daily dose of “Mueller!! Russia!!” to do some analysis on it.
Yeah, I know. Won’t happen.
Vanilla seems to be under-rated and yet it is the most popular ice cream flavor. And you can do a lot with it by adding stuff.
Yes, I happily noted the unanimous resolution. One thing I said long ago was that one area where I think trump and his ways might actually accomplish something is the China-N.Korea relationship issue. Nobody is wrong about everything.
I don’t see any missing coverage of this story, there is plenty of it. Here is the lead from the WaPo:
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — President Donald Trump on Saturday touted new sanctions the U.N. Security Council approved for North Korea, saying they will have a “very big financial impact.”
The Security Council unanimously approved the sanctions on North Korea, including banning coal and other exports worth over $1 billion. The U.S.-drafted measure, negotiated with North Korea’s neighbor and ally China, is aimed at increasing economic pressure on Pyongyang to return to negotiations on its nuclear and missile programs.
Trump wrote on Twitter: “The United Nations Security Council just voted 15-0 to sanction North Korea. China and Russia voted with us. Very big financial impact!”
Of course, the Mueller investigation is not going to fall very far down in the news cycle, either, first because its real and important news and second because people are interested and it sells. The idea that coverage of it will stop so that coverage of so-called more important things is going to stay at the top of the wish list of trump supporters, but its not going to happen, unless something huge drives it off the top news. And, we really would not like that something huge that would drive it off, chances are.
Well, I don’t know that it’s at the top of my list, but I think that there is a heightened and unrealistic expectation of Trump’s doom, stoked by the day-to-day breathless coverage of the Mueller investigation and its seemingly neverending leaks.
The reality is that it will likely take months, possibly years for this to play out, and, in the meantime, Trump will remain the president. I know that the hope is that he will be driven to resign, or worse, before he is impeached by a Democrat House, and that is assuming that the Democrats win the House in 2018. And, although talk of impeachment began before Trump was even inaugurated, even someone as anti-Trump as Charles Krauthammer has said that impeaching him, without real evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, would be a catastrophic mistake. It would politically fracture the country, potentially beyond repair, and create the belief, for perhaps the remainder of our lifetimes, that our electoral system does not matter at all. That the Constitution does not matter at all. That all that matters is that the Democrats and the media are able to destroy a president whom they don’t like.
If the media want to give us their daily dose of “Bobby sticking it to Trump,” fine. But maybe put that story into perspective, along side stories about the other eighty thousand important and more imminent issues.
“The reality is that it will likely take months, possibly years for this to play out, and, in the meantime, Trump will remain the president.”
Completely true! I don’t actually disagree with much you or Krauthammer said. Also, I don’t expect a dem congress in 2018, that is a pipedream.
All I really expect is that trump will be held accountable for all of the things he does and says that are wildly inappropriate and would be a terrible precedent if we should just accept them. How exactly that happens is the drama. I have the instinctive feeling that he will not finish his term out but as to how that happens I do not know. And, my instinctive feeling is no more likely to be correct than it was about the election. Still, there are many things about trump that cannot become SOP and have to be loudly and passionately contested.
As a sort of seeming non sequiter, being in Montana and Glacier park relit the geology fuse in me (I have a geology minor, worked under the title of Hydrogeologist for the state of Vermont and I language edit two Russian journals on geology). My father was reading a book about the Permian extinction that killed off almost all life on earth (When life nearly died, Micheal Hudson) so I bought the book and have been reading all about the whole subject using every source I can find. Its a scientific controversy of large proportions as to what caused the mass extinction and how fast it really happened, instantly (meteor) or over hundreds of thousands of years (a more complex set of events, no meteor). So, yesterday I decided to find all the videos I could on it on Youtube and I watched one made by the BBC.
So, here is the punch line that makes this relevant. The Media! What a sensationalistic piece of trash the BBC produced! Lowest common denominator. Every little single tiny piece of geological evidence led the breathless narrator to state melodramatically “so, it Must have been a giant meteor”, followed by, “but wait, another piece of evidence blew up the whole meteor story.” Wild conclusions were being made by the BBC producers based on slight evidence or one man’s opinion. I was screaming at the screen. “That’s not science!” My dog hid under the bed. Of course the book itself describes the actual very patient and meticulous way that scientists have been politely pushing their favorite theories and it does not resemble the sensationalist BBC drama loosely based on the actual story of this geological mystery.
That is probably how you feel when you watch the media cover trump mueller.
We all read the tea leaves differently.
Before I argued it here. I looked at the worst case directly myself – to examine how bad it could get.
Trump is only resigning if he gets frustrated by all of this.
I do not see this happening. I think he is enjoying himself.
Trump is not getting impeached.
Frankly I do not understand why the left/media keep up the attacks on Trump.
As this continues it does more damage to the left than Trump.
I think it is highly likely that those who leaked signals intelligence – transcripts of communications between Trump or his people and foreign leaders, will get caught and they will go to jail. There are too few with access to that information.
There are myriads of other criminal investigations. Atleast some of those are likely to bear fruit.
Not one of these is likely to touch Trump or republicans.
More and more the unmasking and the political spying in the Obama administration is coming out, it is into the whitehouse and it is spread accross a number of ranking members of the administration.
The Iman Awan investigation has an incredibly high probability of demonstrating a DNC breach of national security to Pakistan’s ISI.
It has a lower probability of answering the question of where the DNC emails came from.
Remove Russia from the DNC email leaks and the entire Russia/Trump meme flips.
It is increasingly evident that the Clinton Campaign actually colluded with the Russians while the Trump campaign at best tried to.
Even Clinton’s email story continues. Many of the deleted emails were recovered from Abedin’s laptop, Recovered emails though not fundimentally different from those not deleted, were not personal, some were classified, the reveal even more evidence of pay for play between CF and State, and the fact that they were about government business means that their deletion was obstruction of justice.
“Even Clinton’s email story continues. Many of the deleted emails were recovered from Abedin’s laptop, Recovered emails though not fundimentally different from those not deleted, were not personal, some were classified, the reveal even more evidence of pay for play between CF and State, and the fact that they were about government business means that their deletion was obstruction of justice.”
Weren’t ALL of the Clinton related emails found on Abedin’s laptop duplicates that the FBI had already cataloged? If so, why would you assert they reveal ‘even more evidence’ about State and the Clinton Foundation? Can you link TO ONE new email that was found to reverse the FBI earlier conclusion there was no prosecutable obstruction of justice?
Why would ANY of those emails be personal, as Huma was saving backups of official State Department emails to her own laptop? And as NONE of those laptop emails were erased, where’s the obstruction of justice?
Do you not understand the ILLOGIC of your assertion?
To my knowledge most of Clintons 30K+ deleted emails have never been recovered.
The FBI did find new emails on Abedin’s laptop.
My understanding is that they found more than 600K emails.
But these were not all to/from/cc Clinton emails.
Further the FBI acquired the laptop as part of the Weiner investigation,
quickly reailized they had a massive trove of emails that included many thousands of clinton emails.
This triggered Comey’s letter to the Senate,
The FBI tried to rapidly determine whether there were any unique clinton emails – ones they had never seen before among those recovered.
There quick check did not result in the discovery of anything that would have altered Comey’s earlier recommendation.
Subsequently it was determined that the contents of the abedin laptop should have been provided as part of the Judicial Watch Lawsuit.
To my knowledge the FBI has not recovered any new Clinton emails since the abedin laptop was recovered.
BUT the emails from the abedin laptop – like the rest of clinton’s emails are slowly being turned over the Judicial watch in small batches as they are redacted.
Judicial watch is making them publicly available as they receive them.
So while the FBI has seen everything there is to see – and atleast cursorily examined it.
Most of it has not been subject to public scrutiny.
That is what is occuring now in snippets.
Further the Abedin laptop is also providing abedin and others emails.
Much of the pay for play scheme was not running directly through clinton,
but from CF to Abedin, Mills and other of Clinton’s staff.
No all the clinton emails on Abedin’s laptop were not duplicates.
They just did not substantively change things, There was no new smoking gun.
Just more of the same misconduct.
I would assert that the reveal more – because they do.
Further Abedin’s laptop provided Abedin’s emails (and other Clinton staff) which may or may not have been relevant to the FBI investigation but were relevant to the Judicial Watch Lawsuit.
There was not ever – despite requests by the FBI a Clinton Foundation investigation, and DOJ made it clear to FBI they were not authorizing one, so emails related to Clinton Foundation are only being made available as a result of the JW lawsuit – not the FBI.
Given that Comey absolutley misapplied the law – there was no possiility that any email from Abedin’s laptop could reverse the FBI’s conclusion.
To reverse Comey you you have to find evidence of intent – and given that he already had evidence of intent – emails from Clinton stating that the private email server was to protect her official correspondence from FOIA requests, and Comey was not accepting that
there is nothing that could possibly prove intent to a higher standard than was already met (ignoring the fact that 18cfr793(f) requires negligence or recklessness NOT intent.
18cfr793(e) requires intent.
From the begining using the impossible standard that Comey had errected the only way Clinton was getting prosecuted is if it is proven that the Russian (or Iran or China) hacked Clinton’s email server.
I am sure there were personal emails – there were an incredible number of emails on Abedin’s computer – something like 680K.
I strongly suspect many of these were duplicates – the emails existed because she used the computer to do backups.
It is obstruction of justice because Judicial Watch had been granted a discovery order that required turning over all of clinton’s staff’s emails regardless of the source.
And because the FBI had subpeona’d all electronic storage devices of all kinds that might contain Clinton’s emails.
The failure to turn over the material many many month’s prior is the basis for obstruction.
BTW the bleachbit erasure of the Clinton Email server took place AFTER a court order to preserve all the emails. Clinton’s staff, here lawyer Cheryl Mills, the tech company, and the tech who erased the emails were ALL aware of the court order at the time the emails were erased. Therefore that was obstruction of justice too.
Further Clinton had sworn under oath (and separately I beleive before congress) that everything was turned over.
As we are learning from the Trump/Russia thing. there is not one obstruction of justice law.
There are actual several. They are slightly different.
None pose a problem for Trump because the obstruction must occur after the investigation starts, it typically must obstruct a proceeding – like a hearing or a grand jury or a trial, and the person obstructing must personally benefit from the obstruction.
With respect to Trump I beleive the current obstruction claim is based on Trump’s statements to Comey about Flynn. Trump was not a target at the time, there still exists no evidence that Trump would benefit if comey ceased the investigation of Flynn which was tied to Turkey not Russia, and there was no grand jury, hearing, etc. at the time of the purported obstruction. That ignores the question of whether you can obstruct by directing someone to do what you have the power to direct them to do, or if it can be obstruction when you have the power to pardon.
With respect to Clinton, She was the target of an FBI investigation, she was also in court as a plantiff in the JW lawsuit, there were court orders to turn over all electronic devices.
And clearly she would personally benefit from failure to turn over the device.
Further the JW lawsuit was not specific to Clinton, but covered her entire staff.
The only credible argument here is that Abedin was unaware that she had backedup these emails to this laptop. That is potentially plausible – but the law on discovery failures is nasty. A jury is allowed to reverse the burden of proof where a party fails to provide discovery. Discovery requires you to search yourself for all materials that would be covered. The police of FBI do not conduct the search.
Because you conduct the search yourself, because you with the aide of your lawyers get to decide what you are required to provide, a failure to provide something that your were clearly required to provide is presumed NOT to be accidental.
Jay, you have many facts completely wrong.
If the facts actually were as you say – many of your arguments would be correct.
But your facts are not correct.
There are significant complexities regarding Clinton because she was subject to discovery demands from the House committee investigating her (that is legally a proceding, and failures can be obstruction). She was subject to requests from the FBI,
The FBI issue is complicated, because DOJ would not allow the FBI to convene a grand jury. Usually that means the FBI can not subpeona witnesses conduct discovery, or subpeona documents. However the most recent FBI clinton document dump has subpoena’s for Clinton’s electronic devices. So they managed to issue some subpeona’s somehow. Regardless, the absence of a GrandJury was a serious problem for the FBI clinton investigation, because it meant that the FBI could not compel anyone to speak with them. This is why Cheryl Mill was allowed to attend Clinton’s FBI interview despite the fact that she as a target too.
And there was the separate Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit.
That lawsuit was the initial driver – that is how the House found out about the private email server.
There was cross polination between all of these – the FBI piggybacked on the JW lawsuit discovery.
There was also bizarre complexities.
Prior to Clinton being an FBI target, Emails requested by JW were processed by Clinton’s lawyers – Including Cheryl Mills, who recieved security clearances, and purportedly made the determination what emails were personal and which were government.
Those emails were then turned over to the state department that then redacated them and provided them to JW.
Once the FBI became involved the Server and all emails were turned over to the FBI – but by this point the “personal” emails had been deleted. The FBI investigators had the proper clearances to review the emails without redaction.
HOWEVER, at the same time the process of providing emails to JW was ongoing.
If you have seen any Clinton Email in public, it came from the JW lawsuit – not the FBI.
JW has been receiving the Clinton Emails – including Abedin’s since more than a year before the election. But they receive them is monthly batches and they still have not received them all. they only received some emails from abedin’s laptop a month or so ago.
Prior to that all we knew about the Abedin laptop emails for certain was that the FBI had reviewed them and not changed its assessment.
Lastly the FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation was denied by DOJ.
So only JW is looking at Clinton emails with respect to Clinton Foundation Pay for Play issues – not the FBI. There is not and has never been an FBI investigation of Clinton/CF Pay for Play.
If the Mueller investigation is conducted properly – it will not make the news – atleast not until there are indictments or a report to congress.
If it does make the news that is explicit proof it is being conducted improperly.
And that should bother you.
But then if it was conducted properly there would be no investigation.
Because we do not permit law enforcement to investigate people absent probable cause they have committed a crime.
Fully agree on Hailey.
I also have been strongly suspicious for a long time that many of Trump’s more aggressive and hostile positions are just negotiating points.
I believe Scott Adam’s has said as much.
I think as an example that Trump goes out of his way to needle China,
these then become negotiating points or levers when he wants something from china.
In the specific instance of the DPRK I suspect that very little leveraging of China and Russia was needed. Nobody wants a mad man with nuclear tipped ICBM’s.
It is easier to beleive that Iran will not commit suicide by killing hundreds of thousands of people, than to beleive the same about North Korea.
With respect to the media, the argument has also been made that Trump actually stokes controversy about mostly unimportant things to distract from what he is accomplishing elsewhere.
“President Pout” – thanks for Starting my Sunday off with a laff Maureen!
Trump Campaign promises unfulfilled
#1 – Build a wall AND make Mexico pay for it.
Taxpayers are paying for it.
#2- Called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Already proved to be false. Excluded from selected Muslim nations, not including those most involved in promoting terrorism, like Saudi Arabia.
#3 -Said he would ‘Bring Manufacturing Jobs Back’ by stopping corporations relocating jobs off shore, and SPECIFICALLY guaranteed that with Carrier, threatening to tax them for lost jobs to Mexico.
Proven lie: Last week Carrier shut down 600 more jobs, sent most of them to Mexico, and hasn’t been penalized with a bad word let alone a tax threat from tRump.
#4. Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico
Didn’t happen. Won’t happen.
#5- Full repeal of Obamacare’ and replace it with a market-based alternative.
Failed on first part; never offered ANY alternative.
6- Renegotiate the Iran deal.
Nope, huffed and puffed but he hasn’t done that.
7- Leave Social Security as is.
Another BIG fib – His Trump Budget Cuts Social Security And Medicaid, Breaking Major Promises
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/05/23/trump-budget-does-cut-social-security-and-medicaid-breaking-major-promises/#126525e39b75
#8- Promised to ‘take the oil’ from ISIS.
Nope, not a drop.
#9- Promised: “I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.”
Ha ha ha ha ha!
#10- Promise: “I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding…”
No to waterboarding, yes to making America far worse.
###The BIG LIE – to release his Taxes. If he had done that, what’s hidden there would have cost him the election, and we wouldn’t have this idiot as president.
I could quibble with some of the points, (e.g. we are not paying for a wall, at least not yet, and most likely not ever) but in general you are correct, and its important, hugely important. While 35-40% can bring themselves to say something like, he is not lying, he is bullshitting, 55-60% have not swallowed that rationalization and can still tell shit from shinola. That is going to matter as the trump administration goes on.
As to those who accept his lying and try to rationalize it or deflect attention from it, I don’t know when its going to hit them that the next time a democrat is POTUS they are going to be in no position to be taken seriously as a group if they claim that the POTUS is not honest or has lied about something.
The chances that any future POTUS will have as contemptuous a relationship with the truth as trump has are slim to none.
Unfortunately, if politicians don’t lie, they don’t get elected, because we insist that they tell us fairy tales or we won’t vote for them. And plenty of them are not the most honest people in the first place. But trump is something else, he lies continuously, when he does not have to, he just makes up self aggrandizing lies as an instinct. His supporters think they are making some big point by saying, so what. That big act of defiance is going to come back and bite them over many, many years.
It reminds me of the quote that “one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic.” The trump strategy is to make the death of truth and honesty a statistic instead of a tragedy by telling not one or a few, but a million lies. It will be paid for in the end, what goes up must come down.
I think your quote is excellent and applicable.
The sum total of Jay’s entire list is small – “a tragedy” compared to just “if you like your doctor you can keep them”.
Go through every item on Jay’s list. Accepting them as true – what is the actual suffering caused by each ?
Millions have lost insurance they would have prefered as well as the doctors they prefered as a result of PPACA.
“Millions have lost insurance they would have prefered as well as the doctors they prefered as a result of PPACA.”
But MANY MANY MANY MORE who didn’t have ANY insurance were covered.
I mentioned this before – I wasn’t a fan of Obamacare when it first came into effect, and my daughter bitched about paying higher co-pays and switching doctors; but some of those problems were solved, and she ended up with more comprehensive coverage for slightly higher premiums. The Trump idea of repeal without replace is ASSININE!
People who would have received medical care for free anyway were covered.
People who were paying for insurance they wanted lost it.
I do not know the details of your daughter.
Regardless, you can not have a government program as big as PPACA without having plenty of clear winners.
Though I would note with respect to your explanation of your daughter – she seems to be a wash not a winner.
There are also clear losers.
I would further note that the majority of people who ended up insured were people who had CHOSEN not to be insured, who got insured because they were FORCED too.
If PPACA were repealed the overwhelming majority of those would would ending up not being insured are people who would still be able to buy insurance at the same cost as they could under PPACA, but absent force would CHOSE not to.
So what you are saying is that PPACA put a gun to millions of peoples heads, and said you MUST spend a couple of thousand dollars of money you did not intend to spend on insurance – and that is a GOOD thing ?
This is typical leftist rot.
You presume that health care is a right – which it clearly is not.
You conflate health insurance with health care, when they are not only not the same they have almost no outcome relationship to each other.
You decide that health insurance is both a need and a right – when it is neither.
Then you force people to buy insurance they had previously chosen not to buy.
Insurance is a form of gambling – you bet some amount of money every month that you will get sick. If you do you win the insurance company pays out. If you do not, the insurance company wins, they keep your bet.
For insurance to work as a business, the rates have to be structured such that the insurance company on net wins.
For a substantial portion of people – particularly young up and coming people in good health with little or no wealth health insurance is absolute fiscal stupidity.
Health insurance protects your WEALTH not you health.
If you do not have much wealth it has very little value.
And you declare that because millions have been forced to do something fiscally stupid that purely benefits insurance companies, that this is somehow a big win ?
BTW we can actually know that PPACA did not significantly change healthcare.
We can know that because there was no sudden large shortage of doctors, hospitals and nurses.
If insuring tens of millions of suddenly gave them healthcare they needed but they did not have before – then why wasn’t there an immediate and massive shortage of everything in healthcare ?
And equally important – when these people had not health insurance – where is the evidence they were dying by the 10’s of thousands ?
You engaged in a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old.
You made the day of insurance companies.
Maybe you changed many details about heatlhcare.
But you did not change outcomes and resource demands.
Because if you had the system would have collaplsed.
PPACA is a gigantic feel good measure costing Trillions.
Nothing more.
You make it clear that you take Trump literally rather than seriously.
1 – in some form a wall is being built. I suspect before we are done he will be able to claim that Mexico paid for it – atleast more credibly than that each family saved 2500/year on PPACA.
Regardless, his supporters are not up in arms.
2 – Again, I think his supporters are happy. More importantly, he has absolutely succeeded in making the left, and left leaning courts own his failure to litterally do that.
3 – the economy is rising. It is still too early to tell if that is durable. Regardless, a significant portion of the improvement have been in the rust belt.
Everything is not perfect, but his supporters are seeing the prospect of their lives getting better.
Bullying carrier was an economic mistake. It was a political success.
Ultimately they left anyway. Trump achieved what he wanted. His supporters know he stands for them.
I do not know about the Carrier situation, but Ford is moving its Focus plant to China.
But the effect will be MORE and better jobs in the US as they are ramping up SUV and Truck production in the US.
4 – Trump threatens china practically daily.
I do not think Trump is ever going to impose sanctions on China.
But he uses the threat of sanctions over and over to get China to do what he wants in other areas.
Trump has been incredibly effecting in manipulating China – Obama was a failure at that.
5 – Trump has done everything that the President can do to Repeal ObamaCare.
6 – The Iran deal is already defacto dead. The balance of power in the mideast has radically shifted away from Iran and Russia to the US and Saudi’s.
7 – no one in their right mind would ever trust anything from the Center for american progress. Regardless, Cutting SS is inevitable. Starting earlier is far better than later.
8 – ISIS has gone from controlling an oil rich area almost as large as Iraq in 2016 to less than 1/3 its former size and controlling little or no oil.
So absolutely Trump has “taken oil from ISIS”.
9 – honestly do not care.
10 – don’t care and you don’t know.
taxes – don’t care.
“You make it clear that you take Trump literally rather than seriously”
More to the point, I don’t take you seriously.
Jay; If you are not in the market to purchase an invisible chicken, far be it from me to give you directions to the invisible chicken store.
Dave:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me you are equating free will to anarchy. I don’t think they are they same. For example, there are laws of physics, I may want to drive my car through a 10 foot thick brick wall but my freedom is going to stop shortly after impact. The law does not change or go away because I used free will to attempt to break that law.
When I said anarchy is impossible, I qualified that with the statement: “Even when there is a lack of human structure..” What I was meaning is, yes, there are times when humans act in a state of anarchy, But despite there behavior, laws still exist.
You recently said you most often take any question and turn it into a questions of government and the use of force because that is usually the only aspect you are interested in. I believe there is a government and laws that have existed for eternity, I also believe we have been given free will and the existence of free will does not preclude the existence of the former. However, those laws that include, but are not limited to the laws of physics, are not just about people doing whatever they want to do. Sometimes those laws are immediately enforced, such as when I attempt to drive though a wall, some other laws come with deferred enforcement. Anyway, thanks again for sharing your thoughts with me. I believe I am violating certain health laws right now being up at this hour of the night. I am free to do it, but it comes with a consequence.
Free Will is not anarchy.
Anarchy is free will absent government.
If we are going to look at this through a christian context,
God gave man free will,
God imposes no force upon us, save those of nature – I am not looking to argue against the laws of physics. I have enough problems getting those on the left to grasp that congress can not repeal them.
We are free to make of our lives and our world what we will.
There may be a government and laws that have existed through eternity,
but here on earth God has left us free of those and expects us to work things out on our own.
I do not want to get into a debate about god with you.
I have been fairly close to where I think you are at a long long time ago, and I respect it, but it is not where I am today. At the same time whatever I beleive about god, I beleive this Matthew 25:31-46 is how we should live our lives.
Whether you draw them from religion or god or karma, or buddha or ..
Aside from ceding the right to initiate force to government,
all other aspects of morality are individual and personal.
Our duty to our fellow man is not the domain for government or force.
And if you believe in free will – whether you do so from philosophy or your religious beliefs, that must lead you to limited government.
Christ did not say – when did your government feed me, cloth me, ….
He asked that of you, individually, and personally.
You can neither succeed nor fail to measure up to moral standards unless you are free from force, and that requires limited government.
I would strongly recommend this article to you as a good example of how our justice system works (or fails) today.
I would further note, that I find myself most frequently in arguments with those of the left.
But this article as well as other reading I am doing makes me wonder why the issues where I am closer to the left do not arrise more frequently.
I think apart of that is because the left has lost its connection to liberty. There are no liberals anymore. And apart of it is that on many of these issues the left just does not care anymore.
There are details that are different as much of this article is using one case and one city as an example. But the same bigger patterns exist in my wife’s experience in my community.
She is nearly burnt out at a lawyer – because the law has become largely irrelevant.
We have so devestated any concept of civil rights that if you are charged you will almost certainly be convicted – get over it and strike the best deal you can.
On top of that we have so criminalized everything that most anyone can be charged with something. If law enforcement so desires. The primary victims of this are those at the bottom, but it still effects us all.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/
Glenn Greenwald offers a different perspective on the current changes in the Trump whitehouse, including those related to Afghanistan.
Glenn leans pretty far to the left. But he is extremely knowledgeable on national security issues, and he remained consistent in his positions when Obama was elected – opposing the Obama administration continuing Bush policies.
As this article demonstrates he remains consistent and seems to be mostly supporting Trump against the policies of Obama, Bush and the defense and national security apparatus.
It is also interesting that the majority of americans are strong supporters of the non-interventionist or interventionist lite positions that Trump took in the election,
that neo-cons seem to be winning this war just as they did with Obama.
Worse large segments of the public are rallying behind McMasters and against Trump – despite the fact that the same people oppose endless war and want out of afghanistan.
Bannon – a purportedly alt-right extremist is fighting a losing battle to get a military policy that virtually every republican ran on an even much of the left supports.
But Bannon is the extremist.
Yet, the prevailing policy is that of enduring purposeless US military engagement.
Jay wants to bitch about Trump broken promises – this one matters.
Similarly Trump ran on a platform of getting the feds out of the drug war, and asset forfeiture.
And in office the Trump administration is vociferously persuing the opposite.
Again a Trump broken promise that matters.
A Musical Interlude For Opera Lovers
Wow, that was the most regal put downs I believe I have seen. Hard to say which part was best. I guess I probably liked the way they slowly sang out the word ne-po-ti-ssi-mo
Brought to you by the NYC Metropolitan Opera. NYC fights back. They are all quite safe, trumpo no reado. Wonderful!
And then there is this (thanks to Jay for leading me to this group):
The opera was outrageuosly good. The other two were lame.
I would note the opera was not targeted at opera goers.
Now I will be up all night following the trail of youtube links:
Oh no!
We just bought a fresh package of Ritz Crackers!
I won’t be able to snack on them without seeing You Know Who!
Are the morals of free markets or socialists worse ?
https://capx.co/the-market-doesnt-corrupt-our-morals-socialism-does/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=LearnLiberty&utm_content=The%20market%20doesn%27t%20corrupt%20morals%20-%20socialism%20does%20-%20CapX
The moderate core of america is libertarianish
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-prosperity-made-us-more-libertarian?utm_content=58683586&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Affirmative action bake sale and FIRE
Creativity is thriving. Perhaps the trump resistance will bring back a generation of good music and comedy
Excerpts from David Brooks in Today’s NYT:
“For the past two years Trump has taken up an amazing amount of my brain space. My brain has apparently decided that it’s not interested in devoting more neurons to that guy. There’s nothing more to be learned about Trump’s mixture of ignorance, insecurity and narcissism.”
“If Trump falls in disgrace or defeat, and people’s partisan pride is no longer at stake, I hope that even his supporters will have enough moral memory to acknowledge that character really does matter. A guy can promise change, but if he is dishonest, disloyal and selfish, the change he delivers is not going to be effective or good.
But where are people going to go for a new standard of decency? They’re not going to go back to the old WASP ideal. That’s dead. Trump revealed the vacuum, but who is going to fill it and with what?”
I love David Brooks. Many many liberals and conservatives just can’t stand the guy. He is a true voice for the moderates and a wise and well spoken man. We need a lot more of his style of political writing in America.
So what are you expecting from politicians in the future ?
I am serious.
Character is very important to me. While I will not agree that Trump has the worst character of recent presidents, inarguably his character is poor.
Conversely it appears that Bush II and Obama had good character, yet both were poor presidents.
Further a bit over 1/3 of us vote. We do not all vote based on character, we do not all measure character the same way.
One of the reasons that I am libertarian is because history and human nature teach us that the people who want to be our leaders, are not the people we should want as leaders.
Obama and Bush were both decent guts – regardless of what you think of their policies.
But both were failures as president – again regardless of what you think about their policies.
No matter what your objective regarding a president – even if you want an Obama that is actually able to follow through on a progressive agenda – how is it that you expect to get that person ?
It is my view that political perfection – or even anything close, regardless of ideology is not possible. Not of our president, not of any elected person.
That the best we can do is limit the power of government so that whoever we get they can do no harm.
In this past election we had a choice between Trump and Clinton.
Regardless, of how you feel about either, is there anyone arguing that either of them had character or would be a good president ? Even if your definition of a good president is some ideological purity – neither would be good.
Even if your definition of good is rooted in some bi-partisan or moderate principle – neither would be good.
Whatever you may think about Trump,
is it possible to agree that we have not had a really good choice in a long time ?
Clinton is likely the best president since reagan, and Clinton had bad character – he treated women worse that Trump, and he was poor on foreign policy.
And that is probably the bas we have had in two decades.
Do you think that Sanders or Warren, or Cruz or Rubio are going to be better ?
Where do you think this miraculous person of character and skill is coming from ?
If our government is such that we only get a good president every 20 or so years – do you think that maybe we need to find a way to govern with bad presidents ?
A-. Its a good question.
Unfortunately, there is no getting around it, trump trump trump is going to be the main subject while he is here.
“President Donald Trump’s latest approval rating and other poll numbers are so bad that he should be on a “24-hour suicide watch.” That was the verdict of Rick Tyler, a former spokesman for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign and now a contributor for MSNBC.
“If I were a political consultant looking at a candidate who had these kind of numbers, I’d have him on 24-hour suicide watch,” he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Tuesday. “These numbers are not good. They don’t look recoverable.”
A CNN poll released Tuesday showed Trump’s approval rating had dropped to 38 percent, the lowest number for any president after 200 days in office. Adding to the bad news, the ratio of Americans who strongly disapprove of Trump’s performance compared with those who strongly approve is almost 2-to-1, 47 percent to 24 percent.
The negativity does not end there. Only 24 percent of Americans said they trusted the information that comes out of the White House. Perhaps most worrying is evidence that, despite Trump’s tweet to the contrary on Monday, his base is eroding. In the poll conducted from August 3 to August 6, 59 percent of Republicans indicated they approved strongly of his performance, down 14 points since February. A similar decline was indicated in his support among whites without a college degree, a group that was key to his victory in the 2016 election.”
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval-rating-suicide-watch-647952
Excerpts from teh CNN poll story:
“Enthusiasm breaks against Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. Nearly half in the new poll say they strongly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the job (47%), while just a quarter say they feel strongly positive about Trump’s performance (24%).
Those numbers have soured in recent months, particularly among Trump’s core supporters. Among Republicans, strong approval has dropped from 73% in February to 59% now. Among whites who do not have college degrees, a core component of Trump’s base, just 35% strongly approve, down 12 points since February.”
“The poll finds widespread doubts about the veracity of information coming from the White House. Only a quarter of Americans (24%) say they trust all or most of what they hear in official communications from the White House, while more (30%) say they trust “nothing at all” that they hear from the President’s office. (Even among Republicans, only about half say they can trust most of what they hear from the White House.)”
“Personal praise for the President is scarce, just 30% say they admire the President, and 34% say they are proud to have him as president. A majority (55%) say he has lowered the stature of the office of the president. Six in 10 don’t consider Trump honest and trustworthy.”
I know, polls-shmoles, truth-shmooth, lies-shmies, etc. the trump base believes that none of these things can catch up to trump. But they inevitably will.
The bigger problem is that he’s already deteriorated acceptible standards of veracity, civility, and competence we once assumed were required for the presidency.
I’m not optimistic for what will follow from the Left or the Right.
Sorry Jay;
But Trump did not destroy these standards.
Every President since Reagan has either had poor character or been a failure or both.
We are not at the new normal. We are just being confronted with what we have been elected for years without the mask.
There are no standards of veracity, civlity, etc. whether I want them or not.
They have not been there for a long time.
Further as much as you want to beat Trump, the lack of civility is the responsibility of the Press and the left.
While Trump was not going to be civil no matter what.
He was elected because a very large portion of this country is tired of being tarred and feathered and villified by an intolerant left and press.
Even now, many – not a majority, but still tens of millions of people strongly support Trump.
Not because he is civil but because he “punches back twice as hard”.
Regardless, I can agree with you on most everything about Trump,
and still note, this is a mess you created.
I would suggest reading “The Road to Serfdom”.
I am mostly happy with Trump, because the mess the left has made has guaranteed that we were shifting towards a leader we perceived as strong.
Sometimes the Nazi comparisons are apt.
Trump a strong authoritarian was elected rather than continue failure of the weimar republic of Bush and Obama. When big government central planners fail – we get strong leaders promising to solve all our problems. that is pretty much what got Trump elected.
If he actually sticks to directing his totalitarian streak to reducing the power of government – we will manage fine. We will survive and thrive.
If conversely he fails – we will either get a bigger progressive central planner – Bernie or Warren, followed by someone even more totalitarian that Trump when they fail, or just skip strait to the totalitarian.
There is a very strong tendency to buy promises to make the nation great, to be able to solve all problems given enough power – when our problems are multiplying.
You should be praying that Trump succeeds.
Otherwise things get worse, not better.
I would note that Hitler rose to power with something like 20% of the vote.
But by 1938 he received 80% of the vote.
We have been facing a building set of problems since before Clinton.
Trump did not make these problems – regardless of who you wish to blame.
Many of them are likely to get worse regardless of what Trump does.
People grasp for strong leaders sacrifing liberty to give them power when they feel surrounded by public failure.
I know you are praying for Trump to fail.
I am praying that he succeeds, because if he fails, things get worse. not better.
Roby, Trump brings these numbers on himself with his constant tweeting on issues that are not important and are only meant to bring attention to himself, even when it is negative. He needs constant reinforcement on how great he is. Even with the Russian investigation, no other person would have these low numbers given what has happened since January.
Stock market up almost 15% since his election
Corporate profits at an all time high
4.3% unemployment rate, down 1/2% since January and projected to be 3.8% by year end
1.1% increase in real wages since January
A projected growth in manufacturing output for 2017 in the USA by 2.2%
50%+ drop in illegal immigration
Increased deportation of illegals
500,000 barrel per day increase in oil production
Law allowing Veterans Administration employees to be fired for incompetence (Finally!!!)
Getting China and Russia to sanction North Korea. (A big one no one else has accomplished)
Thousands of regulations allowing for increased growth to take place eliminated
If he gets one of his big three, infrastructure, tax reform or health reform and keeps his big mouth shut, he will turn these numbers around if this trend continues.
(He will not because he has a big mouth that over shadows his accomplishments)
Ron, I never make any post that just simply says trump is going to be a complete failure in the eyes of history. I always leave wiggle room with “… unless something dramatically different happens.” We will know the basic truth about the trump presidency when its over, until then its a living thing that can go in many directions.
Roby, ” until then its a living thing that can go in many directions.” Kind of like an octopus with many tentacles. I have stopped listening to all the news and figure when something big and important happens, then i will hear about it. Now to me its all just noise to attract viewers so cable news can sell advertising.
The more people tune out to all of this the more trouble the left is in.
Even 538 recently gave democrats poor chances in 2018.
Basically saying they are going to be lucky if they do not loose more than 2 senate seats, and they probably can not pick up more than 5 house seats.
And that requires the left to remain as motivated as they are now.
Dave 538…Thats good news of incumbents losing. Better news if their replacements are in the Joe Manchin/Lisa Murkowski hemosphere and will make deals to get something done for the country and not just show up to black anything the other party wants to do.
“(He will not because he has a big mouth that over shadows his accomplishments)”
Big shadow, hardly any accomplishments.
All the financial improvements you referred to were already trending, before the election, during Obama’s tenure.
Corporate profits under Obama were higher during the same yearly time frame, as noted here.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-profits
The unemployment rates under Obama fell from 8% in Jan, 2013, to 4.6% in Dec 2016; it would have continued to drop no matter who was elected.
Manufacturing economic growth is cyclic, as you know, and the increase you noted was accurately forecast early in 2016, during Obama’s term, based on the unemployment improvements noted above. Trump had nothing to do with it.
And what evidence do you have that the Trump Administration got China and Russia to sanction North Korea? Point to ANY evidence of Trump influence there, if you please: the UN and its membership in unison spoke out against NK. And until this week, wasn’t Russia flouting the US Sanctions, increasing trade with NK?
He does get credit for part of the drop in illegal immigration-his overt angry fist shaking and the increased visibility of round-ups in the Mexican media has discouraged many from crossing illegally, for the present.
But he’s so badly broken a clock, that’s he’s only right with the time once a day.
Actually no Jay – the economy was headed for a recession prior to the election.
Alot of people were predicting a recession regardless of who won.
Of course several predicted a steep recession if Trump one.
Jan 2017 was the bottom, and things have started to rise since then.
It is premature to call Trump an economic success – though the Obama era average was barely below 2%, there were several peaks and summers are typically high.
If 3Q 2017 is above 2.6 that will be an excellent sign and if 4Q 2017 is about 2.6 then Trump can claim to have changed directions.
Even Obama managed a single quarter above 5%.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
According to BLS
UI was at 5.0 according to BLS in July 2015, it was 4.8 in Jan 2017,
it is 4.3 now, this is a change in trend.
The “natural” rate of unemployment is likely above 4.3. This is important as that means we are in a tight labor market and wages will likely start to rise now.
The labor force participation rate is also a very big deal.
Again it is too early to tell for sure. But have been dropping through the Obama presidency.
It has started to rise.
It is way too early to proclaim that Trump has worked an economic miracle.
The economic gains since January are COUNTER Trend – that means the opposite of what you were claiming – i.e. things really were getting worse and now are getting better.
But it is too early to tell for certain whether the changes are really because of Trump or whether they are just data noise.
But what they are absolutely not, is continuations of a trend.
Normally I would say that post election the economy should rise naturally – because very large uncertainty is ended and markets hate uncertainty even more than they hate bad policy.
But the attacks of the left and the press have maintained the level of uncertainty AFTER the election. Therefore it is unlikely that the current changes are a normal post election bump.
Absolutely;
But Trump remains the most trusted political leader – both Schumer, McConnell and pelosi have national approvals less than 2/3 of Trump’s.
Republicans as a whole, democrats as a whole, congress as a whole – all lower than Trump. Clinton’s approval rate has dropped since the election even more than Trump’s.
Personally, I think this is all very good news.
Our trust in government and our leaders is pretty much where it should be – in the toilet.
We should always be suspicious of our political leaders.
AS Reagan said the scariest words in the english language are “I am from the government and I am here to help you”
With few exceptions our problems are our own – and we are up to solving them if we want – without waiting for magical unicorns from government.
Roby;
I have no doubt the poll numbers are approximately correct.
But polls do not measure our actual values well.
Real choices are not made purely on the basis of approval ratings.
I beleive Trump’s approval rating on election day was only about 37%.
Most of us would like someone “better” than Trump.
But as much as we are unhappy with Trump, we are unhappier with the alternatives.
I think this is a good thing.
We are becoming far more skeptical of government and the media.
We should not trust people with power – regardless of ideology.
I’m not finding much to argue with you about today.
Libertarians do not want government that will work wonderfully if we get the right leaders.
They want government that will not work horribly with the leaders we are likely to get.
in general as a nation our government does best in times of war.
War is the health of the state.
All of us – even I am agreed that faced with an existential threat to the country we must marshall all our resources to defeat that threat.
Central planning works best one there is a single clear goal to which everything else can be subordinated and therefore priorities get set properly.
Though I would note that FDR rolled back much new deal regulation and to a large extent left the marketplace freer to turn the US into “the arsenal of democracy”.
This was also strongly reflected in US attitudes towards socialism after WWII
In the US businessmen had risen to save the day. There was no doubt during the war and after than we all – including business large and small came together to win the war.
Money was made – but the US in WWII did not have massive post war profeteering recriminations. US Businesses cam out of the war with an enormous degree of public respect.
Conversely throughout Europe and the UK
Business was subordinated even more to government during the war than in the US,
and yet was less productive.
At the same time both during the war and after there were constant recriminations of war profiteering.
The UK and france and much of europe did not exit the war with the same high regard for business, and markets.
This is also why politicians are constantly declaring war.
War on drugs, War on Crime, ……
Because when the rhetoric is war like we tend to much more strongly support the govenrment taking our liberty.
Anyway we should always remember government is atleast sometimes – if not mostly be run by the people we would least like to see run it.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Madison Federalist 51.
I do not think Trump is as bad as you.
But if you are prepared to agree that the danger of a Pres. Trump – or possibly worse, is sufficient that no one – not Obama, not Clinton, Nor Bush, nor our congress should have the power they do – because it could at times fall into the hands of evil people.
I think we can reach a very major point of agreement.
Today’s Entertainment Recommendation:
I watched “The Founder” yesterday on Netflix. Was better than expected and put’s McDonald’s amazing successful rise into focus through the portrayal of Ray Kroc, a controversial Trump-like figure in his later years; though the film mostly shows how the company grew in its early years from a single store operation to a mega national corporate giant.
Worth watching if you have Netflix access.
The Comic Book President is at it again:
So you know how to handle this ? So your plan is ?
The best shot we had at dealing with NK’s nuclear program was under Clinton.
We didn’t. I understand why Clinton didn’t. I agreed with him at the time.
Maybe I still do. Regardless, Bush and Obama have had 16 years to deal with NK.
They have failed.
Trump did not create the fact that we have a very dangerous unpredictable mad man – a real one – not the ignorant left stupid carciture of Trump, who has nuclear weapons.
Has an ICBM – apparently one that can reach new york, and has a nuclear war head that will work on an ICBM.
Nor did Trump deprioritize Anti-Ballistic Missle systems – such that should NK actually launch we have maybe a 50/50 shot of knocking it down.
Some experts are claiming that it is much better. I sure hope so.
Regardless, we are several years behind where we should have been.
Trump did not make the mess we have right now.
I do not know if he is the right person to solve it.
Nor do you, nor does anyone else.
We will know he is the wrong choice – if there is a mushroom cloud rising over manhattan.
Or maybe not, because we might be past the point were anyone can stop NK.
Maybe we can avoid impending nuclear disaster by backing down.
Buying time. So what ? We leave something even worse for the next guy ? Like Clinton, Bush and Obama did ?
I do not consider this a joke.
I do not think that Bush should have gone into Iraq.
Sadam was a mad man. But not this kind of mad man.
I worry about Iran, but ultimately I think (or hope) that the Iranians are just not that nuts.
But NK ? Every defector we got, says – yup they are that nuts.
Trump did not make this mess.
But Trump has managed to get Russia, China, Japan and South Korea all on the same page. Something Clinton, Bush and Obama failed to do.
Your basic theme is that this is a very difficult problem and there may not be a good solution, no matter who is president. I agree!
And I apply to that thinking to many, many other problems in foreign policy. People blame the president, whoever he his, for the fact that international life is a shark tank full of evils we have not figured out a model for defeating.
As to trump, it may be that he got everyone one the same page. Or it may be that NK got everyone on the same page, regardless of who is the US president. There is not really any way to know. I am glad its Mattis who has the job of designing, evaluating, and ranking responses. I think trump has been responsible for moving China a bit, but history will tell if that is real and comes out well. There is a path for this to come out very catastrophically badly, I am not sure there is a path for it to come out very well, baring a surprise collapse of the NK regime, no matter who the world leaders are. This may be the issue that overtakes the story of the trump mess and replaces it in the headlines for the coming years. If it blows up into an actual war trump will get the blame, regardless of whether he deserves it. And it might be that he will deserve it, that is also a possibility. Korea, it ain’t Iraq, its a very different set of consequences and dangers.
In the end MAD is the ultimate force to check the use of nuclear weapons. NK may get a few. We have a lot. We certainly need the best possible anti missile systems. The counter to “we can nuke you” on the part of NK is “we can shoot your nuke down and then we will Really nuke you and finish you off with a conventional invasion” on the part of the US. I am not sure I mind trump making that clear in colorful language, but if it leads to catastrophe, then he will get the blame. In general, I think he did a good thing by giving them back their own superheated rhetoric. It puts China on notice as well. I guess what I am saying is that I think our insane president may be the best answer to their insane leader, of all the terrible choices of how to respond. But time may show me wrong.
The reason that we are concerned about NK, Iran, and previously Iraq, is because MAD is a very dangerous policy. even during the cold war on several occasions we came close to nuclear war through mispreceptions and errors.
MAD does not work against fanatics.
We are in agreement on much of the rest.
Though I would give Trump more credit than you.
If you think Mattis is great – Trump picked him.
Equally important – though Mattis, McMaster’s Tillerson, Kelley all appear to be wonderful assets, they ARE implimenting Trump’s policies.
The same ones he ran on.
If the policies were going to be different – Trump would have selected different people.
This is one of my problems with Sessions – who I think has a great deal of integrity and at the same time is totally at odds with Trump’s campaign polices regarding DOJ.
This also relates to the current McMaster’s afghanistant feud.
The final decision is trumps. It is his BECAUSE it is a policy/political decision, not a military one. He ran on a platform of winning fights quickly and getting out. On an anti-nation building platform. on a platform of non-intervention where our clear interests were not involved.
Nichols/McMasters are selling something else.
Few like Bannon, but in this instance Bannon is arguing for Trump’s platform – and what most americans want.
And there is the separate argument that though we are the most powerful nation in the world we are not omnipotent.
What we can do regarding NK is influenced by what resources we have commited to the mideast.
In the area of foreign and military policy – Trump has excellent people.
They do not completely agree. Thus far they have done very well.
They deserve credit AS DOES TRUMP.
Just as if all this blows up – they get the blame too.
Separately I think that Trump deliberately cultivates an image of instability.
He wants China, NK, Iran to think he could go off half cocked.
It makes negotiating easier.
This also explains the differences between Trump Tweets and the whitehouse, defense or state. Trump wants China etc, to beleive that he could go off, so they should negotiate with Tillerson etc. otherwise they will have to deal with the crazy man.
This BTW is a very frequent negotiating tactic.
If you are a decision maker NEVER get yourself into a room with people who must get approval to make decisions – or you are going to get taken.
If you are a negotiator, it is always useful to have to get approval from someone else – particularly a “crazy guy”.
The Trump administration has used US economic policy, fueled by emerging US energy dominance, as leverage against China & Russia, something the Bush/Clinton/Obama teams never really considered. The Obama team, in particular, was busy trying to choke off our energy dominance, because “climate change is the main threat facing the world”.
NK has made tremendous strides in their nuclear ambitions in the last few years. China has been far more than a passive observer, and has almost certainly provided the technology for those nuclear ambitions, after we have provided the billions to pay for that technology. The Chinese aim has been to use NK to keep the US at bay, as China freely expands its hegemony in the Pacific. However, it’s not in China’s interests to have us go to war with NK, rather to have us preoccupied with how to handle the NK threat, and to have us keep wasting billions to pay off a rogue regime It’s long past time for us to stop playing willing dupe to the Chinese, to force the Norks to the negotiating table with some strong rhetoric.
But no other president has ever used this kind of rhetoric.
“It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” ~ Harry Truman
“The Obama team, in particular, was busy trying to choke off our energy dominance, because “climate change is the main threat facing the world”.”
Oh, Good grief. The relationship of that bit of absurd partisan propaganda to the NK situation is, well, there isn’t one. We simul posted, mine says that I am willing to believe that trumps language is useful and concedes that he may possibly have moved the Chinese. So, we may more or less agree on trump vs. NK.
But why do you have to beat Obama for his sound belief in global warming in connection to it? What on earth is the connection, other than another chance to find a “We conservatives are right and Obama was a disaster” angle. It just looks like the typical partisan message. Finding the least catastrophic path on NK ought to transcend partisanship.
This business of trying to find some angle to have at Obama one more time really makes me mad.
trump is POTUS, not Obama.
No previous administration, US or Western, has changed NK. The partisan message that Obama was weak on NK is complete horseshit.
I would love to be able to make a calm evaluation of the chances of the trump team to improve the NK situation. The impulse I get when I have to listen to some stale horseshit about Obama, blah, blah, blah is to just be partisan myself and slam the door on trying to give trump a chance to do better and focus on the enormous faults of conservatives instead. Is that really a useful way to deal with big dangerous problems?
We are all in this together.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-faces-north-korean-challenge-1479855286
Roby. your say “We conservatives are right and Obama was a disaster” angle. It just looks like the typical partisan message” when addressing Priscilla’s comment about Obama putting more attention on climate change than NK.
Just to chime in, remember, Obama spent 8 years blaming “W” for all the woes of the nation during his administration and took credit for all the good when something happened during that same period. Seems like whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
What I am blaming Obama for – he did.
Bush gets alot of blame from me too.
Somethings the blame is spread accross both of them.
“The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”
Mattis.
I am sorry – with respect to both North Korea – which is what keeps me up at night, and Iran, Pres. Obama completely dropped the ball.
There was near zero effort to deal with NK and a bizzare deal with Iran.
Further Obama substantially reduced our commitment to missle defense, one form of military spending that I actually beleive should increase – even though I would slash the DOD budget in half.
Bush also failed to deal with NK – though he kept the pace up on Missle defense.
Clinton had the best opportunity to deal with NK.
And failed.
Trump is facing a much more dangerous standoff as a result of Clinton, Bush and Obama’s failure.
I am now hearing claims that our ABM sheild is 100% effective against very small numbers of ICBM’s – that is sufficient to address NK. But I have also heard it is only about 50% effective. That does not inspire confidence.
As a practical matter we need a space based system.
That is going to be expensive to develop and deploy.
But it is far easier to nail an ICBM on an opposing path in the ascent stage than at any other time.
Chasing a rocket with a rocket is very very hard.
Getting to it before it has mirved (not a facotr with NK yet) is very very hard.
Catching it on descent puts all the risks on us.
We are never going to have a missle defense system that can deal with Russia.
But we should have every possible option in dealing with NK, Iran or other smaller nations.
A highly reliable system of intercepting ICBM’s makes developming an ICBM a political and economic liability for a small country.
“Just to chime in, remember, Obama spent 8 years blaming “W” for all the woes of the nation during his administration and took credit for all the good when something happened during that same period. Seems like whats good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Fair enough but The Iraq war, with its blood, and expense ,and the chaos it left behind is rather hard to miss or avoid discussing. The same goes for the economy Obama inherited, the crisis was not some small event one could just forget. And when Obama was criticized for the size of the deficit, well some large part of that deficit was already in place in the budget when he took office. But god help me I really don’t want to get into the argument that could lead to.
I believe that you have been as hard on W for the Iraq war and his spending as anyone here. You have been hard on Obama, but you were no less hard on Bush and you are hard on trump, so I long ago stopped having any urge to harangue you about partisanship, you have at All of them, irrespective of party and based on some set of consistent criteria.
In this case Obama’s belief in the reality and dangers of global warming have not a thing to do with our policy towards N. Korea, under trump or under Obama.
Obama promised we would be out of Afghanistan and Iraq in 18 months.
He does not own starting them.
He does own not ending them.
He also owns libya and atleast partly Syria.
Trump does nto own much yet – but he will soon enough.
Obama’s “belief” in global warming has little to do with NK.
It has alot to do with Iran, the mideast and Russia.
His failed energy policy weakened us in the mideast and with respect to Russia.
Because CAGW is not science or sound. It is politics masquerading as science.
If climate has you worried, if you beleive that it is the basis for government action then I am sorry you are at best an IYI – intelligent yet idiot.
https://politicsandprosperity.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/95-of-climate-models-agree_the-observations-must-be-wrong.png?w=620&h=558
I personally consider someone’s views on “climate change” to be a sort of IQ test.
If you are not a skeptic – you fail.
What is the connection ?
Obama’s policies on energy, climate, pollution were DISASTEROUS.
It is not a matter of opinion, that energy and energy costs, and energy abundance are probably the most important single issue on the planet.
Standard of living is inextricably linked to energy.
Global conflict is inextricably linked to energy.
There are policies that divide red and blue.
And there are ones that divide right and wrong.
Just because something is red or blue, does not mean it is right (or wrong).
Wrong politcies are still wrong if persued by progressives.
Ok, Roby, if blaming Obama for gutting our military and announcing publicly that climate change was the greatest threat to our national security, while evading the treaty clause of the Constitution and entering the US, unilaterally, into a climate change treaty that would transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign countries, while China did diddly squat, I won’t blame him.
I’ll blame Bill Clinton for paving the way for NK to advance its nuclear program, because he bears the brunt of the blame. Bush and Obama just kicked the can down the road. Not only did Clinton agree to pay the Norks $5B, in return for meaningless promises to dismantle their nuclear weapons programs, he de-classified and approved of the sale of much of our nuclear technology to China, and they, in turn sold it to NK, which paid for it, at least in part with the $5B that we gave them. Neat trick.
And then there is this,
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/trump-obama-north-korea-241389
which contains the following interesting words that may make me rethink:
” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last week that the president told him he would be willing to start a war with North Korea — regardless of the huge casualties likely to result in the region — if that’s what it takes to keep Kim from developing missiles and nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S.
“If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here,” Graham said, adding that Trump “has told me that to my face.””
Only, the chances that a military action against NK would end in deaths merely in the thousands are tiny. You could get to a million, fast, many in our ally, South Korea, as the sane Mattis, who is not some feckless lilly-livered N. Korea-coddling liberal, has made clear. Will South Koreans thank us if they bear the brunt of the N. Korean response and die in the tens or hundreds of thousands? To be more mundane, how will the stock market react, the world economy, to a bloody war involving an increasing number of players, including China?
If your trump lights THAT fuse all the tough talking conservative rhetoric about being so much smarter than Obama is going to be a giant stink that history won’t forget. But if that happens we will have bigger things to worry about.
This entire situation is a very large can of gasoline and if trump seriously wants to play with matches… Yeah, maybe it will all turn out great like Reagan and the USSR, N Korea will change and fold its hand, and conservatives will score a giant victory. On the other hand, If trump were to blow it up, Ian telling Priscilla how terribly wrong she and the conservative world were would probably be item number 247 on my list of things to do, so I”l say it now: This partisan chest thumping could turn into a catastrophe in a heartbeat. Its a mistake.
In reality, trump has the same options Obama had.
Roby, why do YOU think China and Russia signed onto the UN sanctions when in the past they have never done this before? Why do you think China has stopped buying NK coal since Trumps election?
Could it be that China does not want a war on its doorstep causing millions to flee from NK into China to avoid death from massive bombings? China’s eastern region is one of its poorer and most needy regions and that is where all the NK refugees would end up. Could it be the Chinese don’t trust Trump and think of him as a possible “Lil Kim” of the west? Could it be his rhetoric is causing them a few sleepless nights wondering if this guy is for real and he would go to war in their back yard? Could they be wondering what the impact of a nuke attack a few hundred miles away would have on them?
Pussy footing around with NK has not worked for the past 20-25 years and China has watched and done nothing. Now they find someone they can not profile as a pansy in the west and have taken a couple small steps to alleviate some of the tensions.
Our next few steps are diplomatic. If those do not work and NK develops a nuke head to go on their missile that can reach the mainland USA, then the real possibility we use one of their missile tests as a test for our defensive missile shield exists and we shoot that sucker out of the sky over the Sea of Japan from either a ship or from one of our basis on a south pacific island.
But my question is “Why have we not heard anything from Japan, South Korea or anyone else on this issue when this is in their back yard? I can find nothing on the internet about South Korea and there actions concerning this issue and only just two days ago has anything come out of Japan on this issue. The same “war welfare” thinking exist in that region that exist in Europe. Let the USA defend us and let their military die for us. That type of thinking has GOT TO STOP!!!!!!!
So hopefully Trump will take actions to defend us and our military stationed overseas and to hell with anyone that will not defend themselves. My Libertarian thinking is slowly moving to that parties non-interventionist thought on defense and protecting others. If they won’t do it for themselves, then we won’t do it for them. There are some that don’t have the means to defend themselves like Ukraine and when asked, we should help (unlike what Obama did), but when they do have the means and they stay quite (like SK and Japan), then they can go it alone for all I care.
All I can say Ron, is it sounds sort of nice (the libertarian let them go it alone path) but we are way far too far into this chess game to withdraw. The US got involved in the Korean war, it was a party to the truce and its been involved ever since. Are you really suggesting that we just give N. Korea what it wants and leave S. Korea to its fate? I’m pretty sure that will not be a winning move on any level, were it to happen. A slaughter of our allies in S. Korea and/ or an expansion of Lil Kim’s insane stalinist kingdom won’t be acceptable to many Americans or people anywhere.
As to the question of why the UN was able to get Russia and China to go along with sanctions, I will never know. I believe I have conceded that trump’s actions may have helped, on the other hand it may also just be that China and Russia do not want what N. Korea is doing for reasons of their own. Both reasons may enter into it. Who can know? I’ve given trump some credit here and I have been consistent about that. I’ll give him credit too for shutting the door on travel to N.Korea, should have been done long ago.
If I were the POTUS the first thing I would do is announce an intense acceleration in our anti-missile program with the message that American science and technology can develop anti ICBM technology faster than they can develop nukes and ICBMs, and we can afford such an arms race much more easily than they can.
Roby, no I am not saying we let them go it alone. I am saying I am beginning to accept the Libertarian thinking on this and understand it, but unlike Ukraine, other countries have grown to depend on us for defense. Just like birds that are constantly feed by bird feeders and they can not find seeds for themselves and do not know how to find food, these countries now have no idea even how to begin defending themselves.
Just as I believe China and Russia are questioning just what the hell Trump will do next, I think it is time for the leadership to make our allies wonder what our next steps will be to defend them. How do we get them to increase their defense spending and begin building up their own armies and defensive weapon systems.
I don’t want to get back into the debate that raged here months ago about involvement in others conflicts, so I will only share a couple thoughts on intervention. i am sick of our military dying for others that won’t stand up for themselves. Our men and women going into battle while able men and women the same age of our military in war torn areas becoming refugees in other countries fleeing from the conflict. I an sick of us spending billions on defense, while other countries spend little to nothing.
If Trump makes them question what we will do, both by using the military and by not getting involved, great!
Would you say it is time to leave afghanistan ?
Even if that means the Taliban takes over ?
If the alternative is sending thousands more US troops just to preserve the status quo for another decade ?
In war there is no substitute for victory
Douglas MacArthur.
Something we have lost sight of since the Korean War.
We need to quit getting into wars we do not intend to win.
We need to win them and get the h##l out.
Building nations is not our job.
I think it is reasonable for us to decide that a nation that attacks its neighbors is a threat to all of us.
But we can not be policing every nations civil wars.
And we are not here to build other nations.
Yes the rest of the world needs to start sharing in its own defence.
That is actually likely to drive countries to agree to scale back EVERYONE’s militaries.
Dave, I guess where I come down on Afghanistan is the same that I would on any other countries military problem.
“You break it, you own it”
So, we broke Iraq, we own it and we owed it to the people of Iraq to make sure it was put back together. Neither Bush nor Obama did this and that is why it is in the mess it is in today. We are trying now to put it back together. There were many reasons for the way it has progressed, but Bush’s decisions on who could be involved with the government after the war led to many of the problems they have now.
As for Afghanistan, here again we broke it. Had we gone in and fought Alquida
I loosely agree with “you broke it you own it”
We broke Iraq.
HOWEVER, ultimately a people must be responsible for their own government.
Our responsibility to Iraq and for Iraq ended a long time ago.
We did nto break Afghanistan. The Taliban did.
We had every right to act militarily.
We should have entered swiiftly and left swiftly.
We didn’t.
That still does not create ownership of the problem.
It is the responsibility of the Afghani’s to figure out how to govern themselves.
I can have sympathy for them.
But I am not trading our blood and treasure to stall things while they get their act together.
With respect to Trump I think the Afghan issue is clear – and I think he was clear.
The military must give him a plan that involves victory and departure – even if that requires resources. The alternate is an orderly departure.
That another decade of stalemate is not a choice.
Dave I guess I come down on the position of “you broke it you own it” Stay the hell out if you don’t want to fix it once you invaded.
So in looking at Iraq, we broke it and we owned it. We owed the people of Iraq to rebuild their nations government and assist them in rebuilding their country. If that meant troops on the ground until they were able to defend themselves, then so be it. Bush f’ed up the process of establishing a new government when they banned certain groups of people from being part of any government during the transition phase and that led in part to some of the problems today.
In Afghanistan, we actually broke that also. The Taliban was not our enemy for the most part. It was Al Qaeda. We should have targeted that group, and once OBL was taken care of, then we should have gotten out. Could we have targeted Al Qaeda without fighting the Taliban? That’s anyone’s guess. But now that this has happened and the conditions in that country is deteriorating, Russia is flexing their muscle and beginning to see the benefits of their propaganda campaign as well as providing military equipment that could well swing that country into the realm of Russian control. So how do we extract ourselves from a country we broke without providing some assistance to maintain some from of a freer society that they accept and is not forced on them.
Over our long history we have been the country that stays after we go into that country militarily for some reason. We have told many countries they do not need certain military weapons or systems because we will protect them. Europe, Japan and many other countries have taken advantage of this over the years. And they were countries we did not break to begin with.
My position in any conflict is you hit them hard with everything short of nukes, eliminate the problem, support a strong government, train that governments troops to protect their own country and then get the hell out when it is stable. That has not happened after any war I can think of and that is why we find ourselves in the quagmire in the middle east we are in and why we have thousands of troops stationed far an wide around the world.
So maybe the answer now in Iraq and Afghanistan is a private contracted security force paid for by those countries and then we can leave officially.
I would just note that your position on afghanistan is that of Bannon,
and in opposition to Tillerson, McMasters, Mattis, and Nichols.
I agree with you.
But I am trying to point out that not only has Trump chosen alot of smart advisors,
but he has chosen people who will speak truth to power – even when others are saying otherwise. He is getting the best advice from opposing sides on issues.
And he seems to be choosing wisely between them.
He appears to be heeding Bannon on Afghanistan, but McMasters etc on Iran.
And I think that is the wise choice.
It is better than Obama did, and it displays exactly what so many here screetch is not true
fitness to be president, and the ability to make wise decisions.
Hopefully that will help with DPRK.
“But I am trying to point out that not only has Trump chosen alot of smart advisors,
but he has chosen people who will speak truth to power – ”
Bull crap. You have ZERO proof to back up what anyone is telling Trump, and less proof that he listens to anything or anyone. Your assertions are based on gossip filtered thru leaks filtered further by Trump partisans. Kelly for instance was reported as advising Trump to lay off Tweeting last week- notice how that alleged advice was processed.
And being ‘smart’ is a relative term. As in ‘smart and shifty.’ Like Manafort, like Flynn, both now under investigation. You think his nepotistic choices of Jared and Ivanka as Senior Advisors were smart choices? How about Kellyanne and Mooch- Trump personal picks, you applauding them as well as smart picks? You suggesting as well that Sebastian Lukács Gorka and Stephan Miller are among the nation’s best and brightest? What about Trump nominating “his longtime campaign aide Sam Clovis to head science at the US Department of Agriculture, despite the fact that Clovis lacks a background in science and a congressional rule maintains that the role must be filled “from among distinguished scientists.” .?? You applauding that too?
For someone who claims to be an independent thinker you sure are lock-stepped into Trumpster apologia.
Really ?
The left wingnut news is constantly telling us of the conflict in this whitehouse, or between the whitehouse and various cabinet departments.
Are you saying that is all made up ?
Are you as an example saying that there is no discord over how to deal with Afghanistan ?
Or Iran ? Or …. ?
Sorry Jay. Trump has an actual cabinet “Team of Rivals”, and mostly
I think he is doing a good job figuring out which advice to follow on each issue.
You seem to think that Trump’s tweets are everything.
I think many of them are stupid.
But to a large extent they are just part of his war with the left.
One he is winning.
I do not think his tweets are meaningful regarding the actual governance of the country
Wow, People are “under investigation” – clearly they are scurulous !
I have been investigated for finnancial misconduct – no one found any.
There were even allegations that I was involved int he murder of my father – who according to the corner died of pnumonia while in a nursing home under the care of the state.
I posted the video of Howard Root a while ago – he was “under investigation” by the DOJ for 5 years. A jury find him entirely innocent – without his putting on a case after deliberating for 15 min.
Does “under investigation” mean guilty ?
Can you cite a specific criminal act that Maneforte has done ? Flynn ?
Anyone associated with Trump ?
Gorka is a deputy assistant. That is not a particularly important placement and I doubt Trump picked him personally – regardless he has been on the news more recently and proved knowledgeable – even on subjects outside his brief.
Stephen Miller is a policy advisor – again not a particularly ranking role. Maybe he was personally picked by Trump – I do not know, I doubt you do.
He is about as impressive or unimpressive as similarly place members ot the Obama administration.
Mr. Clovis – or perhaps I should say Dr. Clovis – as he has a Phd. from UofA – has pretty impressive academic credentials if you had bothered to check.
Regardless you seem to equate agreement on policy with competence.
Anyone who is pushes back against the media – is according to you incompetent.
Anyone whose world view does not coincide with yours – is incompetent.
Though even that is not really true – because many Obama staff were on occasion testy or dismissive of the press. It is hard to think of anything more insulting to the PRess than Ben Rhoads remarks about them. Obama’s advisors almost certainly disagreed with you on policy on occasion.
Your real criteria for competent appears to be party affiliation.
Though I guess you make allowances for neo-cons and never trumpers.
The only one “lock step” is you.
I doubt there is anything Trump has done as president that I would have done the same.
But failure to do exactly as I would is not the same as incompetence.
Nor is disagreement over policy.
I have made it repeatedly clear that for just about every policy reason imaginable Jeff Sessions is the wrong person to be US Attorney General.
But there is a big difference between he is the wrong choice, and he is unqualified or incompetent or lacks integrity. Sessions is inarguably competent, qualified and honest.
I disagree with Session on nearly every DOJ related policy issue.
Worse Sessions is pursuing policies at odds with Trump’s campaign.
And worse still Trump is supporting those.
I am quite angry with Trump over that. I am certainly no Trump shill.
But I do not allow my very serious policy differences with Trump to color my judgement on everything else.
For you it is aparently all or nothing. Damn integrity, absent ideological identification with you, someone is evil sneaky and incompetent.
I do not beleive anyone is looking to tell south korea that they are on their won.
I have not heard that anywhere.
Russia and China are helping – because it is in no ones interests to have NK with nuclear ICBM’s.
I have been reading a bit more, and what I am getting is more complex.
It is about North Korea so it is always guess work, but apparently there are alot of military planners who beleive that Kim’s objective is to get the US to back down when he invades South Korea. That Kim is beligerant and unpredictable and irrational, but not suicidal.
That he is not looking to provoke a nuclear war, That his “strategy” is that his nukes are a deterrant to keep the US out of anything.
Obviously all of this is speculation, but it is the most rational speculation I have heard.
There is also other information out there. NK apparently has more nukes as bombs, not ready for Missles, than we had anticipated. He also has large stockpiles of VX, Sarin, and other chemical and biological weapons. That he has a massive amount of artilery, and the artilery is capable of delivering biological and chemical weapons.
That there are large numbers of very large tunnels under the DMZ running as far a seol and that seol may already have nukes under it.
That Kim’s goal is a conventional war and that his nukes are the threat to keep the US out.
Even a conventional war in Korea is going to be something altogether different from anything we have seen since WWII. Causalties would dwarf the original korean war.
While I think these are significant over estimates, many military experts are talking of millions of causualties in south korea within hours.
The purported experts seem to think that if the US acts – it will likely do so with almost no warning – that does not preclude sabre rattling.
I do not think that is the case. We have some reasonable capacity in a prepared engagement to attempt to encapsulate NK.
THAAD is arleadiy in Seol.
We have artilary that can take out oposing weapons after a single shot.
We would likely need atleast two AirCraft Carriers plus land based aircraft From SK, and Japan, but we could probably ground the NK airforce.
That comes very close to eliminating any nuclear threat to Japan or Seol, and means that any ICBM’s or IRBM’s have to come out into the open where they can be anhilated.
The question then becomes containing a massive north Korean conventional army.
Regardless, that is a scenario that requires us to prepare and sends strong signals to Kim that we are coming for him. That is not a surprise.
And we are not going to move large forces to the area and keep them indefinitely.
Dave “I do not beleive anyone is looking to tell south korea that they are on their won.
I have not heard that anywhere.”
I believe this came from the way I wrote a previous post concerning SK, Japan and others in the region defending themselves. I said this because I can not find anything other than one internet article about NK, SK, USA or Trump concerning this issue from SK or Japan.
Then Roby responded concerning our leaving SK to defend themselves in response to these comments.
THAAD is already in SK.
It can take out IRBM’s – it is essentially the patriot missle system on steriods.
It might be able to take out an ICBM in the ascent phase.
We also have an ABM system – which atleast some miliarty people purportedly in the know have said is now 100% effective against anything within NK’s capabilities.
There is some debate over whether Kim has nuclear ICBM’s at the moment,
or whether he is a year away. A miniturized warhead is not enough, but it is the last huge hurdle.
The ultimate ABM system is space based. Aside from being very expensive it is a better system. It is easier to take out a missle when you are not chasing it, and in the ascent phase.
Much of the above is why things are more tense now.
If we are going to act – we are likely to do so now.
Our ABM’s are not going to improve radically for a decade.
A space based system might be great – but it is not getting deployed tomorow.
If Kim has 1 ICBM and 1 warhead now, he will have moe and more with time.
He might be able to overwhelm our existing system in the near future.
He can not today.
If we do not act soon, then we will be betting on MAD with NK, because in the short run Kim gets stronger faster than we do.
This BTW is my complaint against Obama.
With the advent of more beligerant nations with nukes and ICBM’s the US needs a much better ABM system. That will take a decade – it should have started many years ago.
I would further note that everything that has happened int he mideast for two decades would likely be dwarfed by the first week of a NK war.
“i am sick of our military dying for others that won’t stand up for themselves.”
“If Trump makes them question what we will do, both by using the military and by not getting involved, great!”
We spend 3.3% of our GDP on defence. The world average is 2.2. S.Korea spends 2.7.
From Wiki: “Created in 1948, following the division of Korea, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces is one of the largest standing armed forces in the world with a reported personnel strength of 3,725,000 in 2016 (625,000 active and 3,100,000 reserve).[1]”
I am not sure what the S. Koreans standing up for themselves in a way different from that now would look like. They have quite a large military and are fully involved in defending their border. I can’t blame them for not relishing an actual bloody war with N. Korea.
I don’t think that people like Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster would share your enthusiasm for making our allies wonder whether we will be there in a crunch.
While I am not opposed in this case to trump howling the same kind of fiery rhetoric back at the Lil Kim, I also do not get the sense that his words were at all expected by his Defense and State secretaries. He is an impulsive man doing his perpetually impulsive thing. In this particular case it may have not been such a bad impulse, but its no great model for a president in general.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Roby, I guess where i am conflicted is why we hear nothing from Japan and South Korea on this issue.
Guess they think they will be immune to gun fire if something explodes in their back yard between NK and USA.
I’m not convinced that is the case.
Whatever the case, what has happened over the past 30 years with our position on NK nukes has not worked. And this may not either, but the can has been kicked down the road on NK and nukes until it has come to rest against a block wall and can no longer be kicked any further.
That’s what happens when things are put off. Just a forerunner of what is going to happen with the debt and deficit when that can hits its own block wall.
Without turning nuclear – merely with biological and chemical weapons a 2nd Korean War could have casualites in the millions in hours.
Seol is in artilery range of NK, and they have non-nuke WMD shells.
Even Tokyo is inside of the range of NK’s non-nuke WMD’s and the north koreans hate the japanese.
DPRK forces are just under double those of ROK.
Further they are likely to use non-nuke WMD’s
South Korea has no crush zone to buy time in the event of an attack.
They must either stop DPRK at the DMZ or they must cede seol.
It is likely that the ROK is more skilled and better equipped, and they are the defenders which has a substantial advantage, but they have to be fully prepared at any time otherwise NK gets the advantage of surprise.
This may help answer your question about Japan (and South Korea) response to the NK threats, and Trumps response:
Also be advised that Dumb ass Donald hasn’t appointed an ambassador to South Korea. The position is vacant.
The reason that SK and Japan don’t have nukes is because we told them that we would protect them from threats. Trump said, during the campaign that the US should allow both nations to have both missile defense systems and offensive weapons as deterrents. The left, predictably, went as crazy as a bunch of 13 year old girls at a pajama party when a mouse appears….
The South Koreans had an active, but secret nuke program, which they were forced to give up in the 70’s as part of the non-proliferation treaty, from which NK withdrew. We had tactical nukes in SK until the early 90’s, but took them out.
General Mattis used very tough language today in backing up the president. Secretary Tillerson backed him up in more diplomatic language.
“I think it is time for the leadership to make our allies wonder what our next steps will be to defend them. How do we get them to increase their defense spending and begin building up their own armies and defensive weapon systems.” Agreed, Ron. We could start by helping the South Koreans and Japanese with our technology, which would balance the scales somewhat.
As many have noted, there are no good answers. But the time for empty promises of “peace in our time” is over.
I do not think we are hearing much from South Korea and Japan because they are pretty much on the same page with us.
This is a mess. The odds of a good outcome are poor.
South Korea is screwed in any scenario that does not involve North Korea coming to heel.
Japan may be screwed in the same scenarios.
North Korea has alot of non-minituized nuclear bombs, they can be delivered by aircraft to Japan, South Korea, or China.
So take what Trump said an invert it – does that make you happier.
If we wait until NK does try to take out manhattan.
Do you think the results for South Korea are going to be better ?
From Clinton through Trump confronting NK means risking a very bloody land war in Korea.
But postponing confrontation, only delays that in the hope that NK will be more rational in the future – maybe they will. Thus far they have not been, while increasing the risk to others.
At the Time Clinton could have acted – the results would have been confined to Korea.
And due to north korean weakness and famines at the time, any war would have been much easier and more short lived – had it occured at all.
Everyone has been hoping for collapse in NK since.
By the time Obama had to deal with it – Japan was at risk too.
There is little discussion of the fact that Japan and NK hate each other.
Tell me that we really have a 100% chance of knocking down anything NK has or will have in the future and I will be begging trump to cool his jets.
But I do not beleive that. I do believe we do have a 50/50 shot of taking out any SINGLE NK ICBM launched at us.
Now it is Trumps turn.
I do nto want any war.
But lets deal with reality.
You can hiff and puff and do nothing.
And maybe NK does nothing.
Of course in 5 or 10 years we may be facing threats our ABM system can not handle.
Or maybe our ABM system is better in 5-10 years.
Or maybe NK launches.
If they do, there will be war no matter what.
But if they do there is a 50/50 chance of $20T of destruction to the US and millions of lives lost.
There are 3 big fears.
Manhattan – that is about 20T in damage and probably a million in casualites.
That would be the consequences of a modern hiroshima weapon in Manhattan.
A Central US air burst EMP – that would kill very few immediately, but destroy just about the entire eleictronic and electrical infrastructure in the US.
Potentially millions could die of starvation. The entire economy would be reduced instantly to about 1900.
Or something targetting Seattle of LA.
A 2nd korea war would be horrible.
A successful nuclear attack on the US would cause a global depression.
So now does Trump’s argument make more sense to you ?
So what does President Roby do ?
I am not expecting an answer.
It is not an answerable question.
Dueling Egos:
As far a NK attacking Guam, that sounds like an empty threat to me. That would give the US all the excuse it needed to rain hellfire down on them (rather Trumpian language I know 😉 ) and pretty much destroy the country. Not to mention that we have a good missile defense system in Guam.
I think that, if the fat little dictator wanted to be taken out, as he will be if he attacks the US, he would go much bigger and attack SK, Japan, Hawaii or the US mainland. Threatening Guam may be a tell that he’s trying to save face and buy time.
My guess based on what I have been reading is that Kim’s play is:
to threaten the US with nukes so that we stay out of things.
That he plans to attack SK as soon as he really can put a nuke on Guam – which is soon.
That attack will not be nuclear – but will involve non-nuclear WMD’s
We have two major shots to avoid that.
Move forces at or near Korea such that NK’s conventional attack will fail, and
be prepared to knock out an ICBM with either THAAD or our ABM system.
Attack NK now.
Most of the experts I am reading are saying that we are going to bet Kin does not attack, and we are going to negotiate, and Kim’s going to negotiate back.
But these same people say though Kim is not suicidal he is also not rational.
that leads back to if he beleives he can succeed – and aparently though false he really does beleive he can fight a conventional war in Korea and win.
While most experts seem tot hink that if a conventional war errupts it is going nuclear fast.
That Kim’s use of other WMD’s will provoke us, or the Kim will use Nukes if things do not go well.
Those who think we may attack now, say it will be without warning.
I disagree. There is no move we can make that has a high enough odds of succeeding and NOT resulting in NK attacking SK immediately, that we will not prepare to defend SK first. That means a couple of carriers in the area atleast.
That means US forces on Guam and Okinawa and in SK.
That meas coordination with Japan, SK and China.
That can not all happen by “surprise”
The moment of the start may be secret, but the build up ahead is unlikely to be secret.
That also make moving forces in and waiting unlikely.
Keeping alot of forces on near war standing near Korea is going to be incredibly expensive.
Once they are in position the financial preasure to act will be huge.
Further Time does not make this better.
Ha, so many statements to argue about now that I don’t know where to start. So, I won’t! My wife has been abroad for 10 days, she comes home tonight and I hope that will break the cycle of addiction that I obviously have fallen back into.
For all the hissy fits that we non-trump loving citizens allegedly have about His incompetence, our conservative citizens would appear to be equally worked up and hysterical about the left. To top it all off the definition of The Dreaded Left seems to be be so wide that it includes more than half the country! Egad, you are surrounded!
Using the find function of my browser I found that the words, “the left” appeared 241 times in this thread. The left, the Left, The left, the Left, The left, the Left, The left, the Left, The left, the Left, The left, the Left, Oh, the terrible Left! Its coming to brainwash your children, and steal your geraniums. Probably will piddle on your lawn on the way out. (Don’t worry, we pee perfume!)
Well, the left is pretty bad these days, Roby. Since when is a refusal to back the US president in a time of crisis, without evidence ~ or even accusation ~ that he is acting in bad faith a good idea? Can these people suspend their poisonous hatred and stupid penis cartoons for one day, or acknowledge that respectful disagreement is a better way forward than mindless opposition?
I think that you and I have discussed our definitions of the left in the past, and found that we were largely in agreement. It’s a label, just like any other political label ~ we’ve spend endless words trying to define these labels, and we all use them as generalizations when we’re trying to define different positions. For what it’s worth, I don’t consider you a leftist, although you are certainly more left and I, more right.
I disagree with things that Trump says and does ~ difficult to discuss that sort of thing here for a few reasons. But none of those reasons make me a “trump-loving citizen,” anymore than you are an “obama-loving citizen,” because you are generally defensive of him.
You’ve spring to defense when you think he’s been unfairly attacked, right? But no one can do that for Trump?
Look, I realize that political discourse is pretty dicey these days, and that you have extremely strong and negative feelings about Trump. But I think that we should try to judge his actions, and hold the discussion in that arena.
“when is a refusal to back the US president in a time of crisis, without evidence ~ or even accusation ~ that he is acting in bad faith a good idea? ”
“Can these people suspend their poisonous hatred and stupid penis cartoons for one day, or acknowledge that respectful disagreement is a better way forward than mindless opposition?”
I am not sure which particular of the constant dramas is on your mind with this comment.
But…
Anyone who thinks that trump has to be supported now and opposition has to be withdrawn because of this North Korean situation is pissing in the wind. Meuller will continue working, trump will continue tweeting and being an unpresidential horses ass, and politics will continue. I am certainly not going to withdraw my reaction to trump and his movement because the North Korea story continues. Yes, I hate the very idea of trump being president, for many many good reasons. Its not going to stop. Call me a hater, call me unpatriotic. I’ll tell you it all starts with the remarkable trump himself.
“acknowledge that respectful disagreement is a better way forward” Sounds great, if only the POTUS would be moved by your words.
This is how our president spends his political capital and “leads” all Americans:
“”I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..” Trump wrote in his opening insult tweet Thursday morning (sic).
He continued: “…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”
Not a president, just not. He is lucky that Mattis and Kelley and McMaster put country first to create some level of continuity with competent reality.
No one expects that those on the left will suddenly become sane and grasp that there is nothing to the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense.
In fact we do not even expect you to grasp that if there is nothing to the Russia/Trump collusion nonsense – then the Mueller investigation is lawless – it is litterally a witch hunt.
What we do expect is reasoned debate about NK – and possibly other issues such as Afghanistan.
You think Trump is lucky that Kelley, Mattis, McMasters and Tillerson are there.
Who hired them ? You keep wanted to play this nonsense that Trump should allow the big boys to deal with the problems. Get a clue, he is the one smart enough to hire them.
I do not know that Trump will make the right choices here.
I am not sure that it is possible to know what the right choices even are.
I expect we will be arguing as a site and as a nation about those.
But hopefully we can get past the “trump is an incompetent idiot” nonsense,
An grasp that alot of this is going to be his decisions, and he is as able to make it as any other president.
I absolutely expect advise from Mattis, and Tillerson and Kelley and McMasters – and many many others.
I hope they all find some magical formula to make this go away easily – but I doubt it.
The best resolutions depend on rational behavior from the DPRK and that is just wishful thinking.
What the rest of us expect out of the left in this is, atleast on the issue of NK to get past the “ARgh Trump!!!!!” nonsense, and actually engage in the issues, to hold views based on your personal conception fo the best interests of the country, rather than just knee jerk opposing something because Trump did it.
I have said this is not a problem of Trump’s making – that should be inarguable.
You seem to take that as a blame Obama stance.
While I do think that Obama does bear some culpability.
The last easiest time to deal with the DPRK was actually under Clinton not Obama.
And I completely understand why Clinton chose not to confront NK at the time,
even if hindsight tells us that would have been a better choice than having to deal with them now.
I do not think that Obama was especially evil regarding NK.
Just that he was not especially good.
Frankly on foreign policy matters Obama gets a C- overall.
The world did not come to an end, but most things got worse not better.
Trump has shown signs in his first 200 days of being more effective than Obama in 8 years. That could still fall apart. But there is alot that appears to be trying to happen.
We have not seen that many irons in the fire in a long time.
Yet, he is the president. And he is making a remarkable amount of progress, considering the ferocity and relentlessness of his opposition. Even more importantly, he appears to be attempting to do the things he said he would do, if elected. And, he was pretty specific about those things. I think that this is the point that so many Trump supporters try to make, and they are answered with “But, but, but….his hair and his fake tan, and his trophy wife and his undignified behavior!”
So what? Better a smooth-talking liar, with good hair? Better someone in a sham marriage, who cheats constantly? Better someone who actually thinks that Stephen Colbert is funny?
Who nominated Mattis and Kelly? Who has maintained since the 1990’s that appeasement was the wrong way to handle NK (check out his interview with Tim Russert – it’s all over the internet)? And, while we’re on the subject of Joe and Mika (who carried on an extra-marital affair with each other for years, but apparently consider themselves above reproach) what MSNBC show had Donald Trump on almost daily, usually by phone, devoted an entire hour to a softball interview with him, and generally sucked up to him until he secured the nomination? Would that have been Joe “I don’t know how that dead intern ended up in my office” Scarborough and Mika? Why, yes, yes it was.
“Call me a hater, call me unpatriotic.” I’m not calling you anything, Roby. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s not me who calls people names around here.
I am not aware of any consequential effort to call “the left” unpatriotic.
There are disagreements over policy with the left.
There is a huge disagreement over our view of ourselves.
The left really does seem to beleive the US is just another advanced (and slightly lagging) social democracy.
Most of the rest of us see the US as a light on the hill, a beacon to the world.
Our view is NOT we are better than you.
But We are great and you can be too.
That is NOT the view of the left – which sees any pride americans feel in the US as a sign fo inherent racism.
But yes, alot of us are calling the left our for hate and intolerance.
We are doing so because it is self evident that the left is drowning in hate and intolerance.
One of the big things that happened in the last election is that the lefts past strategy has been to besmirch the right as intolerant hateful hating haters.
Hating others – even for racism – is still hate.
Not tolerating others – even for intolerance is still intolerance.
But hating haters, and being intolerant of the intolerant, flies politicially, and has been the core of a relatively successful democratic political approach for decades.
But in 2016 that failed because
The scale of the groups being identified by the left as “hateful hating haters” became too large – esentially the left came to loath the majority of people in the country
Far too many people grasped that when the left was screetching about hateful, hating haters – they meant them.
You can not label 70% of the people racist mysoginists homophobes – even if you are right, without alienating them. And you certainly can not do it if you are wrong.
A large part of why alot of us do not care that Trump is spraying much the same vitriole back at the left, is because we see him as speaking up for us.
Those of you on the left say his is crude and inarticulate and inaccurate.
We do not expect precision and articulation from those fighting BACK for us.
When you scream at us “racist” – we do not care if Trump screams back at you “f’ing ahole”.
When you get everything wrong, we do not care if trump does not get everything right.
The critical problem is that the left does not understand that they have gone so far over the top in identity politics that they have actually caused large numbers of people to identify with Trump.
I did not vote for him. I do not like him. Yet even I sometimes feel like cheering him on on some of the tweets that you find most offensive.
Truth is the first casualtiy of war, and this is a war you started.
This is not the left going after David Dukes and the KKK.
It is because you have widened your blunderbuss to engulf much of the electorate, that we are angry at you.
You have actually driven people too Trump.
There has been no remarkable progress on N. Korea. The lil nut is still escalating and going forward. Another resolution, there were 6 previously, five from Obama. Progress will be when N. Korea changes it actions.
As to all that soap opera gossip about Joe, Priscilla stop deflecting, it does not do you proud. Joe is not president. Your trump, the POTUS is the important thing not Joe and Vica. You are attempting to pretend that you haven’t noticed that I and all the many millions who do not accept trump have damn damn good reasons. I could give the slightest crap about hot gossip (you have usually been wrong in your hot gossip to boot), the POTUS is the issue. Whatever good things he has done and I have given him credit for picking Mattis for example the problem is that he is still a person given to proudly sounding like a complete moron several times a day, and when he isn’t doing that he is lying his head off. Simply, you are much happier with ANY GOP president, even this disaster, than you are when a dem is POTUS. Fine, your choice but do not try to tell me I have to support this perfect idiot of a president. I’ll support his decisions, when I think he does something right, but not him.
Your comment exposes an incredibly important problem.
You say you do not accept Trump as president – and that is the problem.
We accepted Bill Clinton as President, we accepted Bush, we accepted Obama.
We were free to not like them, we were free to be unhappy with them. We were free to opposed them.
But not accepting them is something different.
You are actually free to not accept Trump – but that means that you think the election was illegitimate, and the government is illegitimate – that is what that means.
It is raised repeatedly that what is going on is a soft coup.
When you say I do not accept Trump – that is exactly what you mean.
That if the nation elects a president that I am sufficiently opposed to – they and the government are illegitimate.
Again you are free to do so, but that choice has consequences.
One of those is that you are seeking to more than oppose government you do not like you are seeking to destroy it.
You are in passive rebellion – not opposition.
The left keeps making analogies to the french resistance – this is the same – except it is not resistance to Hitler, it is resistance to Trump.
The right has thwarted, opposed, been angry risen in opposition,
The Tea Party marched on Washington.
But the right has not rejected Obama as president,
the have rejected his policies, they hove opposed his actions.
Possibly reluctantly and with every effort to obstruct the right did accept Obama as president.
Ultimately you are either saying the vote was wrong, or that elections are only legitimate if you win.
No one is asking for more from you with respect to Trump than most republicans gave to Obama.
As to why trump picked Mattis, I’ll say that its because he had no choice than to pick a respectable and well qualified candidate for Defense. He has picked a lot of completely absurd unqualified people, but Defense he HAD to get right, and he did, with some good advice I am sure. An administration consisting entirely of screwballs would have made him look even worse than he does now and brought him even less clout and more trouble. As well, the Secretary of Defense has to be confirmed and has to be a good and serious enough candidate to do that. Its our system, it worked in this case, even in the trump era, because Defense is serious business.
Should I trust or respect trump because of Mattis? I do trust his administration more with Mattis and Kelley and McMaster in it, very definitely yes, but my evaluation of trump himself is based on the sum total of the things he does. You know what my evaluation is. trump is no more fit to be POTUS than say Micheal Flynn was fit to be National Security Advisor.
Sorry Roby but Mattis is not qualitatively distinguishable from the rest of Trump’s nominees.
My biggest problem with all of Trump’s nominees is that Sessions is the wrong person to have put in as AG.
I think Sessions should have been given a cabinet post, but not DOJ.
Everyone else has been both good and a good fit for their jobs.
And they are making a difference, and that difference is making the country better.
Better in foreign policy, better in education, better in environment, but in jobs,
Better Better Better.
Further he has not nominated yes men. He has put in place strong people.
People not affraid to disagree with him.
He has also put in place people who are doing the job effectively with smaller staffs and fewer layers of bureacrcay.
Mattis appears to be a very good choice – though I am not in agreement with him on Afghanistan. But he is one of many very good choices.
Flynn would likely have made an excellent National Security Advisor.
Thus far we have nothing on Flynn aside from that he might have misrepresentted to Pence the number of calls between him and Kislyak.
And that he took about 50K in consulting fees from Turkey – that is compared to Bill clintons, 500K at the same time.
Flynn was a decorated 3 star General – the same rank as mcmasters, and just below Mattis and Kelly in rank.
We are not talking about an Oliver North type person.
The sum total of things – includes defeating Clinton while spending half as much,
and selecting an amazing cabinet.
“Your comment exposes an incredibly important problem.
You say you do not accept Trump as president – and that is the problem.
We accepted Bill Clinton as President, we accepted Bush, we accepted Obama.
We were free to not like them, we were free to be unhappy with them. We were free to opposed them.
But not accepting them is something different.
You are actually free to not accept Trump – but that means that you think the election was illegitimate, and the government is illegitimate – that is what that means.
It is raised repeatedly that what is going on is a soft coup.
When you say I do not accept Trump – that is exactly what you mean.
That if the nation elects a president that I am sufficiently opposed to – they and the government are illegitimate.”
Er, remember the birthers, and the loudest birther our so called POTUS?
“Again you are free to do so, but that choice has consequences.
One of those is that you are seeking to more than oppose government you do not like you are seeking to destroy it.”
Invent a time machine and go back and tell it to the birthers and trump
You are in passive rebellion – not opposition.
The left keeps making analogies to the french resistance – this is the same – except it is not resistance to Hitler, it is resistance to Trump.
The right has thwarted, opposed, been angry risen in opposition,
The Tea Party marched on Washington.
But the right has not rejected Obama as president,
the have rejected his policies, they hove opposed his actions.”
Oh please, this is the denialist denial you have ever produced in your long career as a denialist. Biggest crock you ever cobbled together. Who exactly is it supposed to convince?
BTW What do you suppose the bumper stick meant that said “Charlton Heston is my president? ” We all know what meant. “The left” did not invent non acceptance of a president.
Trump Himself was the king of the legitimacy deniers, birthers, which according to polls made up a substantial part of GOP voters. trump would not even state that the 2016 election was legitimate, he said it was fixed, till he won.
You know all this. I can’t wait to hear the level of delusion you summon to deny it.
You are going to mount a denial campaign on this of incredible proportions, so here is my response in advance. ROFLMAO!!! You are completely full of shit and oblivious to imply that Obama was accepted and that this is something new “the left” has concocted.
Here, have some more context, not that it will spare us your upcoming full force denial campaign.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441268/not-my-president-has-always-been-around-not-defeated-candidate
which was aimed at candidate trump delegitimizing the election.
To my knowledge Trump is not strictly speaking a Birther.
Trump challenged Obama to produce his birth certificate and questioned the validity of what Obama provided.
He did a version of what the left is doing regarding Trump’s tax returns.
Trump needled Obama to produce something that Obama clearly does not want to produce, and made political hay of it.
I have read the forensic analysis of the Whitehouse provided Birth Certificate and think that alot of the criticism is waranted.
There is a good chance it has been altered.
At the same time I do not beleive that Obama was born in Kenya.
I think it is near certain that Obama was born in Hawaii.
There are enough other facts that any other possibility is remote – regardless of birth certificates.
I think that courts are entitled to demand proof that Obama meets the qualifications of the constitution to be president – and in a few instances they did – both of McCain and Obama,
and that otherwise the rest of us are not entitled to either Trump’s taxes or Obama’s birth certificate. But we are entitled to make constant demands for them.
Regardless, actual birthers – people who really beleive that Obama was not born in the US and ineligible to be president – i.e. people who actually did not accept Obama as president are tiny in numbers.
I will be happy to say that real birthers – people who beleive that Obama was never the legitimate president of the US are no different from those of you that do not accept Trump as president.
Do you really want to be considered as much of a fruit cake as the people who beleive Obama was born in Kenya ?
This is the closest to an actual birther statement I can find from Trump.
“Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him,” Trump said in the interview that aired Thursday.
Sorry Dave, I provided facts you provided denial of two points, mostly just by your own opinion and nothing else left the other facts I gave you alone.
Polls have shown that between 50 and 70 of GOP voters persistently believed that Obama was born in Kenya. trumps Show me the birth certificate routine is birther behavior. Its not something that needed to be proven, it had already long ago been proven. trump was a birther, GOP voters in large numbers were birthers. There was bitter poisonous opposition to Obama. JB was an example. You never complained.
As well, trump himself carried out his unprecedented “the election is fixed” campaign. He was likely not going to accept the results if he lost. The conservative media was as appalled as the liberal one, as my National Review link shows.
No, citizens rejecting a president is nothing new, as the National Review article made clear.
Your whole thesis that I and others “on the left” are destroying the country with our new rejection behavior is a fail.
Nor is it the left that explains trumps 60% disapproval.
Nor is it only the left that is a danger to trump, the biggest danger is from people like mueller and he is no lefty. Establishment republicans.
You are in denial and have an obsession with the left, which you use to explain far too many events that are much broader than 10-25% who you believe are left to explain.
You are welcome to join Priscilla in denial about trump, But don’t try to make people like myself out as something unusual for not joining you in your inability to face facts. We are the normal ones living in reality.
Troll Polls are not facts.
According to a recent poll something like 52% of republicans think that Trump should cancel the 2020 elections.
Acording to some poll something like 60% of democrats think that if Obama could have a third term Hillary should not run and Obama should cancel the 2016 elections.
Obama’s own 1991 biography for Dreams from my father said he was born in kenya – apparently Obama can’t even get it right.
Beyond that you are full of nonsense.
Yes, actually it is something that needed to be proven. It is a requirement to be president of the United States.
I do not personally think it should be a requirement.
But courts asked for proof from both Obama and McCain and got it.
No asking about his Birth certificate is not the same thing. There is more a birth certificate tells you than where you were born.
Though I still find the demands for the birth certificate nonsensical – because baby obama has no control over the facts of his birth. Regardless of what those are.
Trump’s birth certificate needling is no different than your tax return needling.
It is a public demand for something someone is resisting in the hopes of embarrasing them nothing more. Obama and the Whitehouse screwed that up by playing games making everyone beleive that he had something to hide.
People questioning the results of elections is not new. That is not what I am talking about.
There has been no right wing equivalent ever to what has occured from the left with this election.
Nixon lost a close and fraudulent election to Kennedy. Sure there were a few people who moaned, but there was no sustained effort to overturn the result.
We had a mess in 2000, to the extent there was any effort to overturn the results it came from the left.
Now in 2016 – this entire Russia/Trump meme is an effort to change the outcome of an election that the Left beleives was rigged.
As I have addressed repeatedly – there is ZERO evidence that the electon was rigged.
The Russian collusion story – not only does nto hold up. But even if True does nto change the outcome of the election.
Clinton did not lose because of Russia.
Roby
If mueller sticks to the law – he is no danger to Trump.
Of course had the law been followed there would be bo SC,
So we already know that there is a problem.
You seem to think that because Mueller might not be partisan that he is somehow credible.
Bzzt, Wrong.
Prof. Turley has an excellent peice at the moment on the left’s efforts to manufacture crimes.
Aparently Trump’s lawyer sent some kind of message of appreciation to Mueller.
And the left is trying to convert that into some kind of bacio della morte
What is it that your so called “deniers” are in denial about ?
There are not a whole lot of people who are denying Trump’s conduct.
We are of differing views of its significance.
I have told you all – I think that the people we choose to have power over us should be required to have good character – and Trump does not.
But most of us – and the left particularly, seem to think that Character is only a requirement for those from the other party.
Regardless, I have lost the character debate. Voters are fully prepared to nominate and elect people of bad character.
If you have a way to fix that – I am all ears.
But do not try to sell me some nonsense that Hillary actually had good character.
What else is there “denial” of ?
Trump tried to get Dirt on Clinton from the Russians and failed.
Clinton tried to get dirt on Trump from the Russians and succeeded, but the dirt was all lies.
It even appears that they were very close to dealing with exactly the same russians.
Is that the collusion you think tilted the election ?
If so, then inarguably it tipped it in favor of Clinton.
I am fully prepared to listen if you have evidence that the Russians successfully hacked voting machines. But no one has offered that yet. I think we should do something about that. But no one seems to be listening.
Regardless, I will be happy to beleive real evidence that the Russians hacked voting machines and altered the outcome of the election.
But such evidence does not exist. No one even on the left is actually claiming that occured.
So everything you have left boils down to “Russia somehow altered public opinion”.
You can not make a crime from that.
And even if it occured – you will never prove it, because that would require voters to beleive they had been duped.
Voters beleived they were duped by Nixon because he was proven to be a crook.
Because Nixon appeared to have directly tried to manipulate an election.
Not because of influences on voters.
If what you are selling is effected public opinion – not only are you not getting anywhere but you should not.
If you criminalize effecting public opinion you have just created the self sustaining state.
You have empowered the state to thwart any democratic effort to alter or modify it.
You have an effective police state.
I beleive strongly in a free press. I also note that the press is incredibly heavily left biased.
I have seen studies that strongly suggest that the press skews our politics by 20 points.
I doubt the effect is that large – but even a 4 point skew would completely change all government.
Regardless, there is absolutely no doubt that the press influences elections.
I think that it is worse than birtherism to beleive that RT had enough influence on US voters to tip the election. RT is just too inconsequential.
Further believing that RT has that much influence requires beleiving that the left press has far more influence. If people are gullible – they are gullible both ways.
Is your argument that we can have a free press – but no russian press ?
OR are you going to go to no foreign press at all ?
How are you going to enforce this ?
You are actually making the stupid trumpian argument that the US is some kind of xenophobic bubble.
If you want to beleive that we should allow in immigrants – that means we must allow in foreign opinions and views.
You can not honestly be arguing that we should allow islaming and mexican immigrants and not allow internet access to foreign press ?
But again – how is it that Trump could change the results of the election ?
If you can not find a plausible hypothectical way – how do you expect Mueller to find evidence of it ?
For my purposes “the left” makes up between 11 and 25% of the country.
Not half.
It is the people that the media is currently playing to – not most of the country.
Trump’s core supporters are a larger group than “the left”.
The left means “progressives” – usually between 10-25% of the country.
It means the people who are calling everyone who did not vote for hillary a “hateful, hating hater”,
It is those people who actually beleive Trump stole the election – possibly with the help of Russia.
It is NOT all the people who do not like Trump.
It is not all democrats – though the way things are going democrats could be down to 25% of the country soon.
I try to use “the left” rather than democrats – because all democrats are not leftists.
I often use progressives instead, but “the left” is shorter.
This would be the people who had to fire bomb Milo Yanopolis, or assault Charles Murray’s sponsor. This would be the people who completely whigged out because a white liberal professor refused to leave for evergreens day of absence.
This would be those who whig out when a liberal professor say chill out over halloween – sometimes costumes are just costumes.
This would be the people prepared to ban some forms of speach.
http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/450309/north-korean-nuclear-threat-us-needs-new-comprehensive-diplomatic-military-strategy
“What is urgently required is a comprehensive strategy that directs all the tools of statecraft — diplomacy, economic sanctions, intelligence gathering, and military force — not at denuclearization but at containment and regime change from within. For it is only regime change that will bring an end to the North Korean threat.”
Heh. Comprehensive diplomatic and military strategy. Thank you, Captain Obvious…….
Any credible threat to Kim is dead. That is how NK works.
If Kim was taken out – the replacements as all about as deangerous as Kim.
A replkacement from within would result in another Kim.
It is probable that the actual crisis is still a ways off – not tomorow,
Though who knows Kim could acts stupid.
But times is not our freind.
Kim will be more beligerant when he has an ICBM and a miniturazed warhead mated.
Unliekly days, possibly a year.
He will be more beligerant when he has multiple missles and warheads.
Each of these steps reduces the choices the US has if Kim takes an agressive step.
Much of what I am reading strongly suggests Kim will invade SK when he thinks he can get away with it.
Why ridicule someone with the experience this guy has ( with conservative credentials, Bush appointee, etc ) : to continue your usual hand-job defense of President Penis-Head?
“Robert G. Joseph (born 1949) is a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy and professor at Missouri State University. He was the United States Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with ambassadorial rank.[2] Prior to this post, Joseph was the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, a position he held until January 24, 2007.[3] Joseph is known for being instrumental in creating the Proliferation Security Initiative and as the architect of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. He was also the US chief negotiator to Libya in 2003 who convinced the Libyans to give up their WMD programs.”
“It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.”
Truman before dropping the atomic bomb
That was after the first A-Bomb was dropped, when the US was officially in a full fledged war with Japan : not merely a beligerant bellicose threat. Truman had Constitutional authority to drop that second bomb ( he did); Trump has zero authority to attack NK with anything more lethal than his farting mouth. And unless Trump orders the COMPLETE nuclear annilation of NK (howany nukes would that take?) South Korea will be bombed to smithereens, and substantial numbers of the LARGE NK Army would be marching and slaughtering anyone they find. A million dead South Koreans is the estimated death toll I see from multiple sources, like this one:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/estimate-of-about-one-million-casualties-on-us-south-korea-side-of-a-korean-war-and-probable-iraq-afghanistan-situation-afterward.html
Truman threatened a dying and starving nation with no real ability to fight back.
Trump is threatening a nation that actually has nuclear weapons and has or will have the ability to use them against us.
On the whole based on what I know – I think Truman made the wise choice – based on the facts as he knew them then.
I think it is likely Japan was surrendering without Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But Truman did not know that.
With respect to rhetoric – sorry Jay.
Trump is as presidential as Truman.
You are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
I am strongly suspicious of some of the estimates I am hearing.
But that does NOT mean those estimates should be discarded.
There are some experts claiming that even if conflict with NK does NOT go nuclear that it will result in millions of deaths.
And that Kim’s objective is to be able to invade NK without the US retaliating.
You may not grasp it – but the carnage Trump is facing is far larger than that Truman did.
“With respect to rhetoric – sorry Jay.
Trump is as presidential as Truman.”
You are an ignoramus.
Really, you are.
Either that, or you’re suffering from psychoanalytic disassociative “mentalization,” the inability to monitor, reflect on, or correctly critique cognitive processes.
How you come to such obtuse ignorant assessments is beyond comprehension.
Do you have an argument besides ad hominem and ludicrously stupid internet psycho analysis ?
You seem fixated with elite experts – yet you are comfortable with your own home psychoanalysis of someone you have never met – and for which you are not qualified.
Apparently qualifications are only important when others disagree with you.
Off the cuff and baseless character assassination is accepted – only if you do it.
Do you wonder why the left is increasingly viewed as intolerant ? Because you are.
Do you wonder why the left is increasingly viewed as hateful ? Because you are.
Do you wonder why the left is increasingly hated ?
Here’s Trumans full statement, if you see a rhetorical equivalence between this and Trump’s blathering, you need a brain transplant:
“SIXTEEN HOURS AGO an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British “Grand Slam” which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.
The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form these bombs are now in production and even more powerful forms are in development.
It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.
Before 1939, it was the accepted belief of scientists that it was theoretically possible to release atomic energy. But no one knew any practical method of doing it. By 1942, however, we knew that the Germans were working feverishly to find a way to add atomic energy to the other engines of war with which they hoped to enslave the world. But they failed. We may be grateful to Providence that the Germans got the V-1’s and V-2’s late and in limited quantities and even more grateful that they did not get the atomic bomb at all.
The battle of the laboratories held fateful risks for us as well as the battles of the air, land and sea, and we have now won the battle of the laboratories as we have won the other battles.
Beginning in 1940, before Pearl Harbor, scientific knowledge useful in war was pooled between the United States and Great Britain, and many priceless helps to our victories have come from that arrangement. Under that general policy the research on the atomic bomb was begun. With American and British scientists working together we entered the race of discovery against the Germans.
The United States had available the large number of scientists of distinction in the many needed areas of knowledge. It had the tremendous industrial and financial resources necessary for the project and they could be devoted to it without undue impairment of other vital war work. In the United States the laboratory work and the production plants, on which a substantial start had already been made, would be out of reach of enemy bombing, while at that time Britain was exposed to constant air attack and was still threatened with the possibility of invasion. For these reasons Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt agreed that it was wise to carry on the project here. We now have two great plants and many lesser works devoted to the production of atomic power. Employment during peak construction numbered 125,000 and over 65,000 individuals are even now engaged in operating the plants. Many have worked there for two and a half years. Few know what they have been producing. They see great quantities of material going in and they see nothing coming out of these plants, for the physical size of the explosive charge is exceedingly small. We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history-and won.
But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise, its secrecy, nor its cost, but the achievement of scientific brains in putting together infinitely complex pieces of knowledge held by many men in different fields of science into a workable plan. And hardly less marvelous has been the capacity of industry to design, and of labor to operate, the machines and methods to do things never done before so that the brain child of many minds came forth in physical shape and performed as it was supposed to do. Both science and industry worked under the direction of the United States Army, which achieved a unique success in managing so diverse a problem in the advancement of knowledge in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if such another combination could be got together in the world. What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. It was done under high pressure and without failure.
We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.
It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.
The Secretary of War, who has kept in personal touch with all phases of the project, will immediately make public a statement giving further details.
His statement will give facts concerning the sites at Oak Ridge near Knoxville, Tennessee, and at Richland near Pasco, Washington, and an installation near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Although the workers at the sites have been making materials to be used in producing the greatest destructive force in history they have not themselves been in danger beyond that of many other occupations, for the utmost care has been taken of their safety.
The fact that we can release atomic energy ushers in a new era in man’s understanding of nature’s forces. Atomic energy may in the future supplement the power that now comes from coal, oil, and falling water, but at present it cannot be produced on a basis to compete with them commercially. Before that comes there must be a long period of intensive research.
It has never been the habit of the scientists of this country or the policy of this Government to withhold from the world scientific knowledge. Normally, therefore, everything about the work with atomic energy would be made public.
But under present circumstances it is not intended to divulge the technical processes of production or all the military applications, pending further examination of possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.
I shall recommend that the Congress of the United States consider promptly the establishment of an appropriate commission to control the production and use of atomic power within the United States. I shall give further consideration and make further recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace.”
So all Truman’s complete remarks demonstrate is that he is as capable of hyperbole as Trump EVEN AFTER serious thought and consultation.
Truman’s remarks were in a prepared statement. Trump’s were off the cuff.
Truman’s argument is no different – capitulate or face fire and fury.
Truman’s argument – many lives will be saved by ending this.
The worst case risk associated with misconduct by Kim dwarfs the US war losses in WWII,.
Immediate casualties from a Hiroshima blast in Manhattan or Los Angeles are over 500,000. Total US deaths in WWII were 489K.
A WMD attack on Seol could have casualities as high as 7M – that is without using nuclear weapons.
Are you completely clueless ?
The consequences of a short war involving NK and SK – one that the US does nto participate in, one that does not involve nuclear weapons could in a few weeks exceed the hollocaust. Could exceed all WWII military deaths combined
The economic consequences could trigger a severe global depression.
Those are worst case assessments – and I think they are hyperbole.
But even the conservative assessments are horrendous.
An extremely quick victory by South Korea – which is possible but unlikely,
without the use of WMD’s of any kind would likely have casualities in Seol alone equal to that of Hiroshima.
But even if there is no war and all, very shortly the US mainland will fall under nuclear threat by a nation that acts irrationally.
While the scope of the threat may be small compared to that of the cold war
The level of terror could be as great, and will not end until NK undergoes regime change.
This is not Iran, or Iraq. this is little short of giving ISIS a nuclear ICBM.
I am willing to give trump tillerson Mattis et al credit for upping the pressure on N. Korea. But the idea that in the past we were kicking the can (often a euphemism for a situation that is by its nature almost impossible to find a good answer to, rather than a situation that is being ignored and neglected as the phrase implies.) is just political opportunism.
There have been a whole set of UN resolutions and sanctions. China has participated.
“The UN Security Council has passed a number of resolutions since North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006.[1]
Resolution 1718 in 2006 demanded that North Korea cease nuclear testing and prohibited the export to North Korea of some military supplies and luxury goods.[2][3] A Sanctions Committee is established, supported by a Panel of Experts that issue annual reports.[4][5][6]
Resolution 1874, passed after the second nuclear test in 2009, broadened the arms embargo. Member states were encouraged to inspect ships and destroy any cargo suspected being related to the nuclear weapons program.[3][1]
Resolution 2087, passed in January 2013 after a satellite launch, strengthened previous sanctions by clarifying a state’s right to seize and destroy cargo suspected of heading to or from North Korea for purposes of military research and development.[3][1]
Resolution 2094 was passed in March 2013 after the third nuclear test. It imposed sanctions on money transfers and aimed to shut North Korea out of the international financial system.[3][1]
Resolution 2270, passed in March 2016 after the fourth nuclear test, further strengthened sanctions.[7] It banned the export of gold, vanadium, titanium, and rare earth metals. The export of coal and iron were also banned, with an exemption for transactions that were purely for “livelihood purposes”.[8][1]
Resolution 2321, passed in November 2016, capped North Korea’s coal exports and banned exports of copper, nickel, zinc, and silver.[9][10] In February 2017, a UN panel said that 116 of 193 member states had yet not submitted a report on their implementation of these sanctions, though China had.[11] Also in February 2017, China announced it would ban all imports of coal for the rest of the year.[12]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_North_Korea#United_Nations_sanctions
From a wiki on Chinese-North Korean relations:
“In 2016, right after the North Korean nuclear test in January tensions between the PRC and the DPRK have further grown, the reaction of China was, “We strongly urge the DPRK side to remain committed to its denuclearization commitment, and stop taking any actions that would make the situation worse,” spokesperson Hua Chunying said.[19] On 24 February 2016 the United States and China introduced new sanctions against the North Korean regime conducted within the UN context.[20]”
Imagine that, Under Obama the Chinese cooperated with us to sanction North Korea. You would never get that impression from all the conservative Fake News stories. Six times the North Koreans have been UN sanctioned five under Obama.
All the options that anyone has described here for containing North Korea’s nuke program and other aggressions in the past or now are terrible. Not one of you who think that this situation occurred due to mere can kicking could come close to describing a believable scenario of what we should have done that would have worked. Empty rhetoric, politicing.
Obama faced all the same terrible foreign policy problems and was given no respect from conservatives. I think his foreign policy was much like what McCains or Romney’s would have been, continuity with the post world war two model. I wish he had not been elected, he was the wrong man for the time and I wish Romney or McCain had been. But the criticism of his foreign policy from the right does not impress me at all, its almost entirely hot air. McCain could have had the virtually same foreign policy and the right would have been great with it in most cases.
Obama faced poisonous hatred as well, JB was our local example, and no conservative or libertarian here ever said to him, stop the poisonous hate, we must put that aside. Penis jokes? It was trump who elevated the penis to an element of his qualifications during a debate. Obama and his family faced Gorilla jokes.
Should North Korea elevate to something larger than now, Americans will mostly unite, as they have mostly united in the past. Should it elevate to something much larger I sure as hell hope that by that time Pence or some other capable person is POTUS. Anyone who thinks that this North Korean situation is not many years away from turning far more deadly has, in my opinion, one more reason to open their eyes on the subject of trump’s unfitness to be POTUS.
Obama got little respect because he failed.
He alienated Saudi Arabia.
He empowered Iran,
He intervened in Libya and the results are a mess.
Yemen as gone to hell.
Egypt nearly went to hell and may be worse off.
ISIS grew incredibly powerful.
He got us out of Iraq – and then had to bring us back in.
He accomplished nothing in Afghanistan.
He alienated Israel.
He even managed to mildly alienate europe.
He was responsible for a Coup in the Ukraine that created an oportunity for Russian aggression.
His energy policy was extremely poor – with universally bad global political implications.
He got us into paris – which is an agreement so stupid and useless that even CAGW advocates should reject it.
He appeased China at every opportunity.
I can go on – but those are the highlights.
Yes, Bush did not leave him with a perfect world.
Though for all his faults Bush actually left the mideast and the world better than Obama.
You do a good job of making one of my points.
There are a handful of people who hated Obama.
For the most part even on the right he was not “hated”.
But the left can not distinguish disagree from hate.
Did you expect that in 2009 that the GOP was going to embrace Obama’s policies with open arms ?
Is it not possible to oppose someone without hating them ?
I like Obama – far more than I like Trump.
But I agree with Trump on more than I agree with Obama.
So long as you continue to reframe all disagreement into “hate, and racism” the source of hate and intolerance in the US will be you.
You want to make this a contrast between Obama and Trump.
Few people, few republicans, few if any libertarains “hated” obama.
Many of us opposed him.
the entire left loaths Trump – and makes no pretense about it.
I personally have no problems with the attacks of commedians.
But take any other them and reframe them with Obama as the object rather than trump
Roby, I know that many have blamed Obama, but I believe I said something like the actions over the past 30 years has led to this problem. I have one link, but I believe others will show that issues with subsequent administrations also contributed to the problems today. Since anything with two links or more goes to moderation, I have not looked for others.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/839030/North-Korea-nuclear-WW3-war-weapons-US-Donald-Trump-Kim-Jong-un-Bill-Clinton
This might be a right wing extremist rag sheet from England. I don’t know. But it covers the story as I have heard it many times over the past 20 years or so. This is what I call “kicking the can”.
All I can see with my tunnel vision is each action that has been taken place in the past has made the problem worse. Appeasement has not worked and now that we have a president that is not going to back down. And it appears all the sanctions have not worked since they have a loophole about impacting the civilian population and it looks like NK has driven trucks though that hole. Lil Kim is having a temper tantrum because he can not get something out of the world leaders like NK has in the past.
The question for everyone now is:
Are the actions of president Trump better than the actions of Presidents Clinton and Bush? My answer is I do not know, but I know that their actions do not appear to have done much to solve a problem. Trumps actions could make it much worse, make it better or have it stay the same. Right now if Kim finds a way to save face, these actions could return NK to the status quo. If not, all hell could break loose.
“and now that we have a president that is not going to back down.”
The only thing you can bank on is that he will not back down down from running his mouth. I’m surprised you’d think otherwise.
Said he’d relocate US Embassy to Jerusalem, backed away from it.
Said he’d cancel Obamas Cuba deal, he hasn’t.
Said he cancel the Iran deal; hasn’t
Said he’d ditch NATO as obsolete; backed away from that.
Said he would approve waterboarding “immediately” and “make it also much worse”, adding “torture works”. Backed away from that.
He was pro LGBT rights when running for office, then banned them from military service when he needed another press distraction from Russian investigation.
Don’t have time for more… hot mocha cream is percolating…
He has not backed away from moving the embassy to jerusalem.
It is just not happening immediately.
He has backed away from parts of the cuba deal.
He is backing away from parts of the iran deal
He is trying to renegotiate the NATO arrangement
Do we have someone we should be waterboarding ?
Backing away from Transgendered soldiers is not backpedaling on everything LGBT.
It is actually possible to support equal rights without having answers to every question regarding appropriately dealing with Transgendered people.
I support absolute equal rights for for homosexuals and I think the SCOTUS still got the Arkansas birth certificate case wrong.
I would also note – aside from the LGBT issue which of these shifts is something that you think he should NOT have done ?
I am not so sure the US embassy should be in jerusalem.
I think we should normalize relations with Cuba, and Iran,
I am not that happy with waterboarding.
I am glad that Trump has mellowed on these issues.
Aren’t you ?
I do not think anyone has argued that NK is a problem created by Obama.
Or that he has mishandled it in any way worse than the preceding two presidents.
I think there is zero doubt we have been kicking the can for two decades.
And that is how we got here.
At the same time I would be careful about being overly critical of even Clinton – which is the previous best opportunity to deal with NK.
Clinton,. Bush, Obama have all hoped that kicking the can would result in change in NK.
Who would have guessed in 1955 that a totalitarian nutcase cult of personality regime would remain for 70 years ?
It is not unreasonable to beleive that kicking the can allows for something to happen in NK to make the problem go away.
NK is on its way to being the longest lived totalitarian regime in existance.
Cuba is not this old, The USSR collapsed.
China has discovered economic freedom.
It was not unreasonable to beleive that something would change regarding NK.
Trump is facing much the same thing – with one serious exception.
In less than a year NK will be able to attempt to nuke the US – albeit with a high probability of failure.
In a few years he will be able to nuke the US with an increasing probability of success.
We can probably stop an ICBM or two today.
We probably can not stop 5
And “probably” is not the same as certainty.
If you are Trump do you bet millions of lives on 90% ?
Trump does not have good choices. Even kicking the can – though still possible.
Does so with the near certainty that the odds will be moving against us over time.
It is a fact, not merely an idea, that we “kicked the can” in the past.
It is almost always what politicians do, we are doing the same on issues of debt and social security and medicare.
Specific to NK it is even arguable that without knowing the future kicking the can might have been the wise choice.
Had Clinton, Bush or Obama confronted NK there would likely have been war.
The possibility existed that “kicking the can” would result in a change in the NK regime.
But for almost 70 years NK has manage to continue a ruthless familly regime that is irrational and intractable.
I think that Trump will “kick the can” if he can be certain to kick the problem outside his own presidency. But that is highly unlikely and therefore he is going to be forced to deal with NK now. Because the next confrontation is not 8 years away and because the next confrontation will be on even less favorable ground.
But it’s not just our can to kick.
Other nation’s interests are threatened too.
Unfortunate for us, and the would in general, that we have Divisive Dope Donald as President .
This was an accurate prediction made by many: in a crisis, a blustering bullshitting personality will dangerously rock the boat. Anyone who feels confident that we have a competent individual making decision now – is deluded.
You are completely unable to get past Trump.
Do you think this crisis was not coming regardless of who was elected ?
Do you know how to safely get through it ?
I do not care if you attack Trump choices in delaing with this – because you disagree with them.
But I am expecting a couple of years of attacks on Trumps choices – because they are trumps choices.
You make it clear that whatever Trump does – it is wrong because Trump did it.
However this turns out – we will hear from you – that it would have been better without Trump.
You are not interested in the problem of North Korea. You are just interested in telling everyone how no matter what Trump does – it is wrong.
You are right – there were no palatable alternatives in the past.
But the choices are WORSE now, and that was a strong foreseeable possibility.
I do not recall saying that China did nothing in the past.
While I think that it is inarguable that Trump is much more effective in dealing with China than past presidents – atleast since Nixon, there are numerous other factors.
DPRK is a serious threat to 3 nations – the ROK, Japan and China.
That has not changed. China has both aided the DPRK and tried to constrain them in the past, because they is in China’s interests.
It is more strongly in China’s interests now to constrain them.
The best case scenario for China in a confrontation is a border collapse and millions of DPRK refugees flooding into a very poor part of China.
China has a problem with the DPRK much like ours with Mexico.
Millions of people want to escape the DPRK to come to china.
Other possibilities involve both the US and Chinese militaries rushing into the DPRK on a combined military/relief mission should the DPRK collapse – with in conflict or rebelion or just because it can not feed its people.
Regardless, this is both a tremendous danger and a great oportunity for China – and they know it. They are going to be a part of this no matter what.
Dave I do not have time to read all that you have written on NK, but what I have skimmed I mostly agree with. As to Lil Kim attacking the South, I really highly doubt it. Is he or is he not aware that he will die and his country will end if he starts something? I say he is aware of that and will not. I say he is a terrific coward and values his heavenly life. Yes, I will look like a dope if he does invade the south. Us starting a war is a losing proposition. Our best military minds do not sound to me like they believe that Lil kim will invade. The coolest head will prevail.
You may be playing Churchill and I may be playing the role one of those who ignored Churchill and if Lil Kim does invade you are going to look very smart. If N. Korea is successfully dealt with by trump, defanged, truly changed then trump and Mattis et all will be heros. I hope they will be heros.
The most likely thing to me is that in the end we will accept that NK has nukes and NK will not get much benefit from them. Iran has nukes. Pakistan has nukes, what good has it done them? They can’t use them.
By all means we should be taking any solid military reaction to Kims threat that we can take short of an invasion: reinforcing and improving every type of defense and even perhaps shooting down missile tests, Cramp their style, get in their face, test their discipline, but do not invade.
Like most everyone else I am trying to make sense of NK and hoping there is a less bad way out.
I do not pretend to know all the answers, and I am not sure that how much you know matters.
With respect to Kim – nearly everything depends on his actions, reactions and intentions – and we can not know what is in his head.
We must guess – I could be wrong, you could be wrong. Who knows.
What I reading is that he is irrational, not suicidal.
To me that means he will not do something that he KNOWS will result in his own death.
But that he will do things that against evidence he beleives will not result in his death.
I am increasing coming to the beleif that unless we act – Kim is not doing anything soon.
That his plan is to build enough nuclear tipped ICBM’s that we can not guarantee intercepting them all. That will take a couple of years.
That when he has those – he is planning to lauch a conventional war against SK.
That he stupidly beleives we will not interveen, and that he will win, and that it will not go nuclear.
I think he is totally wrong about all of that. But irrational people beleive things that are wrong.
NK has had nukes for 20 years.
What they have or will have soon is ICBM’s with nuclear warheads that can or soo can reach the US.
In the entire world only Russia, China, France and England are in that club.
Iran does not have ICBM’s and they do not have miniturized warheads,
and they are not likely to threaten the US, only their neighbors.
Countering them we have THAAD and other capabilites.
Americans will be happy to gamble the lives of israelies and Saudis on systems with a 90% probability of working.
They are not doing that with americans.
Iran is neither irrational nor suicidal.
While NK is atleast irrational.
Anyway much of this there is no way of knowing what is the right thing to do.
While there is alot of hysterical nonsense out there.
Even calm reasoned assessments do not produce good choices.
I hope my link functions. I like our chances for the near future with bully Trump. Years ago when I was more idealistic I would have been appalled by him. But now, given certain aspects of our current “context,” I love ‘im!
I say the Israeli/U.S./Nato/West (it rhymes in that order) holds all the cards regarding NK. I further suspect that the escalation is desired for whatever reasons, else we wouldn’t be receiving it this way in the Mainstream Corporate Newz.
Yours truly,
Conspiracy Nut
Haha! I’ve never seen that compilation video, Pat.
It’s interesting for me to watch, because I opposed Trump in the primaries, up until it was just him, Cruz and Kasich. In retrospect, I don’t know why I didn’t support Cruz at that point, but one of my sons had convinced me that Trump was the only Republican that would fight hard enough to win, and, after watching this, I can see why he prevailed. He is not at all dignified, and he does not allow an attack to go unanswered, “Go along to get along” is the way of D,C, politics. These guys (and women), most of them, behave as if they have been granted sincures, rather that elected by actual people, to do work for those people. Trump behaves in exactly the opposite way ~ as if he has a job to do, and, dammit, he’s going to do it if it kills him.
Roby, you wrote, ” Fine, your choice but do not try to tell me I have to support this perfect idiot of a president. I’ll support his decisions, when I think he does something right, but not him.”
You don’t have to support him, although I would suggest that the Democrats and their media henchmen do have an obligation to respect the office, and not to imply that our president is treasonous. You are possibly the most honest liberal I’ve ever met ( ok, I’ve never actually met you, but you get what I mean) and I know that you will support those decisions and policies that you believe are right, because you’ve already done that.
I would suggest, however, that that IS supporting the president ~ as opposed to reflexively opposing him, no matter what he does, as, for example Jay does. That sort of thing, which is representative of much of Trump’s opposition is damaging to our democracy, and shows not only a lack of respect for the presidency, but for the people who elected him. That’s the kind of thing that has led to our “cold civil war.”
*sinecures* And I can’t tell the difference between periods and commas, obviously………
Last but not least, Roby, I agree that it was extremely undignified for Trump to have gotten into a public spat with a couple of second-rate TV hosts, who had treated him badly…mostly because he simply raised the profile of said second-rate hosts.
But, what did I say about them that wasn’t true? They were major media enablers of Trump, back when it was still possible for another GOP candidate to win the nomination. I presume that they wanted the big ratings that every station, including CNN, wanted, from giving Trump 10 times the coverage of every other candidate, and also to help Trump, believing that he would be a chump candidate and lose in a landslide to dear Hillary. The fact that Trump took advantage of them, knowing that they were two-faced, is evidence of his superior instincts, not of their innocence.
Priscilla, I thought you might enjoy that montage of Trump clips. He did dominate. Obnoxious? Somewhat. Juvenile in mannerisms and diction? Somewhat. Timid? NO!!
I firmly believe history will show he stepped up just in the nick of time to save us from further socialized wimpiness as intended by the global banksters.
The word for the week is “sinecures”: a position requiring little or no work but giving the holder status or financial benefit.
Regarding reflexive opposition, the great C.S. Lewis wrote in the Screwtape Letters: “…the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept. And therefore rejects…denigrates it, wishes its annihilation.”
“You are possibly the most honest liberal I’ve ever met ( ok, I’ve never actually met you, but you get what I mean) and I know that you will support those decisions and policies that you believe are right, because you’ve already done that.”
Oooo, you really know how to hurt a guy! Priscilla, I love you , but your politics…
Maybe I seem honest because I am the the “liberal” who wishes Bush 41 were POTUS?
There are plenty of honest liberals and honest conservatives, you just don’t meet them much online, they don’t write opinion columns, they are the base of their parties. But there are still tens of millions of honest rational liberals and conservatives, they are the ones their parties don’t have much love for.
Now its my wife’s birthday, she has a list of offering she wants, starting with me putting up a tent by our middle pond. So, off with me.
they are “NOT!” the base of their parties.
Can I buy a noun ? Who is “they” ?
I will add, Priscilla, that while Jay and I express ourselves in our own styles, I don’t think there is almost any difference in the way we see trump the person or the character of his administration.
I keep reading that trump is a kind of rude, somewhat unpolished, a bit vulgar (words to that effect, I don’t have time to find the exact ones at this minute), etc.
If that were true he would not be below 40% in popularity with a decent economy. If trump is a “little” crass, then WWII was a little war. That IS the point, degree. trump is off the charts in the degree of his vulgar and dishonest behavior.
The idea that you and Dave have that “the left” with attendant media flunkies explains the reaction to trump is a hypothesis that does not meet the actual experimental results. Yes, 25% of the country is left to the degree that they will always disapprove of ANY GOP president or figure. The is not news and it is not the billion dollar question. The question is, Where does the other 35% of the disapproval come from? Its not “the Left”
The polls-shmoles come back is false bravado Gallup has had the same consistent answer every day for months. Americans think things are going OK. The stock market is happy. Yet trump faces record disapproval. The “its the left” hypothesis has to be rejected. trump disapproval a normal human reaction of to a man as grotesque as trump is, a man who ran the campaign he did, who was very likely not going to accept the results as not rigged if he lost, who has not become presidential in demeanor since he assumed office.
Perhaps events will go more his way in the future. Perhaps he will finally have splashy success on some front. No sane person, and I am sure that includes Jay, is hoping that life in the US and world will go down the tubes to prove that trump is unfit.
As to Russia gate, to respond to something that Dave said, the (utterly legal and Constitutional) Mueller investigation is not about whether the election was “rigged.” turmp and his core supporters were the source of making the word rigged part of the conversation and it is the kind of thing that brings that non-left 35% down against trump. I am not hearing the word rigged from anywhere else (but of course some left loon somewhere may be sayng it). The word is interference and the topic is the ties between the trump campaign and the Russian government and its agents during the election.
The Russians interfered with our election according to our Intelligence agencies. I will believe those agencies over any conspiracy theorists, or blatantly self serving political conclusions by trumps administration and his followers. trump, in has arrogance and naivete, was publically and privately playing footsie with Putin and his agents. That is the point of the investigation. Anyone who tries to claim that they know how it is going to come out is blowing smoke. We all have to wait and see. But meanwhile the trump side is doing its best to create the mindset that the investigation is a hoax, like climate science, like the news, like the polls. I hate that whole line of shit, and I do not mean hate like hating squash, I mean I hate the entire conservative denialist apparatus that is attempting to run off to its own denialist universe and leave, in my opinion, the GOP of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, McCain, and Romney behind as old useless obsolete ineffective waste.
Dave speaks for those who have prejudged the investigation, they will find nothing if they act legally he says. If they find something then they are acting illegally. In fact he already claims they are acting illegally, because they are finding something. I cannot say strongly enough how much contempt I have for that point of view, which Dave did not invent. Talk about a behavior that is dangerous to our country, that is the most shocking one to me.
Roby
false analogy fallacy.
Whether Trump is a little crass or a lot crass is irrelevant.
Because crass and war are not the same thing.
Trump’s approval rating is consistent with a virulent left with strong media support that is mot going to accept him no matter what, and a large group in the middle that is not particularly happy with the president’s crudeness.
Most Polls has a very serious flaw – they try to capture as a binary value something that is not binary.
Trump’s approval rating is within a few points of where it was on election day – and yet he won.
A low approval rating is not rejection of his presidency.
Though it almost certainly is a rejection of parts of it.
With respect to the near monolithic left.
This is not something I created from whole cloth – nor even something I think is a good idea.
There is a strong right in this country – significantly stronger than the left.
By some estimates nearly double the left.
But the right is not monolithic.
Jay revel’s in posts from Max Boot – Boot is a neo-con, like Chenney, and Sen Graham, and possibly McCain. But also Clinton.
Trump is NOT a neo-con.
There is some question at the moment whether McMasters, Mattis, and Nichols are neocons.
Regardless neocons are a relatively distinct faction on the right.
Fiscal conservatives – particularly supply siders are another distinct faction on the right,
Social conservatives are a faction.
Libertarian conservatives are a faction
The Tea Party is a faction.
Establishment Republicans are a faction.
The point is the right does nto speak with a single unified voice or anything close to it.
Mostly I consider this a good thing. Even though it diminished the influcence of those groups I am more comfortable seeing have power.
The left has never been as factionalized as the right – but Since Bill Clinton it was slowly been becoming less tolerant and more homegenous.
This is bad for the left.
In many ways this gives the left a bigger voice, but at the same time diminishes its actual power.
Bill Clinton was a big tent Democrat – for all his myriads of other flaws.
Is there any doubt he would have gotten the rust belt votes that Hillary lost ?
Obama abandoned the center of the democratic party and concentrated on:
identity politics and getting the left 25% of the country to vote.
He was sufficiently successful at both to win two elections.
But without Obama large portions of the electorate that he energized are not voting.
and identity politics is creating a large political backlash.
The objective of calling the other side out as hateful hating haters is to persuade voters in the middle to vote against them (not the same as voting for you).
That does not work as the hated and villified group starts to look ever more like middle america itself.
Those rust belt voters who have ttraditionally voted democrat, voted for Trump and against Clinton – because they felt that the left’s attacks on “hateful, hating haters” were increasingly looking like attacks on them.
The left can villify the right 1/4 of the country, and the right can vilify the left 1/4 of the country. Both groups are never going to vote for the other.
There is little harm to republicans in alienating socialists, and little harm to democrats in alienating pro-lifers.
But when you start to piss on those in the middle, or when you think you are pissing on the far right and too many in the middle think you are talking about them – you are in serious trouble,
That is not the only big theme of the 2016 election – but it is a major one.
And the left remains clueless about it.
The DNC is moving completely the wrong direction if it wants to win elections.
Post election it has moved further to the left.
Democrats are doubling down on being a small party of the ideologically pure.
That is a strategy for even more losses, and for even more hate and intolerance.
Where does the remaineder of Trump’s disapproval come from ?
We agree on where it comes from.
What we do not agree on is what it means.
Trump won the presidency with approval ratings very close to where they currently are.
While an approval rating means something – it does not mean “never Trump”.
It means that we would prefer some hypothetical president to Trump.
It does not mean we will vote for the last or next democrat.
The approval ratings means some things.
They mean Trump has a strong minority core of supprters, a strong vigorous core of opponents and alot of people in the middlewho while not happy with him are not happy with any of their choices.
I think it is unlikely that gives democrats a victory in 2018 or 2020.
Roby
The only prejudging is being done by the left.
The investigation is illegitimate.
There is no actual crime being alleged with sufficient evidence for an investivation.
If I say – Roby murdered someone yesterday – can the police investigate you ?
Search your home ? Demand your financial records ?
We do not get to conduct investigations merely because we want to know something.
That is prejudice.
The most rights you have are the lest rights you are prepared to give to those you hate the most.
Normally I would not presume that the president of the united states is the person who would be most hated and least subject to protection from government overreach.
But in this instance that is the case.
If you are unable to grasp that if you and those who think as you do can take down the president absent the necescary basis to START the process,
Then no one is safe.
There are some areas I am saying nothing will be found.
I do not by that mean there will be no discoveries that trigger further hysterical news stories.
What I mean is there will not be evidence of criminal conspiracy that altered the outcome of the election. I am being very specific about what there will not be.
The reason there will not be such evidence – is because the underlying event did not occur.
Whatever the Russians may or may not have done, whatever they wanted to do,
they did not “influence” as in change the outcome, of the election.
As I keep pointing out – we know all the big factors in this election.
Finding inconsequential things we did not know – does not matter.
As an example – we KNOW that Trump did NOT release information during the election that Clinton was receiving money from foreign sources.
Hopefully you agree that did not happen.
Let us assume that Natalia was directed by Putin,
That she met secretly with Trump Jr. and Company,
and she provided them with concrete evidence that Clinton was receiving massive foreign contributions illegallly.
An the Trump campaign has been hiding this for 9 months.
1). Has this actually occured – not a crime. Certainly not one anyone will care about.
Had it actually occured – it would have “influenced” the election – clinton would have lost worse, and no one would care that Trump got the dirt from Russia.
2). We know that it did not occur – because had it occured – had Trump been given useful dirt on Clinton, he would have used it. Since he did not, he must not have received useful dirt on clinton.
My point is that you can not find the smoking gun you are looking for – because it can not exist. Not because Trump would not conspire or because Putin would not conspire.
But because had they done so there would not have been some unfindable impact
there would have been a clear impact.
It is as iff you are looking to find evidence that Putin and Trump conspired to rob a bank.
And yet no bank robbery occured and all the money is still int he bank.
In that instance even if you prove that Putin and Trump met to discuss robbing the bank,
you are not getting anywhere without and actual bank robbery.
This is also the core of the problem with the left.
They lost this election. They can not beleive they lost this election.
I can not beleive they lost this election, and yet they did.
The outcome is so disconcerting, so disruptive – that rather than confront the actual reasons that democrats lost – when you lose to a bad candidate – that means you were a worse candidate or ran a worse campaign. But being unable to accept that – there must be some other cause.
It must have been “outside influence”
In this instance “dark money” does nto work – because Clinton outspent Trump nearly 2:1.
So it must have been russian collusion. Never mind that ultimately “russian collusion” must mean something, and it must means something big enough to have changed the outcome or you are engaged in a soft coup.
Roby
I can not say how strong my contempt is for those who think that we can investigate whoever we please for whatever reason we please merely because we are not happy.
This view point is totalitarian. It is the view of a police state. It is the governance of the USSR and Maos china.
Talk about a behavior that is dangerous to our country, that is the most shocking one to me.
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
Lavrentiy Beria
This is the way DEMOCRACY works, you nitwit. (Ad hominem non-fallacious oportet)
He was APPOINTED by Republicans, the MAJORITY party, under rules of law.
And YOU have no proof AT ALL he isn’t operating legally.
By your ASININE protestations the Watergate investigation was an exercise in totalitarian excess. (I’m certain you’ll rationalize a dozen or more Arguments Of Irrelevance).
If tRump or any of his family or enablers broke the law, or skirted it for opportunity or gain, that knowledge should be made public. Then the NATION and the judicial system can judge them accordingly.
“The Russians interfered with our election according to our Intelligence agencies. I will believe those agencies over any conspiracy theorists,”
That has me snorting food out my nose.
In your world one is a conspiracy theorist – if you question a dubious conspiracy theory ?
You say the intelligence agencies found that Russia interfered in our election.
First aside from Brennan I beleive everyone of them has said that russian election intereferance was not unusual in 2016.
So that IC conclusion is little different from the IC saying – and the sun rose yesterday.
So lets get more specific.
What has the IC said that is unusual ? That affected the outcome of the election ?
If the FBI said “armed robberies occured in the US everyday”.
I would not doubt that as true.
But that is not evidence that Trump Robbed Citibank.
Make a specific allegation about Russia – and the FBI can (and is) conducting a counter intelligence investigation.
Make a specific criminal allegation about a us person – and provide probably cause that a specific crime has been committed and you can start a criminal investigation.
Todate that has not happened.
If the person alleged to have committed the crime is inside the chain of command of those investigating the crime – then you may appoint a special prosecutor to investigate that crime.
Once you have a legitimate criminal investigation started, investigators may follow leads that come from that investigation. But again expanding the criminal investigation requires finding probable cause of new crimes.
So Roby, please tell me what probable cause you have of what actual crime ?
If you can not do so, your assertions about the Intelligence agencies are meaningless.
Roby;
This is an independent issue. It is not a basis for having or not having a special prosecutor – but it is a basis for questioning your objectivity.
The same intelligence agencies which purportedly make the assertions that you beelive regarding this election (and if you actually check, they did NOT actually say what the left typically attributes to them)
These are the agencies that were caught unawares by the collapse of the USSR.
The same agencies that told us that Iraq was constructing a nuclear bomb,
The same agencies that told us that the USS Vincense was in international waters.
These are the same intelligence agencies that completely missed the coming Arab Spring.
That missed Kim Il Jong’s death.
That completely screwed everything up at the bay of pigs – including that there would be a popular uprising.
That missed the Tet Offensive
That missed the yom Kippur war.
That missed the Iranian revolution
That missed the soviet invasion of afghanistan
That missed the Indian nuclear tests in 1998
That missed 9/11
This is just a short list of the intelligence failures of the US.
So these are the people that you have blind faith in ?
Worse you have blind faith in conclusions they did not actually reach ?
What does it take to get you to become skeptical of government ?
The comparison to the climate hoax is apt.
In both instances we have the left defering to authority that is making claims that fits with its ideological beleifs.
No effort is made to determine whether those claims actually make sense.
I do not want to go through the long littany of the failures of the climate religion.
I am honestly surprised that those on the left continue to have sufficient courage to repeat it.
2016 was a watershed year for climate science.
It was the first year in the past 18 that global temperatures has exceeded the peak in 1998.
2016 was 0.02C warmer than 1998 +1 0.2C.
A new record – but not a record outside the margin of error.
Regardless, there is not a single global climate model whether a computer model or some other, not a single warmist projection, not a single IPCC report that makes a prediction for 2016 that is not 2.5 std dev’s HIGH.
Whether it is water temps, or surface temps or sea level or ice extents, or …..
every single prediction of warmists has been wrong.
We have also watched as warmists have been gaming the data – lowering past temps and increasing current ones to falsify evidence to keep this cult alive.
On the one hand the practice is dispicable and any scientist caught massaging data should become permanently unemployed.
But at the same time this is a losing strategy. You can not game the records without eventually creating a massive problem for yourself.
Further the records of the past exist and we will only tolerate small adjustments to the past before the adjustments smell.
Regardless, we have more than 4 decades of really good data, and two centuries of reasonably good data.
Global temperatures started to rise over 200 years ago – from their nadir during the little ice age. They have continued to increase at much the same rate for most of that 200 years – despite the fact that human CO2 could only have effected the last 50 years.
In the past 20 years the rate of increase has either slowed radically ro stopped completely.
This is consistent with evidence of past natural cycles and not anything manmade.
Predicting the future is difficult – but the statistical odds at this point of the CAGW predictions proving true are less than 2%, and the odds are 98% that the temperature in 2100 will be less than warmists predict – probably much much less.
This is the religion you beleive in.
This is why many of us have such problems with the left – because you are incapable of critical thinking.
Because your idea of how to confront the weaknesses in your own arguments is to insult those who disagree.
Anyoen who does not buy some leftist meme is a denier, is anti-science – despite the fact that science is by definition skeptical.
Get a clue – experts are useful – they are also nearly always wrong.
Thanks for the dose of beauty and no beast. Makes for a little sanity.
To put it in perspective, as published At Fox News
Opinion: A war with North Korea would be hell — And the aftermath even worse – Fox News
https://apple.news/AGKqlpoZCQBiCcmDpqhQJQg
There is much in your article that is hyperbole.
But that does not matter alot. even the conservative estimate of the damage from a short war solely between NK and SK are horrendous.
But what does screetching about how horrible war would be do ?
Lets try some clarity.
The only thing that has prevented NK from attacking SK for the past 70 years is the innevitablity of US involvement.
SK’s military has probably reach a size and level of technical capability that they would not need our help – so long as the war remained conventional.
But the consequences would still be horrible.
The reason that Kim has developed nuclear weapons and the ability to threaten the US is to block the threat of retaliation from the US should (or when) he attacks the south.
Those blustering threats that have you so irritated are likely the primary impediment to an attack by the DPRK on the ROK.
So what is it that you think should be done here Jay ?
Should the US back down ? Should we hope and pray that a regime intent on attacking its neighbor to the south in what will be a very very bloody war decided not to ?
None of us have a perfect crystal ball here.
NK has not conducted large scale action against the south in 70 years.
There conventional forces are massive but incredibly poor.
Many aspects of any conflict would resemble GWI where a technologically superior force easily eviscerated a large antique military.
Except that GWI was fought in the desert, the NK and SK capitals are less than 100mi apart.
Your argument seems to be that we should assure that war does not happen.
I agree. So does Trump. How is is we are supposed to do that ?
Are you so persuasive that you can get NK to do as you wish ?
You do understand that whatever occurs at this moment, for the next decade NK’s ability to threaten the US mainland will increase.
There is absolutely nothing that the US can do to stop that in less than a decade.
The next major defensive step the US will likely take is a space based ABM system.
That will be extremely expensive take time to develop and deploy, and still likely be ineffective against Russia and maybe china.
But it will increase the layers or nuclear defense against rogue regimes like the DPRK and Iran to 3, and radically increase the odds that an all out nuclear attack inside the capability of such a state will fail.
Regardless I doubt – and most analysts seem to agree that Kim has any intentions of initiating an attack against the US.
The purpose of Kim’s ICBM’s is to prevent the US from retaliating when the DPRK attack’s the ROK.
Soi please tell me what is wrong with Trump’s rhetoric.
Here BTW is CNN’s report on the entire Trump exchange – since you seem to think the dull context is relevant.
CNN not some Trump friendly network, seems to think Trumps threat was too restrained.
http://www.edition.cnn.com/2017/08/10/politics/trump-north-korea/index.html
It’s not ‘my article.’ It’s a Fox article, one which puts the outcomes of an escalating military conflict into perspective.
“what is it that you think should be done here Jay ?”
My assessment is much like Roby’s –
We are going to be bombarded with myriads of assessments – that is just the nature of this.
I am more inclined to beleive the more conservative (not politically conservative) ones.
But it does not matter. A conflict between NK and SK will likely be unlike anything we have seen since WWII.
But unless you have a credible method that assures a better outcome, the scale of the horror does not say anything about what we should do.
The relevant facts are that NK could have violated the cease fire at any time it pleased over the past 70 years.
It has not done so most likely because US intervention is a strong deterrent.
The most likely purpose of NK’s nuclear program is to neutralize the US deterrent.
So if you are going to criticize – then tell the rest of us – clearly, your way and why it is better.
If toning down Trump’s rhetoric is actually going to make things better – I am all for it.
But my current assessment is the only impediment to Kim going to war with the ROK is the deterrent effect of the US. It is also my assessment that the knowledge that the DPRK has ICBM’s and miniturized nuclear warheads means that deterrent effect is doing to diminish and possibly end in the next couple of years.
Unless you are prepared to say that the US is going to retaliate against any DPRK aggression – even if that means a high probability of Wall Street getting Nuked,
then you only have a short period of time to figure out what you are going to do.
Dave, “…only Russia, China, France, and England are in that club.” That is a factual error. The United States also has ICBMs that can reach the U.S.
Add Israel
http://www.rense.com/general26/iscap.htm
The distance from Israel to the US East coast is 4 times the range of the longest range rocket noted. Its payload would require a miniturized nuke.
There is no evidence Israel has a miniturized nuke.
This is why I did not like India, Pakistan, or Iran.
India, Pakistan both has IRBM’s and miniturized nuclear warheads.
At this point Iran probably has nuclear weapons – but not miniturized,
They have missles that can reach Europe but not the US and no weapon that could be fitted to them today.
Iran has been getting technology from the DPRK so it is likely that whatever Kin can do today Iran will be able to do in several years.
“The distance from Israel to the US East coast is 4 times the range of the longest range rocket noted. Its payload would require a miniturized nuke.
There is no evidence Israel has a miniturized nuke.”
A good part of the reason I have so little regard for your opinions is that they’re constantly peppered with assertions contrary to fact. This your lastest example of factual inaccuracies.
The missle-fly distance from Israel to United States is 10,882 kilometers (air travel distance is equal to 6,762 miles). The maximum range estimation of the Israeli Jericho III is 11,500 km with a payload of 1000–1300 kg (up to six small nuclear warheads of 100 kt each or one 1 megaton nuclear warhead).
Israel has had Jericho III ICBMs operational since January 2008; they were reported to possess a 200 kg nuclear warhead 10 years ago, and surely have smaller ones now.
First – you got me. I relied on your link. Didn;t bother to check further.
We all know israel has nukes, but Israel is the only country with nukes that is denying it.
That said
The Jericho III from Wikipedia.
There the range is listed as 4,800 to 6,500 km still far short.
I would also note that the entire section on Jericho III is full of may and might’s.
Because we do not know.
Further the design of the Jericho III is not intended to be long range but to give israel a very high speed intermediate range capability – to allow it to circumvent ABM systems.
Only an antique congressional paper seems to think Israel has am ICBM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(missile)#Jericho_III
Large amounts of what is known about Israels nuclear program is purely speculative.
They have security on their nuclear program that is unparalleled by any other nation.
I do not know whether Israel can reach the US with a nuclear war head, neither do you, nor the US congress, nor anyone outside a few in Israel.
What we do know is that they could if they wanted to.
Israel also likely has the hydrogen bomb or atleast the capability to produce one.
That puts them into a very very exclusive club.
But again much of what we know about Israel’s military programs is speculation.
We know more about the DPRK’s military programs than we do about Israel.
There are other issues you have not addressed.
The last element to a nuclear ICBM – one the DPRK has not mastered but likely will soon is re-entry.
IRBM’s do not typically have to address re-entry.
This is only some of the reasons the Russia Hacked the DNC Gucifer 2.0 story does nto hold up. I have been aware of this for months. But this is the first time a major media outlet has dared to run with this.
I suspect part of this is the ISI/Palistani Deb Wasserman-shultz fiasco.
While that does nto directly refute the Trump/Russia/DNC hacking story, it does demonestrate that the DNC was completely incompetent and insecure and that what the DNC or its consultants say about it are untrustworthy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-10/why-some-u-s-ex-spies-don-t-buy-the-russia-story
There are also myriads of reasons why even in the unlikely event that the DNC was hacked by the Russians – that Trump/Russia collusion fails,
Because the timeline does not work.
The Trump Natalia meeting would not have taken place if Trump was colluding with the Russians at that time, and if he was not, then there is no time or oportunity for some other contact.
What does it take for those of you on the left to grasp this entire thing smells ?
It appears right now the left and Mueller are throwing a hail mary and hoping they can come up with something on Trump elsewhere.
Because what happens to the left if Mueller comes up with nothing ?
There are less than credible sources that claim the Mueller Trump/Flynn investigation has
died. There is just no way to get obstruction from What Trump allegedly said to Comey.
The same sources are reporting that the Trump Jr./Natlia investigation has also died – because it leads nowhere.
That Mueller is digging into Manefort as his last hope.
My guess is that he will be able to come up with something on Manefort,
But not something that ties to Trump.
So then where does the left go ?
“That doesn’t, of course, mean the group is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive. Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter, has pointed out that these findings don’t necessarily refutes that Guccifer’s material constitute the spoils of a hack.”
The bandwidth evidence means one of two things.
1) Guicifer2.0 was literally in the building
2) Gucifer2.0 had an incredibly high speed internet connection AND the DNC had a similar connection with no load at the time of the hack.
There are a couple of other possibilities – but they are unlikely.
Mr. Ritter is correct – these findings do not completely rule out Guicifer2.0.
But they reduce the odds radically.
I would note there is independent analysis of the Guicifer2.0 material that fairly strongly indicates that everything provided by Guicifer2.0 was forged and is not from the actual hacking of the DNC.
That BTW would also explain the bandwidth evidence.
Guicifer2.0 provided files as proof that he was the hacker, that all had been leaked prior to the hacking of the DNC (that should have raised red flags)
If Guicifer2.0 did not hack the DNC but was working with files on his own system that had been leaked long before – then the bandwidth calculations would make sense.
Regardless, the claim that the DNC was hacked by the russians is only broadly accepted by:
The DNC
The Media
The FBI
People who do not know much about computer security and hacking.
Are you saying the DNC is less trustworthy than the Russians?
How about Trump, is he more trustworthy than either?
If Trump has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard to impede Mueller?
Fallacy – false comparison.
The credibility of the Russians is entirely irrelevant.
In fact you can beleive that the Russians absolutely would have hacked the DNC and lied about it if they could and that would not alter the argument in the slightest.
Russian credibility is not an issue.
That of the DNC is.
I would not trust the RNC if the situation was reversed.
I would not trust crowdstrike which is most relevant.
I would not trust the FBI or DHS – if they did not get to actually investigate – which they did not.
I would not trust analysis of evidence that has been independently analyzed and found to have a very very low probability of being correct.
I would not trust an organization that during the same period ot time is know to have had 4 key IT people in high positions who were criminals and very likely spies for the ISI.
With respect to Trump – again fallacy – false comparison.
I would not trust Trump on any IT related claim. But I am not trusting Trump.
I am not acutally trusting anyone.
All I am doing is determining that the Crowdstrike analysis is not credible.
You seem to think that it is necescary to prove the Russians did not do it.
Or that someone else did.
FALSE.
All that is necescary is to cast serious doubt on the claim the russians did.
One of the problems you have is that this is a serial chain of dependent circumstantial evidence.
That means that every weakness of any element in the chain reduces the credibility of the entire chain.
If you have 3 independent pieces of evidence each with a 50% probability,
you have a much greater than 50% probability
If you have 3 dependent peices of evidence each with a 50% probability
you have about a 12% probability.
So far you have
no evidence of a real connection between the Trump Campaign and Russia.
no evidence that even if there was a connection there was a conspiracy.
poor evidence that Russia actually did anything that anyone will truly be offended by that “influenced” the election.
To get where you want you need all three – they are dependent, not independent.
It would be my guess that if you proved the Trump campaign communicated with the Russians about hacking democrats prior to the DNC hack AND proved the DNC hack was actually done by the Russians most people would probably be willing to impeach.
Bu properly even that is not enough.
Because while the DNC hack did influence the election.
The influence occurred ONLY because democrats were engaged in misconduct.
Are you claiming that voters are not entitled to know that Clinton’s shit stinks ?
I beleive that Trump should impede Mueller to the best of his ability to do so.
As should absolutely everyone who is the target of a criminal investigation.
I think he should have fired Mueller long ago.
And fired Rosenstein and told his replacement that he was obligated to follow the SC law.
That an SC could only be appointed to investigate a crime, than any SC charge must specify a crime, that if an investigation revealed related crimes – investigating those would require approval from the AG.
And that does not address the Mueller Comey conflict problem.
At this point Comey should clearly be charged for publicly releasing classified information.
Based on past similar circumstances the consequences would likely be a plea deal and no time. Regardless, given Comey’s involvement in the Clinton investigtion there is zero excuse for him to claim a lack of knowledge.
And here goes the Meeting with Trump Jr. and Natalia
Apparently Manefort notified authorities of the meeting.
Oops – so much for the meme that honest people would have called the authorities.
BTW who called the authorities regarding the FusionGPS/Steele/Russia dossier ?
Now that China has stated it will remain neutral unless the U.S. strikes first…
The Israeli/U.S./NATO/West still holds all the cards, but this means it is NK’s move. China’s position is an honorable one, and I’m glad for it, as it holds the evil “pre-emptive strike” evil concept in check. (Yes I said evil twice).
The pre-emotive strike idea is a carte-Blanche and a Pandora’s box and a slippery slope. Any more cliches?
An enemy must commit actual actions requiring self-defense. It’s debatable what actions require self defense, but it must be more than inflammatory words.
Ug auto-correct got me again.
Pre-emptive not pre-emotive
Amazingly even when govenrment breaks down
without government, without police, without law enforcement,
people still manage to make things work – even work well,
without much effort.
http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/why-isnt-there-chaos-when-traffic-lights-malfunction/
Seymo hersch on Trump Russia collusion.
ttps://billlawrenceonline.com/trump-scandal-brennan-operation/
Trump reestablished back channels with NK immediately after innauguration
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/11/beyond_bluster_us_north_korea_in_regular_contact_134731.html
Didn’t Trumpenstein warn us that Hillary was a warmonger ?
Many people warned us that Hillary was a warmonger, because she is.
Click to view works… just WordPress acting up again….
Hillary is a war monger.
The Nation is a left-wing publication, very anti-Trump, and now believes that the Russians had nothing to do with the DNC hack. It was a leak, not a hack. This is based on a detailed forensic investigation by former NSA experts.
Some quotes from the article:
“The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. ”
“By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back. The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession.”
” The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
I look forward to Jay calling The Nation nothing but a bunch of trumpanzees.
I would note that Seymour Hersh is claiming the entire Trump-Russia meme was concocted by the top tiers fo the intelligence community – primarily by CIA Director Brennan,
Because they lost there cozy IC jobs and since Trump took over there prospects for 7 figure deals as consultants for the next 8 years are grim.
Essentially Trump getting elected has destroyed the futures of alot of top IC brass.
They might have to live on mid 6 figure salaries.
Hersh is highly prone to conspiracy theories.
But he has been right about them a remarkable portion of the time (far from always).
There is lots and lots of reasons to disbeleive the Trump/Russia nonsense.
The assorted reasons are NOT all fully supported,
They are NOT all fully consistent.
But they are mostly atleast as solid as the CrowdStrike Russia nonsense.
We can not say for certain the DNC was an inside job – though it is highly likely.
We can not say for certain it was not the russians – only that it is increasingly unlikely.
There are far more reasons to disbeleive now than to beleive.
All of the reasons to disbeleive are not likely to be true.
But atleast one of them is
What is most disturbing is that this still is not going to go away – it will still be arround a while.
And there is not likely to be much of an investigation regarding how the country was sold a bill of goods for 9 months.
There is no credible evidence of Trump Russia Collusion.
There is alot of evidence of illegal activity of a variety of types by the obama administration as well as some retained Obama people.
This has been damaging to the country – and these people need to be exposed and jailed.
But that is not likely to happen.
“We can not say for certain the DNC was an inside job – though it is highly likely.”
Inside Job- meaning someone snuck inside to physically download the files?
If so, it’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY the DNC hacked its own files and passed them on to hostile agents for public release.
Who could have done that?
Republicans?
Russian Ops in the US?
You?
Fess up, how much were you paid?
Jay;
Clearly you are paying not attention.
I have a long response below – most of which should be unnecescary if your could manage critical thinking.
Those here complain about my long tedious posts, But it seems necescary to sppon feed things to you.
The only peice of information that was critical in the DNC analysis was that the data rate for the transfer was over 160MB/s. From that you can rule out an enormous number of possibilities.
Inside Job – either Seth Rich or Imran Awan and his cronies.
Or someone in the DNC pissed because the DNC was shafting Sanders.
It is unlikely someone Snuck in.
Wikileaks has all but openly admitted they got the emails from a DNC insider.
The forensic analysis that found the transfer rate to be 160MB/s means it either was a xfer to media like a thumb drive, or someone attached to the DNC via a gigabit network connection. I do not know the size of the DNC connection to the internet – but I doubt it is gigabit. Even if it is the person on the other size would have to have a very very high speed connection and the route between them would have to be very very high speed.
It is highly unlikely that anyone performed a 160MB/s file xfr from Russia to the DNC over the internet.
But yes, it is not quite but very near certain that the files were all downloaded from someone connected directly to the DNC network or directly from a DNC computer.
While the data rate rules out alot, it does still leave many possibilites.
Seth Rich is already a suspect. The DNC has discounted him, and claimed that his death was a botched robbery, but he had access, and there are good reasons to suspect him.
It is also possible that Awan and cronies were involved in his death.
Or that they are responsible for the hack,
or that they provided the data to the pakistani ISI who released the data to Wikileaks
or that it went from Awan to ISI to GRU to Wikileaks.
What is increasingly unlikely is that Gucifer2.0 (or Russia) Hacked the DNC over the internet.
Could the RNC have done it ? Sure, but we have no evidence to support that.
Just to be clear – once you decide that the evidence that the data was not retrieved over the internet is compelling, then the Trump/Russia meme gets a huge leg chopped out from under it.
“If so, it’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY the DNC hacked its own files and passed them on to hostile agents for public release.”
Jay is not paying attention. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was employing Pakistani nationals, who had access to, not only all DNC emails, but highly sensitive emails and data from the House Intelligence, Judicial and Foreign Affairs committee. These guys were employed as IT specialists, and reportedly had access, via security clearances, which lord only knows how they got.
Fox Business Network is reporting that the FBI is investigating reports that these fine fellows sold classified information to, as yet, unknown parties. There is also the odd behavior of Debbie W-S, who continued to employ Imran Awan, even after he was found to be double billing for equipment, and every other House Dem had fired him and his brothers.
She fired him only after he was arrested at Dulles Airport, trying to flee the country. And she claims that all of this has been a big case of Islamophobia on the part of the Capitol Police.
That sounds a bit preposterous, to say the least.
There are several significant factors the pakistani case brings out.
The DNC computer systems were horribly insecure.
We know they were hacked from the inside.
It makes it clear that there are now numerous ways the DNC emails could have gotten to wikileaks aside from Guicifer2.0.
This is even more embarrasing to the DNC
It increases the credibility of the Seth Rich hypothesis (as well as introducing new ones)
We do not know how Wikileaks got the DNC emails.
But we do know that of all the possibilities, the russian hacking story is no longer very credible.
Wasserman-Shultz’s strange conduct is what is typically called “consciousness of guilt”.
It might mean nothing. It might mean exactly what she says it means.
But it probably means that she is hiding something.
But we do not know what she is hiding
Perhaps the recent tribulations of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her Pakistani IT family could answer Jay’s question Sherlock Holmes looks into it……
“In February, Capitol Police identified three brothers, Imran, Abid, and Jamal Awan as targets of an investigation into accessing congressional computer networks without permission and stealing digital information equipment. Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, Imran’s best friend, were also under investigation. They were barred from working on Capitol Hill”
https://spectator.org/sherlock-holmes-investigates-debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-her-rogue-computer-technicians/
Of course, I suppose it could be Dave 😉
The most important question is do you accept the forensic information on the transfer rate.
Because once you do, the CrowdStrike report, and the FBI analysis dies.
And that means to get Trump/Russia conspiracy you have to have Russian agents inside the DNC.
There are inumerable possibilities for an inside job.
None are proven – and unlike most of the media, much of the left, crowdstrike and the FBI,
I would prefer not to jump to stupid conclusions based on weak evidence.
The top of the list is Seth Rich.
This also increases the probablity that the Pakistani’s murdered Rich.
But it is also possible that they hacked the DNC and provided the files to ISI.
What becomes impossible – is that Gucifer2.0 did it.
and what becomes unlikely is that Russia was involved.
I did not do it. While I have connections to “black hats” because I was tangentially involved in some very serious cryptographic work for a few years a couple of years ago, I have never personally been involved in computer “hacking” – as defined by the media.
I am a “hacker” as would have been defined by geeks in the 70’s and 80’s.
But it would not matter whether I did it or some other hacker.
Unless they are a Russian hacker – a very large hunk of the Trump/Russia story is DEAD.
Someone is not saying what they know is actually going on with NK and the missile/nuke issue and we may never know.
In 2012, NK had 2 tests, 2013-1, 2014-1,2015-1 2016-3.
So far in 2017, there has been 12.
2/11
3/6
4/4
4/15
4/28
5/16
5/21
5/29
6/8
6/23
7/4
7/28
Is he poking the sleeping bear to see what reaction he will get? Is he provoking some reaction that will lead to some diplomatic back door agreement like they received during the Clinton administration? Whatever the reason for this uptick in the number of tests, it will be interesting to see if the average of one every couple weeks will continue or if there is a decline in the numbers going forward. Then the question is “Has Kim decided he is not going to get anything from the USA this time, unlike other times when he had his temper tantrums, or is his military complex gearing up weapons for attacking SK, Guam and Japan”?
It seems to me that in the past both the carrot and the stick have been used by S. Korea, the UN, the West, the US and China. Bouts of both engagement and sanctions have been the result. As Mattis very sanely has described the reality of war with NK I think that all of that was totally understandable.
Why is he doing it now? Isn’t the simple answer because he is developing his technology as fast as he can, and showing it off to both to solidify his own hlde on his country and to send a message to SK and the world that he is in control and not to be messed with? Is it something more complicated than that?
One has to try to think like he does. If you were a spoiled ultra deadly party boy with both paranoia and a well taught belief in your own superiority who inherited NK from your father, and the world and large parts of your own country was extremely hostile to you and your plans, what would you do? A. be nice and get along, B. Be aggressive and get in everyone’s face?
Just out of curiousity, as a complete tangent Ron, how are you liking the idea that we may use military force in Venezuela? It is libertarian?
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/11/16135066/trump-north-korea-backchannel-secret-talks
Roby the above link provides some info that is not widely being shared. What Trump is doing is anyones guess. Maybe Tillerson or one of his assistants is telling NK ” look, we dont have a Clinton, Bush or Obama willing to provide you something. The president might be mentally challenged and we have no idea what he will do, but we can guarantee if he does anything, NK will no longer exist and he might not care if SK goes with it. Its in your leaders best interest to slow down or he will end up like Gaddafy.”
As for Venezuela, it is up to the people of that country to fix that problem. They voted that government in in 1998 or 9 and now they have to find a way to get rid of it. I think those are called revolutions. Our only actions is no trade including thier oil (even if that raises our gas prices) and cutting banking ties so no monitary transactions occur in support of any actions the people may take.
There is no answer to NK that does not involve NK backing down in some way that does not result in a horrible outcome.
The most dangerous possible scenario and unfortunately the most likely, is the mistake beleive on the part of Kim that he can secure sufficient nuclear deterance to get the US to leave SK on its own. If Kim beleives he has acheived that it is likely he will launch a conventional attack on SK.
It is near certain that will prove incredibly bloody.
It is near certain that will result in the use of WMD’s
Regardless, there will be no good outcome.
The US has some wiggle room left regarding NK.
At the moment it is unlikely they can as of yet live up to their bluster.
But we are at most a few years from the point at which a NK threat against the US is sufficiently credible that we can not ignore it.
I think everyone would be against military force in Venezuela right now, Roby.
But, I watched that news conference, and I thought that the president brought up military intervention as a means of delivering humanitarian aid. Granted, that’s not what he said, but he prefaced his comment about possibly utilizing our military right after he had said something to the effect that “it’s a terrible situation, people are starving and dying over there.”
Just as he didn’t say specifically why he would consider using the military, he din not say anything about an invasion, which, based on years of his comments about America not being the world’s police, would be surprising.
I think that a big problem with Trump is that when he says stuff like “not ruling out using the military,” it can be ~ and will be~ being interpreted as “not ruling out a war against Maduro.” That, of course, would be a huge mistake, but we don’t even know if that’s what he meant.
I think that one thing that may come out of the NK stand-off is that our allies in the area will begin to demand that they be allowed to develop nukes and missile defense systems as a deterrent. Japan and SK would be the most likely to do this, but there is also Indonesia, the Phillipines, VietNam, Taiwan, etc. all of which have borders on the South China Sea, where the Chicoms have been quietly installing floating nuke reactors on their manmade islands, while distracting us by allowing the increasingly dangerous regime in NK to operate without interference from them.
Having this situation threaten their hegemony in the region, or having the US start to demand greater reciprocity in banking and trade with China would not be in the interests of the Chinese right now. But it’s complicated as hell.
Priscilla, your comments about China, SK, Taiwan, Japan and others concerning nukes is interesting, Had not thought about China controlling the region (except for India and Pakistan) by being the only nuclear power. If they lose that stranglehold militarily because SK, Japan and others get nukes because NK has them, then maybe they will do something about NK before that happens. Should that be Trumps next big play, pushing for nuke in those countries?
Who know what the next chapter will bring. However, if this were a Tom Claney novel, it would be a top seller because the outcome would not be know until the last sentence is written.
I do not treat Trump’s tweets as absolute statement of US policy.
On occasion they prove to be.
But mostly I beleive they are just Trump blustering unfiltered.
They bother me, but I am not sure they are not actually effective at tipping people off balance. They certainly provoke the media and the left.
I beleive one of the precepts in Trump’s art of the deal is always start by demanding far more than you actually want. There is no need to be reasonable in your initial demand.
That it often results in a compromise that is not far from what you wanted in the first place.
Regardless, I think Trump does that alot.
I do not presume his threat regarding Veneseual means anything – beyond causing Madora to have something else to worry about.
Actual steps towards the US intervening in Venezeualla are likely something most of us would oppose.
A relatively simple sollution to the NK problem is for the US to actually provide SK with a couple of dozen small nuclear bombs and then Tell SK they are on their own.
That removes the US from the equation.
SK can set its own nuclear policy regarding NK – including threatening MAD.
NK no longer has a compelling reason to develop nuclear ICBM’s.
Further we can announce that though we will not defend SK in the event of an attack by NK, that we will anihilate NK it it launches at the US.
We can even tell them that further testing is extremely dangerous as we must presume that a test is a real launch and may have to retaliate.
Ron, I did follow you link, very interesting. Then I followed all the other links at the bottom of the story within Vox.
This one, that discusses the reaction inside SK to the latest NK actions is very interesting as well.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/11/16131244/north-korea-trump-tension-south-korea-unfazed
All of the links were quite interesting, including the one discussing poll results on Americans reactions to trump’s handling of NK.
I have the feeling that trump has now settled into a new mode that he will be in for quite a while, that of talking very very tough on NK, Venezuela, and anything else that comes up abroad. Will it unite Americans behind him? More to the point, will it actually help or hurt with these situations in a way that is so clear that it transcends partisan spin? Will he do something so effective that even the 35% (the non liberal Americans who disapprove of trump as of now) have to admit that he did a good thing? Will he do something so obviously harmful that even some large portion of the roughly 38% who are behind him thus far have to admit that he did a destructive thing? Or will the results be unclear, such that both the right and left claim vindication and the middle stays doubtful?
Nothing that has occurred recently represents a new threat to SK.
NK is unlikely to use an ICBM against Seol – they do not need to.
NK’s development of ICBM’s and additional nuclear capability is not a threat to SK.
The big new threat to SK – is the possibility that the US would not defend if they are attacked.
“I think that one thing that may come out of the NK stand-off is that our allies in the area will begin to demand that they be allowed to develop nukes and missile defense systems as a deterrent. Japan and SK would be the most likely to do this, but there is also Indonesia, the Phillipines, VietNam, Taiwan, etc. all of which have borders on the South China Sea, where the Chicoms have been quietly installing floating nuke reactors on their manmade islands, while distracting us by allowing the increasingly dangerous regime in NK to operate without interference from them.
Having this situation threaten their hegemony in the region, or having the US start to demand greater reciprocity in banking and trade with China would not be in the interests of the Chinese right now. But it’s complicated as hell.”
First off, I have the sense that conservatives believe that CHina could simply solve NK if they wanted to. And we liberals believe that its is now where so easy and straightforward for the Chinese to deal with NK, that they have actually no good options, only can try to distinguish between bad and worse.
But yes, It IS complicated as hell, for every party its very complicated, taking action is like shooting off a high powered gun in a small concrete room full of friends and adversaries. Who will the bullet pass through?
I think that the difference between China and Russia is that bad events in the US are not in the interests of the Chinese leaders as of today, we are their biggest market in spite of the fact that we block many of their goals. For Russia, we are their adversary (at least if you are in Putin and his circle) and if we were to suffer calamity and lose our direction and power it seems to be all in their benefit. We are not their market, there is almost no benefit of the existence of a powerful US to the Russian leadership. They go around the world finding mines to plant to sidetrack and weaken us. Venezuela will be next, or they are probably there now, encouraging them, helping them.
And, I will admit, we do the same to them.
Just how did a starving isolated country manage to get so far so fast with nukes and missiles? I have a suspicion they got help, and its NOT the Chinese I suspect.
It is my understanding that BK buys a small amount of technology from China,
But for the most part technology flows the other way.
NK collaborated with Iran and possibly Pakistan in weapons development – and lead both.
NK is a poor country, it is not a country of stupid people.
At the korean armistice – NK was much more afluent than SK and SK was in real poverty.
NK has not advanced much since then.
It has difficulty feeding its people – because socialism is an economic disaster.
But those people are not stupid.
The US was in severe poverty during the depression.
It did not magically end with the commencement of WWII.
Yet we developed the atomic bomb quite rapidly with littl outside help.
Harder still – no one had done it before.
NK is doing things that it already knows are doable.
They are and remain very poor.
They are still not stupid.
This is not a people with flint arrows.
It is a relatively advanced country impoverished by an abysmal political system.
Well, I don’t think that it’s necessarily a conservative v. liberal thing.
China is not our friend, Russia is not our friend. Iran is not our friend. And all of them have reportedly provided technology and weapons to the North Koreans.. But China and Russia have their own problems with each other, as well as with us, and, right now, it is China that stands to lose the most, if Lil Kim (I picked that name up from you ~ I like it) goes rogue…or more rogue than he already is. China does not want 1) to back the Norks in a war with the US, 2) a refugee crisis at the NK border 3) the reunification of the Korean peninsula coming up as a negotiating point 4) the US demanding banking reciprocity with China 5) the US calling for the trade reciprocity ~ as in, if American made goods are tsubject to a 35% tariff in China, Chinese goods will be subject to a 35% tariff in the US.
Most of all, they do not want us messing around in the South China Sea, where they are trying to create a military dominance that they can then use to establish sovereignty over what are now international waters.
China can exert tremendous pressure on the Norks, and the US has never used its economic leverage to force them to do so. If we don’t do it now, we may lose what leverage we have.
Unless Venezuela threatens other nations, there is no justification to use force against it.
We can support its citizens who are being bullied by an increasingly totalitarian socialist govenrment. But we can not use force.
Mike Hatcher writing from hotel business center in Puerto Rico. Roby- your perspective of how Kim Jung Un (or however you spell his name) sees things seems quite logical. My pie-in-the-sky dream would be his government would be toppled and reunification East/West Germany style would occur. Perhaps more realistic would be him being toppled and replaced by a Chinese puppet government. As much as I wouldn’t approve of China running a puppet, I would concede that it would likely be more stable than the current situation.
I’ve thought the same thing, Mike. Re-unification of Korea seems a worthy goal, if the trade-off is getting rid of the Kim family.
On the other hand, if South Koreans don’t want reunification, and it’s forced on them. how would the US justify that? And how long would it last?
Our goal needs to be the safety and security of the US.
The politicial future of north and south korea is the business of the korean people – not us.
We should not be trying to force any specific political solution.
Though there is nothing wrong with assisting in some solution that the korean people actually want.
We should not make the same nation building mistakes in Korea that we have made elsewhere.
These damn New-Lefties, abandoning true Conservatism, to attack our President!
America The Beautiful.
Hummm. Obstruction replacing Collusion?
“Mr. Mueller has asked the White House about specific meetings, who attended them and whether there are any notes, transcripts or documents about them, two of the people said. Among the matters Mr. Mueller wants to ask the officials about is President Trump’s decision in May to fire the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, the two people said.
That line of questioning will be important as Mr. Mueller continues to investigate whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice in the dismissal of Mr. Comey.”
Everything you say sounds good on the surface – except that if fails deeper examination.
As a practical matter – if I fire an employee – absent evidence that I actually did so for an improper reason you should not be able to demand from me the proof that I did not have an improper reason.
But this gets worse when we discuss the president.
Trumps discussion with his advisors are covered by executive privilege.
Trump can waive that, but he need not.
If Trump asserts executive priviledge that provokes a constitutional conflict.
This is one that Trump will likely prevail in.
We have plenty on the public record regarding Comey’s firing.
We also have the fact that Trump can not “obstruct” justice by firing Comey.
Firing Comey does not terminate FBI investigations.
If you are actually after evidence of Obstruction – you would have to look not at Comey’s firing but at what DOJ and FBI did after wards.
If you allege Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice – you should then find evidence that after Comey’s firing Trump order investigations ceased.
Last but not least, Comey has testified that Trump was not a target during Comey’s tenure.
That is BTW a self answering question – because if Trump was a target – that would require an SC,
Anyway Obstruction of justice is narrowly defined.
Trump could litterally have ordered Comey to cease any investigations that Trump was not a target without obstructing justice.
And BTW there is historical precedent for that.
The powers of the entire executive are vested SOLELY in the president.
The FBI director not only serves at the pleasure of the president, but as the agent of the president. The FBI can not do anything that the president does nto have the power to do himself.
We shall see what happens, but I do not hink that the whitehouse is going to cooperate with Mueller regarding inquiries into anything that occured in the whitehouse.
And absent probable cause of an actual crime I do not think the courts will allow it.
Your entire course of action is rooted in your beleif that a crime must have occured.
Not evidence of an actual crime.
We do not abridge peoples constitutional rights over your beleifs.
And what’s this About?
I don’t get it?
Shouldn’t a presidential national security advisor have a Global perspective?
“Dugin agreed. “Globalists” like McMaster have made Russia “enemy No. 1,” he said, because they need a battle to distract the public while they pursue their “satanic” plans and “destroy humanity.””
https://amp.businessinsider.com/hr-mcmaster-fire-twitter-trump-alex-jones-2017-8
There are myriads of different perspectives of what the US role in the world should be.
McMasters and Mattis represent one view – it is not the same as that of Obama, it is also not the same as that of Trump. It is more similar to Obama than Trump.
Trump was elected on a platform reflecting his view, and his view places the interests of the US FIRST. It is also a view where the US acts in its interests – and other nations join us or do not.
A more “globalist” view would be that of Bush I or Obama – where the US does not lead, or leads from behind.
We can argue over which view has more merit. But there is no automatic presumption that McMasters is right and Trump wrong.
Nor does disagreement mean one is evil and the other good.
Nor does McMasters represent the only perspective in the whitehouse.
I am glad McMasters is there. I am also glad that people who disagree with mcmasters are there.
I hope that mcmasters remains.
I also hope that he loses on Aghanistan (and wins on Iran).
I think those on the right that try to paint any conflict between McMasters and Trump or others as good vs. evil are wrong.
I think those on the left doing the same make the same mistake.
I want trump to get the best advice possible from smart people, smart people who sometimes disagree, and then to make the final choices based on the argument that he thinks was strongest.
I do not want everyone in the whitehouse to be on the same page on everything.
Why is it that so many Republicans have spoken out today to DIRECTLY condemn the White Supremacists and Neo Nazi element in Charlottesville, but Trump refuses to mention them by name?
Gov Huckabee: “White supremacy” crap is worst kind of racism-it’s EVIL and perversion of God’s truth to ever think our Creator values some above others.”
Paul Ryan: “The views fueling the spectacle in Charlottesville are repugnant. Let it only serve to unite Americans against this kind of vile bigotry.”
Marco Rubio: “Nothing patriotic about #Nazis, the #KKK or #WhiteSupremacists. It’s the direct opposite of what #America seeks to be.” #Charlotesville
Orrin Hatch: “their ideas are fuel by hate, & have no place in civil society”
Jeff Flake: “The #WhiteSupremacy in #Charlottesville does not reflect the values of the America I know. Hate and bigotry have no place in this country.”
But here’s President Mealy-Mouth Trump on #Charlottesville: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence ON MANY SIDES” (My CAPS).
So far today, one dead and nineteen injured by the car that plowed into counter demonstrators in Charlottesville, in what appears to be a planned attack (early reports on scene from witnesses and law enforcement sources say the car windows were darkened and the air bag disabled – to allow repeated hits without disabling the car- and two of the videos released so far show the car smashing into another car, then hurriedly reversing and speeding backwards for at least a block, scattering pedestrians).
If this assessment proves true, then it’s a terrorist act of murder, committed against Americans in an American city. Let’s take bets on Trump condemning it as a terrorist act.
A. Will he do so as quickly as he condemned the terrorist auto attack in Westminster?
B. Will he mention the word ‘terrorism’ at all, but only in general terms, not mentioning who committed the terrorism?
C. Will he make ANY strong statements criticizing those people at all?
I say NO to all of the above.
Jay, you answered your own question “If this assessment proves true, then it’s a terrorist act of murder, committed against Americans in an American city. Let’s take bets on Trump condemning it as a terrorist act.”
I can remember many people, including Republicans, saying Obama was jumping to conclusions when he made comments about racist acts in different cities during his administration.
There is plenty of time for the president to comment after all the facts are known! One one hand you chastise him for popping off about NK and now yiu chastise him for not popping off about Charlottsville.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!
“One one hand you chastise him for popping off about NK and now yiu chastise him for not popping off about Charlottsville.”
Come on Ron, admit my assessment is right- tRump’s a mealy-mouth hypocrite.
And what are you criticizing me for pointing out the inconsistency of tRump IMMEDIATELY popping off about the car attack in England, calling it a terrorist attack before anything was known about the perpetrator’s motive, but sidestepping it today?
And aside from the car attack, yesterday and today many reports described racist and anti Semitic chants of marchers, and photos showing many with Nazi gear and slogans and signs. But the Dufus in Office has not spoken out against that, unlike an ever-growing list of Republicans and Democrats, like those I included in the comment above. What about you? You condemning that element of garments oozing out of the woodwork?
The circumstances of the car attack in England were sufficiently well understood immediately to draw the high probability conclusion that it was a terrorist attack.
The circumstances in Charlottesville are far more ambiguous.
What happened in Charlottesville happened in the midst of an independent as best as we know unplanned conflict.
I think there is little doubt at this point that the Charlottesville attack was a crime and not an accident, and that it was targeting a group rather than specific individuals, and that it was likely driven by hate.
All crimes are not terrorist attacks. Even all “hate crimes” are not terrorist attacks.
Further the distinction matters not from the perspective of the crime or criminal, but from the broader perspective.
It does not matter why some people in a car try to kill some other people – so long as we are certain of the act. We care beyond the crime itself if we beleive it is part of a much broader organized campaign.
You seem to think that the importance of words is the emotions they evoke rather than their meaning
If those driving the car in charlottesville are caught and punished, and the act was theirs and theirs alone – then labeling it “terrorism” is meaningless.
Dave, 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
I’ll turn that question on its head Ron:
Why is it that trump who has lost it and taken on anyone who who feels might have slighted him or confronted him, from heads to state, to members of his own administration, to TV personalities, to McConnell But He Hasn’t Responded to Duke’s attack on him? My implied answer is not that trump is a secret Duke or KKK sympathizer, he isn’t, but that he is not willing to take on that segment of the right with gusto for political reasons. Its the left he goes after, not the right, and he is not about to change that narrative for anything, its what sells to his base, its his brand.
He certainly could condemn the white supremacist agitators who targeted an unwilling Charlottesburg nothing about that is a mystery.
Perhaps he still will tonight or tomorrow and come out with a crystal clear statement and roast David Duke as strongly as he has roasted Sessions or McConnel or the Mayor of London and prove doubting liberals like me wrong.
I have abstained about talking about the car killing incident until the details come out, but the flavor and consequences of the basic far right/racist event are pretty damn clear and have been all day. Most prominent political people, including most conservative ones, have already addressed with this outrage with little ambiguity or attempt to somehow pretend that the far right did not cause this. But not our hyperactively tweeting POTUS as yet.
Or maybe it is because Trump does not think chastizing those you think he should attack serves any goal of his?
When the president of the United States attacks someone that has many implications.
Several here have argument that Trump should not have threatened Venezeulla – because that empowers Madora.
Though I do not think that threatening Venezeulla was a world class mistake.
I do agree it was a mistake. Venezuella is their own worst enemy.
They do not need Trump or the use as a fake scape goat for their problems.
With respect to Charlottesville.
The moment that you have a statute of Robert E. Lee involved today – you can pretty much presume that events are racially charged FOR BOTH SIDES.
I have not learned enough about this to be able to say that the KKK or neo nazi’s or actual white supremists were not involved – nor do I think I care much. So what if they were ?
This was a violent confrontation between two groups with alot of people on each side that hated each other and were itching for violence.
I am very disturbed by parts of the reaction.
Apparently many – including here beleive that the KKK or NeoNazi’s should not be allowed to exist – much less march ?
Does the same standard apply to BLM ? or Communists ? Or gay people ?
How do we handle it when a group wishes to publicly speak out and their speach is not acceptable to another group ?
It appears that too many on the left think that we FIRST decide who the good guys are and who the bad guys are and then we do whatever we can to impede the bad guys.
The rule of law, means we apply the law the same for all – even those we hate.
It means that even anti-semites and neo-nazi’s and …. can march.
And that they should be able to march without fear of violence, and that those who counter protest should be able to do so without fear of violence.
Alot went wrong in Charlottesville, but the big fault I see is with the police.
This was foreseeable, and preventable.
“Senator Cory Gardner, a Republican from Colorado, called out President Donald Trump over his statement about the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Trump condemned violence “on many sides” after a car plowed into a crowd of anti-racism protesters on Saturday, killing one and injuring dozens. “Mr. President – we must call evil by its name,” Gardner tweeted. “These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism.””
http://www.thedailybeast.com/republican-senator-calls-out-trump-over-charlottesville
Guys, please god, get this one right, no rationalizing, no explaining, no going after Jay, just get it right.
The right-wing white-supremacist cancer is today’s news and topic and trump’s reaction to it compared to his reactions to small indignities and other news events, is a completely appropriate and necessary topic. trump has a very short period of time to get this unambiguously and presidentially correct and have at David Duke and the other white supremacist groups with the same energy and clarity with which he went after the mayor of London.
Failure will be extremely costly in many ways.
Of course I am going after Jay, and you and Gardner.
This entire debate flows from the fact that too much of our society has assumed the idiocy of the left that hate is a crime.
It is NOT. Hate is wrong, it is immoral, But hate itself is not the business of govenrment.
It is in our heads and our hearts, which are the domains of our religious, or moral or ethical beleifs – not government.
The crimes in charlottesville were murder and violence.
Those are acts, Those are what govenrment is there to punish and in some instances such as this prevent.
It is the role of our clergy to speak out about hate.
One of the most self evident things about charlottesville from the very begining is that it was going to be LEGITIMATELY from the start an expression of offensive views. Of hate.
And that as undesireable as that might be, in our society that is legally acceptable.
That when you make this about the views expressed rather than the unjustifiable violence, you do violence to free society.
I have expressed my concerns about the rising tendency towards violence in the left over many posts here.
It is NOT the views of the left that I have the most problems with.
I will qualify that I have and do attack the hate of the left. But that is a MORAL attack, not a legal attack.
The legal culpubility in charlotte belongs to all those who acted violently.
The moral culpability belongs to all those who were filled with hate.
And that would include those who hate purported white supremicists.
We are not morally called to hate our enemies.
The left seems to think they have a new civil rights movement.
To some extent maybe they do – but if so, they are on the wrong side of it.
Roby,
We failed when after this election those such as yourself decided that you did not accept the results.
Demostrate that a voting machine was altered, that ballots were improperly counted – and we have something.
The rest of the nonsense being sold is crying because you do not like the outcome.
While you are free to cry, you are not free to change the results any other way than through the electoral process.
The problem in charlottesville today is not one of racism, but one of hate and violence.
I condemn all who engaged in violence.
I condemn all who engage in hatred – no matter who it is that they hate.
I have only been loosely following this.
So would someone correct me if my facts are wrong
As I understand it a group scheduled a protest march because a statute of Robert E. Lee was being removed from a park in Charlotesville.
I can understand that some people might want to remove all statues of Robert E. Less.
I can also understand that some people might want them to remain.
Though I hope I do not have many on my christmas list.
At the same time while I would gather that all or most white supremecists would be upset about the removal of Robert E. Lee statues, I am not sure I accept that everyone unhappy with the removal of a Robert E. Less statue is a white supremist.
Regardless, aparently charlotesville refused to permit the march,
The ACLU took it up
and the protesters were allowed to march.
A counter protest was organized in response to the protest.
Apparently more than one counter protest as atleast one group of counter protestors was a group of ministers.
All this sounds pretty mundane to this point.
Today for the march – the protestors showed up with mace and baseball bats anticipating that they might be treated violently.
The counter protestors showed up similarly armed for much the same reason.
The police – atleast initially did not really show up and those that did had their hands full trying to protect the counterprotest group involving ministers.
violence broke out between two groups as one would expect between two groups that hate each other an think the other is the scum of the earth.
Eventually the police really did move in in force to separate things – but by this point things had already gotten thoroughly out of control
Next some guys possibly associated with the origianl protest group drove a dodge into a crowd of counter protestors, killing atleast one and injuring many.
Later apparently a police hellicopter crashed.
Subsequently the news is all full of stories of violent white supremecists,
And I recall hearing a few speaches that pretty much stated that these people were not to be tolerated and had no right to exist.
I guess afterwords we had a stream of politicians condemning violence.
And from what I can tell from your post – you are angry because all republicans did not rush out to condemn the side you want condemned fast enough.
Is there some part of the above I have significantly wrong ?
So let me start with a few things. Some might or might not specifically apply to this particular event – but even if they do not, it is likely they are coming.
When you call people hateful hating haters – they tend to hate you back – they do that whether they are good people or bad people or something in between.
I have no intention of ever taking a baseball bat to anyone and have no sympathy for people who do, but even mild mannered meek people like myself get a bit of visceral thrill from Trump’s baching of the press and the left – yes he is uncouth and unpresidential.
But so much of the left and the press is intolerant and hateful towards anyone who disagrees with them that I get pleasure at seeing Trump fight back.
While I do not feel the same when people engage in actual violence towards the left, that does not mean I do not understand it.
And I do understand why those protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statute would expect to confront violent counter protestors
To the extent I understand what happened in Charlotesville, I blame the police.
Given the circumstances they should have anticipated that the protestors and counter protestors would consider the other to be violent and to be prepared to counter that violence. That is a recipe for violent confrontation, and I do not care who starts it, nor do I think it is reasonably possible to figure that out.
The guys who latter drove a car into a group of people are criminals. They are not domestic terrorists.
This whole mess has a stronger resemblance to turf wars between rival drug gangs than to terrorism.
I have already said that I doubt any of those protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statute are people I would want on my christmas list.
But I would note that the counter protestors who came armed are not distinguishably different.
I was in a vaguely similar situation a coupld of decades ago in my home town.
The KKK got a permit to march through the city.
They had to go to court to get it – and I contributed to the ACLU to get them permission to march.
There was also a scheduled counter protest.
The KKK marchers – were real white supremecists – as opposed to just people pissed about a Robert E. Lee statute – yet they did not come armed.
Nor did the counter protestors.
Still the city police were well prepared.
They had errected a temporary barrier of chain link fence throughout the route of the march. It was not possible for the KKK and counter protestors to actually get together.
They marched in their hoods etc. And we held candles and sang “we shall over come”.
And no one was hurt.
And no one gave speaches claiming that one group was so vile they were not human, and that they should not be allowed to exist, much less march.
While that is how things should be.
Where we are now – the left has made clear that those who disagree with them are the scum of the earth.
That is a position that is guaranteed to result in violence.
I expect this to get worse before it gets better.
And I do not expect any on the left to be willing to admit that they share culpability in any of this.
There are real white supremists in the US. But actual KKK members and real neo-nazis are quite rare – far rarer than fourty years ago.
We are now accusing anyone who is unhappy about the rmoval of a Robert E. Lee statute of being a white supremiscits and neo-nazi.
With respect to the Republicans you cite:
The root problem in charlotesville today is not racism or bigorty or one side or the others particular views or words – whatever they are.
It is those regardless of their views who are willing to resort to violence.
If you are a racist or a bigot or a white supremist or a neo nazi – I think you hold stupid brain dead views. But I remain committed to defend your right to express them – non violently.
If you are on the left -whether you are speaking out against Trump or Neo-Nazi’s or ….
I support your tight to express yourselves – and probably agree with you.
Except when you start trying to tell me that these others – whoever they are, whether they are black lives matters or the real KKK or real NeoNazis or just people who are pissed because they are poor and white and live in a world where they see everyone else is a victim and entitled to special treatment but them, when you start telling me that those people – have no right to even exist, then you are no different then they are – possibly worse.
The left does not seem to grasp this.
What is the real crime of the KKK or neo Nazi’s ?
It is that for some reason they think they are better than some other group.
It is that they beleive they are not obligated to tolerate that other group,
So how exactly is the modern left different from real neo-nazis and the KKK except for the specific group that they choose to hate and not tolerate ?
With respect to Gov. Huckabee and the rest pf the republicans you cite.
The worst evil is beleiveing that you are superior to any other group and that they do not have the right to exist. That is what is evil about the real KKK and real neo-nazis and it is a growing problem in the modern left.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?”
Mathew 5:43
Dave. One thing in your comments I did not see. From what i can understand from the press conference and information coming out over the day was the original protests started as a local protest and most of the original protesters were local or mostly western Va people. The counter protesters were from out of town for the most part.
Now for the root of the problem. Not until we remove all reference to the civil war from history will this division ever be erased. No matter how much they try to remove confederate symbols and heroes from southern towns, until the civil war is forgotten, these things will continue to happen because the teaching of the civil war will always stir feelings of some in the south. Once the teachings of the civil war are removed and everyone forgets and we all meld into one mental state, then protests such as these will not be needed. The cup cakes and snowflakes will be able to live in the peace and tranquility with no one upsetting their precious mental state of nirvana.
Thank you for the additional observations.
I should have guessed the counter protestors were from far away.
I suspect that many of the protestors were local – as in from Virgina, but not from Charlottesville.
There were aparently disparate different groups of counter protestors (and maybe of protestors).
My wife was watching this as it happened, and I was hearing it from another room.
As I understand from her the counter protestors were:
a group of ministers – which when things first turned ugly were the only people the police where capable of protecting. The police were totally unprepared for this.
BLM counter protestors – who were MOSTLY non violent and not armed,
Antifa counter protestors who were armed and violent.
That the main protestors/marchers were armed with pepper spray and baseball bats and were expecting violence, and that the primary initial conflicts were between the antifa and the marchers.
Aparently there were atleast two distinct episodes of violence – hours apart,
That properly equiped riot police eventually showed up and separated the groups and had things somewhat calmed down.
That sometime after that this car incident occured and things got out of hand again.
Ron
Not merely the civil war but its immediate and long term aftermath is an important part of US history and should not be forgotten.
Further we should be very careful about how we characterize it.
We need to study history as it is.
We need to see Jefferson as a hero, and with all his flaws.
We need to see Lee the same.
Robert E. Lee is arguably one of the most brilliant american generals of all time.
He chose the wrong side in the civil war.
He fought for the wrong side.
But he fought brilliantly and honorably for a bad cause.
Rommel (and several others) did much the same for the Germans.
We should not forget.
One of the other things we should not forget is that american socialsim – was born in the confederacy. Modern progressivism was born in the post civil war south.
I do not know whether Lee’s statue should remain in some park.
I think that is a political question that the people of charlotesville should answer.
Not up to the rest of us.
But we should not forget the civil war or lee or all that followed.
We should not forget the KKK – and we should not be deluded into beleiving that in some consequential way the KKK of the past is in anyway similar to that of 40 years ago, and even less so the extreme right of today.
Among other things the KKK of a century ago was made of powerful people,
the extreme right of today is made of poor whites angry because people they can not see as any different or better than them are being labeled as victims and awarded status and assistance for that.
The left makes historical victimhood more important than current circumstances.
“Now for the root of the problem. Not until we remove all reference to the civil war from history will this division ever be erased. No matter how much they try to remove confederate symbols and heroes from southern towns, until the civil war is forgotten, these things will continue to happen because the teaching of the civil war will always stir feelings of some in the south. Once the teachings of the civil war are removed and everyone forgets and we all meld into one mental state, then protests such as these will not be needed. The cup cakes and snowflakes will be able to live in the peace and tranquility with no one upsetting their precious mental state of nirvana.”
I hope I am misreading your meaning here. Are you saying that the root of the problem in Charlottesville is PC snowflakes? Far right thugs, armed right wing militias, a right-wing act of murder, a POTUS who lashes out at everything in sight but who cannot bring himself to name white supremacists as a problem with any conviction and clarity, and the thing you are most interested in in your comment was PC snowflakes?
Clarify?
The Civil war was an ugly war based most of all on the fact that the Southern economy was based on slavery and southerners did believe in general as a group that slavery was evil, while others in the country, who had no economic interest in slavery, could see it as evil and an insult to the principle we are founded on, All men are created equal. The confederate flag and other symbols of the southern Civil war heritage is decidedly a symbol to the right wing racists, does it have so much other meaning to it, was there something noble about defending slavery to the death? Was there something noble about the groups that rose up like the Klan, the lynchings, the voter suppression? I dunno, the Japanese, we believe, should admit to their many vile actions that led up to their part in WWII. Of course everyone wants to be proud of their heritage and many Japanese would like to believe that the Rape of Nanking was perpetrated by people with no relation to them and many southerners would like to wave the Confederate flag and pretend its merely a symbol of their southern cultural pride and that it has no connection to slavery, lynchings the KKK etc.
Robert E. Lee, in many ways a decent fellow, was far from being the most wretched case of the southern ills, but all the same, are there monuments to nazi generals in germany, are people proud of their Nazi past?
Well, sort of:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/for-whom-the-bell-tolls-nazi-memorial-embarrasses-german-community-a-800003.html
The problem in Charlottesville is that the police failed to keep two groups prone to become violent separated.
Watching the assorted video’s I have not found anything to suggest that the marchers – whatever they were marching for were more prone to violence than the counter protestors.
Regardless, both groups had the right to be there.
Both groups had the right to speak.
Neither group had the right to initiate violence against the other.
You spray labels onto things and think that the emotional content of the labels changes the facts.
Far right thugs, far left thugs – what is the difference ?
From what I could tell the marchers came postured for defense.
They came in an approximation of police riot gear.
Are you saying that the police who they were emulating are far right thugs ?
That when the police come to a riot with shields and helmets that they do so inorder to beat the crap out of people ?
Further you have labeled these people as white supremists and KKK, and nazi’s.
And probably some are.
But their racial rhetoric what pretty much patterned after that of BLM.
I do not personally care what they said. They are still free to say it.
But in 45 min of videos that I listened to the only words that I heard that were overtly racist or misogynistic, or homophobic was when an SPLC agent got violent with one of the marchers they called him a fag.
You are conflating multiple issues.
The first – my response to Ron – we can not erase our history. Not the good, not the bad, not the mix.
We should remember our heros – and we should note their clay feet.
With respect to the public(government) use of civil war symbols. Such as the Lee statue.
That is a political question. In this instance one that should be decided by the voters of charlottesville.
outside of government if you wish to paint confederate flags on your car or carry nazi flags – that is your business.
The rest of us will likely use those symbols to conclude that you are a racist asshole to be avoided – probably a wise conclusion.
A major part of my conflicts over you on many things is that you seem to beleive that once you can conclude someone is an asshole – legitimately or not.
That their rights disappear.
What I saw in Charlottesville yesterday was lots of angry white men (and a few women), marching.
I did not see a KKK march, a NeoNazi march, a antisemetic march, a …. march.
Likely some, even many of those marching met some of those characterisations.
But they did not choose to label themselves that way as a group.
While those in the antifa and BLM groups did.
You and the media chose to label one group and not the others,
and you chose to make your judgements based on the labels not on the actions.
Lets take this to the extreme – what if the march had real nazi’s in real uniforms,
are they not free to march ? Are they not free to speak ?
Are they not free to speak vile and offensive words ?
If violence breaks out – regardless of the cause of who initiated it – does that automatically terminate the free speach and free assembly rights of the hated group ?
You do not even grasp that you and the media chose to label these marchers – you chose to hate them. You do not even know what they said.
did NOT believe in general as a group that slavery was evil
“did NOT believe in general as a group that slavery was evil”
Can I buy a noun ?
Who did not beleive that ?
The confederates ?
The marchers ?
Aside from what they have said – how is it you know what others beleive ?
And Gardner echoes Rubio
“Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists”
And now Cruz is on the train.
( wanna bet Dufus Donnie has second thoughts, fast)
“Trump Fails to Condemn Charlottesville Racists Think about the way Trump reacts to things. After the bombing of an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, President Donald Trump called the perpetrators “evil losers.” It was a very Trumpian formulation, but one that seemed strangely appropriate, even insightful. “I won’t call them monsters because they would like that term. They would think that’s a great name,” Trump said. “I will call them from now on losers because that’s what they are.” And remember when Donald Trump was a candidate and he was confronted by reporters about David Duke endorsing him. Trump got strangely cautious. At first he said he didn’t know anything about Duke. Later, cornered again, he just said “David Duke endorsed me? O.K. All right. I disavow, O.K.?.” He later repeated it, “I disavow.” White nationalist Richard Spencer, then enjoying a kind of media tour, was pleased by the vagueness. “There’s no direct object there,” Spencer observed, “It’s kind of interesting, isn’t it?” This weekend in Charlottesville Richard Spencer organized his “Unite The Right” march. David Duke was there too. Fights broke out between the demonstrating racists and the people protesting them. A motorist driving a Dodge muscle car rammed into a group of anti-racist protestors, injuring several and killing at least one. Even if you believe as I do, that Spencer’s form of white nationalism is a marginal movement granted far too much attention, the sight of hundreds of unmasked young men marching through Charlottesville with torches and chanting racist slogans inspires genuine fear in many Americans. Trump was given a chance to speak to that fear today, and to offer the same moral condemnation and deflation he’s given others. Instead he essentially repeated his disgraceful half-disavowal of Duke. He refused to call out these white supremacists by name, and condemn them. He merely condemned “all sides.” An energetic law and order president who had any sense of the divisions in his country would have announced today that he was instructing his Justice Department to look into the people in these groups, and zealously ferret out and prosecute any crimes they turned up. This is a target-rich environment. Some of these scummy racists in Charlottesville wore chainmail, others went around shouting their devotion to Adolf Hitler. A president with Trump’s intuitive sense of depravity should be able to call them what they are: evil losers. More pathetic: evil cosplayers. Just as Spencer took Trump’s “I disavow” without a direct object to be a kind of wink in his direction, surely he’ll take today’s statement about “all sides” as another form of non-condemnation. With his performance today, Trump confirms the worst that has been said about him. He’s done damage to the peace of his country. What a revolting day in America. ”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450435/trump-fails-condemn-charlottesville-racists
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
We see where socialism leads in Venezuella and Cuba, and the USSR and …..
How many on the left “disavowed” Bernie Sanders ?
I am sure I can find worse examples than sanders.
But this is a standard left wing political game.
Go find David Dukes and find out who he has endorsed and then embarrass them with his endorsement.
Dukes and spencer would be meaningless unknowns if the left did not constantly raise them up as boggeymen.
Do we go query angela davis or Bill Ayers to find out who they endorsed so that we can compel democrats to disavow them ?
I specifically used Sanders – because allthough he is far higher profile than Dukes.
He is not less dangerous.
Duke and spencer are not likely to ever amount to much in the future.
Once upon a time Duke ran for president – who knows that ?
Duke was a democrat until 1989.
Who does not know that Sanders did ?
Dukes is unlikely to every hold high office – Sanders does.
It is in theory possible Sanders might actually get elected president.
Unlikely I hope, but possible.
Chavez was elected – and the people of Venezeula had the same kind of hopes for him as Sanders supporters have for Sanders.
Those of you on the left seem to think that evil must come wearing a hood.
that good intentions are more important than blood spilt.
How did that work in Venezuela and Cuba, and the USSR ?
So if Trump is do disassociate himself from every disreputable person who endorsed him,
why haven’t democrats disassociated themselves from Sanders ?
In fact why moving forward are they doubling down on socialism ?
Did I miss something and it is actually working in Cuba or Venezeulla ?
Did I miss where Chavez made promises and advocated for policies that were different from those of Sanders ?
I do not expect democrats to disavow Sanders.
I am just pointing out that all this why doesn’t trump mouth exactly the words I want him to stuff is just stupid hypocritical nonsense.
“It is not the responsibility of the president of the United States to make specific statements every time a gang of KKK cretins marches up and down a town square. I fear that we’ll never be rid of such people, and in normal times our political leaders are so far removed from hateful movements that no reasonable person could believe they had the slightest sympathy for that kind of vicious bigotry. But today was different, the alt-right movement is different, and this president is different. Today, a person died. A car rammed into a crowd of left-wing protesters, sending bodies flying across the street. I won’t embed the footage, but it looks horrible, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it was intentional. The car rammed the crowd at speed, backed up, and sped away. This horrific incident capped a day of street brawls after hundreds of alt-right activists, neo-Confederates, and outright Nazis marched together to express and defend their “blood and soil” white nationalism. It was a disgusting and reprehensible display. It would be much easier to write off this small band of racists if they weren’t also part of a larger alt-right movement that was responsible for an unprecedented wave of online threats, intimidation, and harassment throughout the 2016 campaign season. Journalists, writers (including me and my family), and ordinary citizens were targeted with obscene and threatening images, racist messages, “doxing,” and sometimes promises of physical violence — all for the sin of criticizing Trump. Violence then started to spill into the real world. A man wielding a sword hunted and killed a black man in New York City. A member of an “alt-Reich Nation” Facebook group killed another black man in Maryland. A man opened fire on two immigrants at a bar in Kansas, killing one. A white supremacist in Portland murdered two men on a train who intervened when he harassed a Muslim and her black friend. And that’s not an exclusive list. Meanwhile, the online hate campaigns roll on. Incredibly, key elements of the Trump coalition, including Trump himself, gave the alt-right aid and comfort. Steve Bannon, the president’s chief strategist, proclaimed that his publication, Breitbart.com, was the “the platform for the alt-right,” Breitbart long protected, promoted, and published Milo Yiannopolous – the alt-right’s foremost “respectable” defender – and Trump himself retweeted alt-right accounts and launched into an explicitly racial attack against an American judge of Mexican descent, an attack that delighted his most racist supporters. In other words, if there ever was a time in recent American political history for an American president to make a clear, unequivocal statement against the alt-right, it was today. Instead, we got a vague condemnation of “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” This is unacceptable, especially given that Trump can be quite specific when he’s truly angry. Just ask the Khan family, Judge Curiel, James Comey, or any other person he considers a personal enemy. Even worse, members of the alt-right openly celebrated Trump’s statement, taking it as a not-so-veiled decision to stand against media calls to condemn their movement. America is at a dangerous crossroads. I know full well that I could have supplemented my list of violent white supremacist acts with a list of vicious killings and riots from left-wing extremists – including the recent act of lone-wolf progressive terror directed at GOP members of the House and Senate. There is a bloodlust at the political extremes. Now is the time for moral clarity, specific condemnations of vile American movements – no matter how many MAGA hats its members wear – and for actions that back up those appropriately strong words. As things stand today, we face a darkening political future, potentially greater loss of life, and a degree of polarization that makes 2016 look like a time of national unity. Presidents aren’t all-powerful, but they can either help or hurt. Today, Trump’s words hurt the nation he leads.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450433/alt-rights-chickens-come-home-roost
How old are you Roby ?
40 years ago the actual KKK marched through my town.
My NORTHERN town. A couple of hunderd of them – in hoods.
About 20 min from the city there were regular KKK gatherings, and cross burnings.
I beleive there might have been 1000 people at one rally.
The Alt-Right – regardless of its problems is not the revival of the KKK or american nso-nazis.
If you think so than maybe you should actually read what read KKK members and NeoNazi’s said and did 40 years ago.
There is alot of backlash in this country today.
That is what I keep trying to get through to you.
When you call people “hateful hating haters” – guess what – they hate you.
Strange how that works.
When you hate people – they hate you back.
The Alt-Right is not the rebirth of the NeoNazi’s and the KKK, it is the extreme edge of the backlash hatred that the left has created by calling half the country hateful hating haters.
I am not trying to excuse the Alt-Right, just note they are YOUR child, not the rebirth of the KKK.
We have had 9 months of antifa and several years of militant and occasionally violent BLM. Did you not expect a response from the extreme right ?
Wow! Memembers of the alt-right celebrate Trumps statement.
Well we can not have that.
God forbid!.
American is getting more dangerous all the time.
But get a clue – the violent right is arrising because to the left’s violence and hate.
Trump condemed violence, you, yourself have conceded there is violence on the left.
Regardless, I am not particularly worried about the white wing extremism that has you freaked.
I hope there is no more in the future, but we have been lucky to get this far without any of consequence. but likely there will be more.
But the right wing extremists you are worried about are not going to overthrow the government, they are not engaged in a soft coup.
The extreme right rarely manage to get national attention -except when the left draws everyones attention to them.
The extreme left shows up in our news rooms everyday.
The extreme left is way too large a part of the left today.
When you can compare David Duke to Stephen Colbert or Kathy Griffith or Madonna, there is a real problem ON THE LEFT.
“I know full well that I could have supplemented my list of violent white supremacist acts with a list of vicious killings and riots from left-wing extremists – including the recent act of lone-wolf progressive terror directed at GOP members of the House and Senate. There is a bloodlust at the political extremes.”
I appreciate that you said that.
To that I would add the daily onslaught in many of our inner cities. At the mid-way point of 2017, there had already been 323 dead in Chicago violence. 323. Chicago alone. Only halfway through the year.
I think Trump’s general statement about hatred and violence on all sides is PERFECT.
Otherwise he’d be a victim of manipulation by media prejudice.
The big failure in Charlottesville today was of law enforcement.
Freedom includes the right of people to speak hate – the left does that all the time.
Either we must be able to trust that those who protest those speaking hate are not so hete filled and prone to violence themselves that we must keep the two separated,
or it is the job of government to provide each group the opportunty to speaks as it wishes without fear or violence – no matter who wants to start it.
I would also note that the government of Charlottesville is democrat – as are pretty much all the cities in this country that are filled with violence – whether that violence is political or just criminal.
Roby wants to decry all these purportedly violent alt-right types.
Alt-Right is BTW as far as I am concerned just another concoction of the left to manufacture a group to hate.
I have not been able to figure out who the alt-right actually is.
According to the Media Milo Yanopolis is alt-right. But milo has repeatedly denied this.
According to the media Breitbart is a den of the alt-right – yet they deny that.
They are purportedly all antisemetic too – despite Breitbart having a large number of jewish editors.
Probably there is someone out there that actually owns to being alt-right.
Possibly there is some alt-right manifesto.
But I have not seen either.
What I have seen is some of the crap from today.
An effort by the left to try to paint the largest possible portion of the right into anti-semites, racists, white supremesicts and neonazis.
We saw some of this with the recent Google memo.
According to the press Damore is a racist, mysoginist, vile antidiversity bigot engaged in hate speech
This is the start of the memo
“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes”
And here you can read the whole thing.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html
You can agree with Damore, disagree or whatever, – he has a phd in research biology and several experts have confirmed the data and studies he cites.
But if you beleive google and the media he is best buds with Richard Spenser.
Everyone who offends the left is “alt-right” racist, mysoginist, hateful hating haters.
Does anyone wonder why things are getting more violent ?
Why are we not seeing the latest inner-city killings? What about the affected families? What about the neighbors? Not interesting enough? Too commonplace? Bah. Try not to get sucked in to the incredible media bias. Speak out against violence and hatred from all extremes.
So if at a march organized by Muslim extremists who had a history of preaching the replacement of our legal system with Sharia, who arrived with anti-Semitic and anti-Christian slogans on their clothing, many armed with guns and swords and in combat gear, and one of them attacked a group of counter protestors by crashing his car into them, we should condemn both sides for inciting violence?
,
With respect to your counterfactual:
Were the counter protestors similarly armed ?
Was the only confrontation that occured that day the car crash ?
Were several of the groups of counter protestors themselves well known for violence and There own particularly forms of racism and extremism ?
We can address this as a whole – but if you want to address it as a whole – you have to take the whole as it is, or we can fixate on parts, but then we must limit our conclusions just to that part.
Crashing the car into people was a very serious crime.
It is possible that evidence may emerge that makes it arguably an act of terrorism.
But that is not established from what I am aware of right now.
Are “Muslim extremists who had a history of preaching the replacement of our legal system with Sharia, who arrived with anti-Semitic and anti-Christian slogans on their clothing, many armed with guns and swords and in combat gear,” allowed to march ?
Are they allowed to say hateful and vile things ?
Are they allowed to defend themselves if attacked ?
Do we presume that if they march because they are loathsome that any violence that occurs must be their fault ?
For real Jay – would you assume that if an islamic group marched int he US (armed or not) and violence errupted – that it was the islamic group that was at fault ?
I think that the marchers expected violence – and prepared for it.
I think they were justified in expecting violence and preparing for it.
I have no clue who started the violence. I do not think I care much.
Because MOST of the counter protesters came expecting violence and prepared for it too.
I am sure there were some innocents in Charlottesville today.
But I am not assuming because you marched you were guilty and because you counter protested you were not.
As I said before – as far as I am concerned the big fail here was a government failure.
Find your protest with armed muslim extremists – and I will fully support their right to march.
And I will probably be in the counter protest crowd.
And hopefully the police will do their job properly and the two groups will nto be able to get together and become violent.
I want to distinguish between the legal and the moral.
I have no idea who legally incited violence today.
I think violence was so easily forceable under the circumstances that the big fail is on the part of the police and that much of the rest of the violence can not easily be sorted by culpability.
I think the car crash is a clearer independent issue – there is just no justification for it.
But it is still one part of far bigger events.
But morally is different from legally.
First individual as always morally responsible for their own actions.
If someone calls you a f$$king asshole and spits in your face – you still can not slug them.
But calling someone an F$$ing asshole and spitting in their face – is morally repugnant and I am not going to have much sympathy when you get slugged.
I have been noting over and over here that the hate and intolerance rhetoric of the left is extremely dangerous and immoral.
If the right responds to it with violence – they are most likely not justified.
I say most likely – because I would suggest reading the declaration of independence.
when government becomes lawless, violent overthrow is justified.
Our government has been lawless for a long time – both the left and right are culpable.
But it is growing increasingly lawless – and much of that is the responsibility of the left.
You are pressing hard to find a way to destroy Trump,
You are praying that Mueller comes up with something for you.
You are bending the law into a pretzel with most of your arguments of lawbreaking.
All of this is lawless.
You do not seem to grasp how dangerous this entire thing is for the left.
If Mueller falls short of proving Trump/Russia collusion that altered the outcome of the election – an impossible task. The left risks an incredibly violent backlash.
Even if Mueller comes up with some nonsense like the scooter libby crap.
The political consequences for the left could be really bad.
You play these majoritarian games – when it suits you and are completely clueless as to the power of dedicated minorities.
The american revolution only had the support of about 1/3 of colonists – but it was very strong support.
We are witnessing the selfrighteous indignation of the left at the moment.
I think you would be incredibly stupid to provoke the righteous indignation of Trump supporters.
You do not seem to grasp that the foundations of all government rest on the consent of the governed. You learned nothing from the collapse of the USSR.
I recall watching as one day the east german people decided that they were no longer the GDR and the government vaporized quietly peacefully with millions of people in the streets.
That is what happens when you are fortunate.
I also remember Prague Spring and Tienamen square.
I keep trying to tell you the importance of limited government.
One quite simple pragmatic argument is:
no matter who wins a democratic election if govenrment is constrained in its ability to use force that government will endure. People do not revolt, revoke their consent, because they have too much freedom, but because they have too little.
People revolt against the use of force. nto the failure to do so.
64M people voted to “drain the swamp”.
If Trump fails to do that – their anger will be atleast partly directed at him.
If you illegitimately prevent him from doing so – their anger will fall squarely on you.
You will have said their votes do not matter.
That if they play by the rules – you will change the rules if necescary to win.
You keep arguing with me claiming that what you want to do is legitimate.
You have not conveniced me.
But much more important – you must convince 64m voters.
If they beleive you have acted lawlessly – you are F’d.
When you play fast an loose with the law – you increase the odds you are perceived as lawless – and those 64m voters – they already do not trust you.
Those voters are not legal scholars but they are surprisingly good with basic concepts.
They may not understand the 4th amendment,
but they do understand that govenrment should not be able to investigate anyone just because they want to.
Over the past 8 years the right has gone from an incredibly disasterous defeat, to a tighter hold on the entire government of the united states at all levels than they have had for 100 years. They did not do this by gerrymandering. They did this despite being fragmented and fractured. The Tea Party is only had a minority part in that but they exemplify the issue.
The success of the right is because of the failure of the left.
Hillary lost in 2016 for all the same reasons that republicans slowly took over everything.
People are increasingly angry about govenrment. They increasingly see it as a failure
and they increasingly blame the left for that failure.
Part of that blame is for specific policies and laws.
But republicans have had plenty of their own failures.
But much of that blame is because you lied to them – and they know it.
ObamaCare is a symbol of that big lie, but the entire left social agenda is the failing lie and they know it. People want the lies the left has sold them. They still want SS and medicare and …, but they know they are a lie.
They are angry at the left because for all the failures of the GOP – big government is not the GOP’s lie. It is yours.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2017/08/alt-right-members-in-charlottesville-vow-not-to-back-down/536685/
So the title picture of your vile evil angry alt right in charlottesville shows a picture of a bunch of guys with body shields and helmets.
what does this look like to you ?
A bunch of guys expecting violent people to beat them ?
or a bunch of guys looking to beat people up ?
To me they look like a bunch of guys hoping, anticipating, spoiling for confrontation.
I observe them with the same contempt I expressed for armed BLM protestors in Ferguson flashing hateful anti white signs and logos on so called ‘peaceful’ marches.
Hate spewing Nazi adherents (seems that description fits the car crashing terrorist) should be condemned for those beliefs, don’t you agree? And a morally centered President should denounce them by name. Don’t you agree!
“To me they look like a bunch of guys hoping, anticipating, spoiling for confrontation.”
While you are engaged in mind reading. I tend to agree.
I have no problem beleiving that the marchers when to Charlottesville expecting a confrontation and violence.
That changes what ?
Martin Luther King and Ghandi expected – even provoked confrontation.
The only differences are that MLK and Ghandi had no intention of fighting back.
They sought to create the appearance that their cause was righteous by getting beaten up.
The Marchers in Charlottesville, expected that BLM and the antifa would attack them, and they prepared for that.
We may prefer the MLK/Ghandi approach, but self defense remains a right in the US.
This is also why the police failed.
The marchers wanted the antifa and BLM to attack them.
BLM and antifa were happy to oblige.
BTW the same BLM and antfa signs and shouting was present in Charlottesville as in ferguson
Hate spewing should be condemned – the president did that.
I have done that constantly here.
You seem to think there is some difference between the marchers and the left.
As best as I can tell the marchers spewed far less hate than the left.
Still no evidence of actual terrorism.
In my community about 9 months ago a driver fleeing the police T boned a school bus, rolled it and injured 40 kids.
That was not an act of terrorism – was it ?
Maybe this was. Maybe not. We do not know yet.
It is not like the driver used a gun and started shooting republicans.
If the president must denounce those engaged in violence by name in Charlottesville – that would be a long list and would include BLM and antifa.
Don’t you agree ?
Tech reporter for The Hill Taylor Lorenz reports that police believe the suspect didn’t intentionally mow down protesters out of malice intent. Lorenz reports that authorities believe that the suspect acted out of fear as protesters swarmed the vehicle, some allegedly acting violent. Taylor reports being punched in the face at the rally.
“Tech reporter for The Hill Taylor Lorenz reports that police believe the suspect didn’t intentionally mow down protesters out of malice intent.”
Dave, I know you are not a racist and far from it. What you are is more complex. You are an obsessive fanatic who never misses a chance to attack the left and who rarely misses a chance to defend the right, all of which traces back to your, in your own words “extreme libertarian” views on regulation, law, and government in which the right mostly shares your views. Your ability to twist everything to fit that narrative, that is, the left is terrible, monolithic, violent, the right is misunderstood, complex, generally good, not violent is amazing. If you had watched the video of the car speeding at the crowd it would be clear that the intent of the driver was murder, which he has been charged with. You twist everything into a pretzel anytime the subject can involve right or left. Its truly grotesque to witness. Why do I waste my time trying to ever reason with you? You have a truly twisted, distorted mind, not an evil one, but a twisted one.
Roby
Just starting your post with
“Dave I know you are not a racist…..”
Is in itself EVIL.
What I am is NOT complex,.
I am someone who does NOT tend to jump to conclusions.
Someone who actually checks the facts.
Someone who does not make assumptions based on their own ideologies or those of others.
BTW I do NOT universallly “defend the right”.
This claim that the right is consistently libertarian and and antigovernment is total nonsense. Though both sides bear some culpability, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the militarization of police, the destruction of our constitutional and civil rights – all of which continue right to the moment, are primarily the result of the right.
Are these examples of the limited government positions of the right ?
I really wish I could say the left stood up against them – but it does not.
We do not often discuss here those issues where I am strongly at odds with the right.
Further even when I am strongly at odds with the right – the left can not seem to manage to do better.
I am about individual liberty – for everyone – gay, straight, black, white, male, female,
I am for actual tolerance – not the fake tolerance of the left.
I am opposed to hate – whether it is the actual hate of racists, homophobes or mysoginists, or that of the left identifying everyone they do not like as racists, mysoginists and homophobes.
Regardless, I am consistently for liberty. I am consistently for actually moral conduct.
I am not here to “defend the right”.
But I am here to speak for liberty and to oppose the use of emotion rather than facts, logic and reason to reach conclusions.
I do not need to “twist” things to fit a narrative.
Government can pretty much be counted on to screw things up regularly without any help from me.
Charlottesville provides a perfect example.
The left is what it is. I have not claimed it is inherently monolithic or homogenous – but that it is becoming that. That is an observation not a conclusion and it is supported by facts.
I would be more likely to survive if I marched with the so called white supremecists and said you should not call people fags, than if I mached with BLM and said you should not call people racists.
Nor have I claimed the right is “misunderstood”. Only that is it often lied about.
That the left and the press make judgements based on emotion rather than fact.
I have watched the video of the grey charger in charlottesville repeatedly from several different cameras and absolutely nothing about the intent of the driver is clear.
That you think that intent is clear demonstrates that you jump t conclusions based on emotion.
Based on what I have seen I can construct a half a dozen possible scenarios – all with different intent, some of which lead to actual innocence.
I do not think it is likely that the driver is actually innocent.
But it is far from established that he was engaged in an act of terrorism,
or that anything about his “intent” is clear from the video.
Of course he was charged with murder.
First the police tend to deliberately overcharge so that they can force a plea down to charges that are actually consistent with what they can prove.
Beyond that even if the story reported that the driver was scared and fleeing is true.
This would still be a homocide.
Where you have recklessness and or negligence you often do not need intent.
Something Comey knew but refused to apply to Hillary.
But the driver of the charger is not going to get the same preferential treatment as clinton.
I would suggest the rather than badly analysing me – you should take a look at yourself.
You jump to conclusions, you see everything through the lense of emotion, and not fact.
Watch the videos of charlottesville, and reverse the labels for the groups.
Pretend that the purported white supremecists are say a gay rights group, and the BLM and antifa counter protestors are fascists.
To the small extent there is any difference in conduct between the protestors and counter protestors, it is that the protestors are more disciplined and more oriented towards defense than aggression.
You seem to think that we decide whose conduct is most reprehensible based on which sides beleifs appeal to us more.
We judge conduct by actions – not ideology or our guesses as to motives.
It would not matter if the marchers where there advocating for clubbing babies to death.
“Roby
Just starting your post with
“Dave I know you are not a racist…..”
Is in itself EVIL.”
OK, Dave, I’m sorry. I’ve tried, I really Have often tried to find a better light to put you in, to NOT make just a blanket condemnation of all your ideas, to find the good stuff in the weeds of your extreme views.
Its a wasted effort. You are truly a wack job. The driver of the car is a nazi, a far righty, a genuine racist extremist and he drove his car into the crowd deliberately to kill as many as possible. He did kill a beautiful young woman and critically injured 5 more and took out in total almost 20 people. For you its just another opportunity to show off on line playing what you think are lawyer games. You can’t manage to see his intent as he speeds toward the crowd utterly unthreatened by any nearby person? So What? Its pure classic Dave, but now you have become worse than I thought. I’ve also skimmed your other posts that say, among other crap, that the things the white supremacists were shouting were only mildly offensive, no worse than what the feminist marchers said. What disgusting drivel you produce (and I have NO love for radical feminists or their stupid slogans). No, you are not a racist, your are some other kind of nut, Your statements here make me ill.
There is a world of what I would call quite conservative political figures who aren’t having one word of your evasive rationalizing type of enabling bullshit this time. Because there is a lot that IS clear about this, starting with the mass descent of these wretched racist idiots on a town that did not want them. They brought shields because they were afraid someone would hurt them? Cry me a f******* river genius, they could have avoided harm by sitting home and watching baseball. The racists came from outside looking for trouble, its crystal clear to a huge list of people, but not our “logical not jumping to conclusions” Dave.
I have always said that the true far left, who have long disgusted me and scared me, are in a sick way fascinating because of the way that they start from good intentions and yet they manage to wind up being intolerant, hateful, even dangerous, generally disgusting. You are the libertarian version of that, you start from a word, freedom, and an idea that has good connotations and you twist its consequences until they are unrecognizable.
After ten years of your nutty extreme world I’m finally at the point of F*** you, your twisted points of view disgust me. I really did not want to get here, not at all, but you are one wildly twisted piece of work. You ruin all the respectable parts of your views with your absurd extremes. Just wretched.
No roby you have not tried.
All the accusations you make regarding me – hold far better for you.
You say I twist things, – I give you back your own arguments in a form that better shows their error.
I often find some of the rhetoric from you and Jay hillarious – because it channels that of Soviets and maoists.
Oh, the evil! Trump is guilty of not having “denounced” the right group quickly enough.
You really do not understand all the problems with saying “….. I know you are not racist”.
There are so many.
There is a presumption that if I was a racist – you could then ignore my arguments.
What is true is only true – if you are not a racist.
It also presumes that you have some right to judge the racism of others.
I do not care if you think I am racist. My self respect does not rest on your good opinion.
Probably why you seem to constantly feel it necescary to accuse me of arrogance.
You have worked incredibly hard to make being right in to a crime of its own.
“The driver of the car is a nazi,”
Unless you have information that I do not yet – we do not know that.
By jumping to that conclusion you demonstrate that you have no ability to think critically.
You might even be right. But that does not change the fact that you can not right now know whether you are right.
You are guessing.
Just as the left guessed about James Christian – who was of course are white supremecist and turns out he was just a schizoprhenic Sanders supporter.
“a far righty,”
and again – you know this how ?
” a genuine racist extremist”
and again you know this how ?
” and he drove his car”
I can agree with that
“into the crowd”
He drove down the ROAD, there were people on the ROAD, they were not supposed to be on the ROAD. He never left the ROAD.
It is wrong to hit people – even when they are in the road.
But it is not the same thing as you are claiming.
“deliberately”
and you know this how ?
“to kill as many as possible”
and you know this how ?
You constantly seem to think that you know what is in the minds of other people.
Dave.
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-james-fields-charlottesville-attacker-2017-8
Not sure where the Business Insider falls in the political spectrum, but thought this was a good article. He was a Nazi sympathizer and some comments indicate he was one of those young white male loners that migrate toward extremist views when they are not accepted by their social class in school. Would be nice to see what he was like in lower grade school before middle school and high school where friendships are established. Once in HS, making friends is harder and when you are not part of the “in” crowd, it is not hard for someone to migrate toward gangs or extremist groups like the Columbine shooters years ago.
Thanks Ron.
Slowly information is coming out as one would expect.
Some of it is confirming the beleifs of those like Roby and Jay, and some of it is not.
I try not to jump to conclusions particularly where there is no evidence.
The Jeremy Christians incident should definitely give people pause – I mean who would have thought that a drunk on a bus threatening everyone and spouting anti-immigrant rhetoric would turn out to be a sanders supporter ?
But mentally disturbed people do not fit political pigeonholes well.
I am sure we will learn more over time.
It is entirely possible this was a planned deliberate attack.
But the left has jumped to that conclusion.
Of course jumping to conclusions is the norm.
The marchers apparently came from many right groups.
Some of them are actual neo nazi’s and white supremicists.
Of course there was probably no one at Lee park – or whatever it is now called, that held views I would not find offensive, right or left.
But according to the news – everything was Nazi’s, white supremecists and the KKK.
I would strongly encourage people to listen to the Youtube videos interviewing these people – not the leaders, but the marchers. Because regardless of whether we like their views or not, we have to quit thinking of them as subhuman carcitures.
I honestly find little difference between the hard right people and those on the left.
They have different specific policies, but they both want to control the world.
I would also note that you can play whatever games you want, but today the largest demographic group that is doing poorly and going to do poorly in the future is young high school educated white males.
They have decreasing job opportunities, decreasing eductation opportunities,
Fields apparently has a dead father and a parapelegic mother.
Not a recipe for success.
Poor circumstances do not justify bad acts – not for young white males – not for anyone.
But we should expect that if the economic conditions remain the same so will other trends.
Regardless, I am far more worried about the left right now that the right.
Protesting the removal of Less statutes is not earth shattering.
Trying to upend an election is far more dangerous.
I do not doubt that if things continue as they are that the conflicts we see in Charlottesville will become more common, and more violent.
“You can’t manage to see his intent as he speeds toward the crowd utterly unthreatened by any nearby person?”
We have a very short clip of video.
We have no idea what happened before.
But you are certain you do.
In that clip he is proceeding down a street at about 30mph, towards the start there are few people on the road where they do not belong – and they manage to get out of the way.
as he proceeds he encounters more and more people and they are less and less able to get out of the way.
We have no idea what threatened him before or not.
All we know is he was moving way to fast and did not slow down until he hit another car.
But you are certain that you know all about him.
And his intents.
To me it seems the only reason he hit the car is because that crowd that was in the road where they did not belong prevented him from seeing that there was a car in the road.
BTW if the woman who died was ugly would that make it less of a crime ?
I have no problem concluding the driver was reckless.
That is obvious from the video.
That is all that is obvious from the video.
We will know more eventually.
We may find some of the things you beleive to be true.
But our future knowledge does not make your assertions any less guesses.
“I have always said that the true far left, who have long disgusted me and scared me, are in a sick way fascinating because of the way that they start from good intentions and yet they manage to wind up being intolerant, hateful, even dangerous, generally disgusting”
That would be because you are fixated on intentions – and not very good at assessing those.
They do not wind up being intolerant, hateful and even dangerous.
The intolerance and hate are baked it.
Nor are they a a unique attribute to the extreme left.
Working calls whites from Michigan did not vote for Trump because they were tired of being called racists by the antifa.
They did so because they were tired of being called racists by Hillary and you.
I would not be even the slightest surprised if I left here for long enough, you and Jay and Moogie would be saying good riddance to racist Dave.
You are sure you know what is in others minds.
I am not unclear about what I mean by freedom.
If you think I have twisted the meaning – then show me that ?
Is there such a thing as freedom, if it does not permit doing things that others find stupid, offensive or racist ?
I have clearly defined the limits of my freedom and yours.
I have as of yet to get any clear definition of most anything.
But you are constantly rushing to judgement on most everything.
First they came for the White Supremicists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a White Supremecist.
Then they came for the conservatives, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a conservatives.
Then they came for the moderates, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a moderate.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Grasping at irrelevan straws again, as is your custom.
If the police believed the crash was not intentional, why did they CHARGE HIM WITH MURDER!
Didn’t you see the video of the car, speeding ahead, without slowing?
Or once again, have you disregarded the evidence to manufacture rationalizations in defense of Bullshit.
Keep up the good work. History will judge you for the pompous ass you have shown yourself be.
I am not going to try to second guess the charging of the charlottsville police.
But some observations:
Intent is not necessary for a criminally negligent homocide conviction.
Only negligence or recklessness.
This is not a typical situation and I would be shocked if there are not significant political pressures involved.
The norm is that police tend to undercharge – sufficient that they can hold the suspect, and then add charges – usually to the point of significantly overcharging to improve their negotiating position for a plea bargain.
This guy needs an excellent lawyer and a plea.
Though he is not likely to be able to have any hope of fair treatment until long after the fervor has died.
He is going to jail and his life is ruined no matter what.
He has about zero possibility of a fair trial – no matter what the truth is.
Finally, though I can think of many possibilities – besides the left’s claim of a planned act of terrorism – if so, it was badly planned, there are very few possibilities where he is not culpable.
If as apparently he has claimed (and again we are working from hearsay), protesters surrounded his car and attacked him in it and he fled and then ran into people while fleeing. That is still criminally negligent homicide.
But it is not terrorism.
I watched the video of the vehicle – actually several different ones from several different positions.
I did not see anything that allows me to draw the conclusions you have drawn.
It is possible the driver’s intent was to injure people.
It is also possible that he was scared and fleeing and did not care who was in his way.
The only thing the video makes clear is that many people got out of his way, that some did not.
The video does not in any way make it clear why the driver was doing what he was.
I put up a bunch of videos from Charlottesville.
So you can see for yourself who was saying and doing what.
There are no obvious good guys here.
But there is alot of characterizations that do not coincide very well with the hyperbole of the media or the politicians.
I did not find the “White supremist” rhetoric any more offensive that that of the women’s rally in washington. In otherwords – both were mildly offensive.
“But there are a lot of characterizations that do not coincide very well with the hyperbole of the media or the politicians.”
Yep. Agree intensely. Amen to that.
Our maniacal media will turn a summer rain into a “violent storm” and “flash flood warning.” Yeah, well, creeks have been occasionally swelling up since Christ was a Corporal.
The Mass Media would scare me and anger me even more if it were not so often pathetically ridiculous. More and more people are realizing that much of our media is not a service, but a tool. It is unmasking itself. Hurray for that. Bottom-up independent reporting, with integrity and objectivity, not an agenda, will reclaim the public’s attention when enough people realize the current charade.
Yours truly,
Conspiracy Nut
The guy that drove that car does not represent the “Right”
The guy who tried to assassinate Steve Scalise, and the other GOP congressman does not represent the “Left.”
But, the rush by partisans on both sides, to smear and condemn the entirety of their opposition, every time that something like this happens, is what will lead to further violence.
My fear is that people are so fearful and dug in, that what we’re seeing now is the beginning, not the end.
“The guy that drove that car does not represent the “Right”
The guy who tried to assassinate Steve Scalise, and the other GOP congressman does not represent the “Left.””
Unfortunately we have a terminology problem. What do right and left mean, exactly?
I would say that those people DO represent the right and left, but it depends on my personal inner definition of right and left. For me, the terms long ago meant the lost souls who are fanatical about their liberal or conservative ideology who have become separated from the bedrock of decency and common sense.
While there was violence on both sides, this was a far right rally and it was a far right guy who speed his car at the crowd. We are missing many details so I won’t go any further than that.
trump, who is so outspoken, so quick to lash out, will not lash out at the far right with any passion (or at putin). Its beyond odd, its a problem, not a small one. Watching some conservatives admit this national problem head on while others try to rationalize one more trump thing, put one more trump behavior into some mild understated explanation is painful.
Trump is the American Mussolini. His followers, like Mussolini’s are a spectrum of the human condition, some bad people followed Mussolini because he was a bad man with bad idea and like attracts like. But many good people also got captured and rationalized their way to following him.
At what point do the good people wake up and ask themselves how they ever got into this and took it so far from their previous ideals?
The guy that shat scalese does “represent” the extreme left.
The press did not jump to conclusions on that event and I do not think to this moment identifies him as a terrorist. Regardless, ultimately his motives and affiliations were determined. At the same time like most of the people who do these things – he was a disturbed person whose mental problems took refuge in an ideology.
Presuming that what is being reported is true – the driver over the charger is likely associated with the right. Aside from his identity, there is atleast one picture of him in the protests.
There is atleast on story from the police that he paniced when protestors started beating on his car. That he was not engaged in an intentional act.
If true – that is going to be of little help to him.
Sessions has already dispatched the DOJ to go after him for civil rights violations.
By the time prosecutors are done with him, he will not recognize himself.
I would also note because the analogy is instructive that he is in serious trouble no matter what – even if the panic story is true.
The least I can see that he will be convicted of is whatever virginias equivalent of homocide by vehicle is.
It does not matter what his intent was – recklessness or negligence are sufficient.
Just as recklessness or neglegence were all that were required to charge and convict Hillary of 18cfr793(f).
@ Priscilla, 9:06
Yup.
“Our maniacal media will turn a summer rain into a “violent storm” and “flash flood warning.” Yeah, well, creeks have been occasionally swelling up since Christ was a Corporal.
The Mass Media would scare me and anger me even more if it were not so often pathetically ridiculous. More and more people are realizing that much of our media is not a service, but a tool. It is unmasking itself. Hurray for that. Bottom-up independent reporting, with integrity and objectivity, not an agenda, will reclaim the public’s attention when enough people realize the current charade.
Yours truly,
Conspiracy Nut”
Pat, you have an obsession. From where I sit your ironic self label has a large grain of truth in it. Whatever happens, the interesting thing to you is that you hate the media. Before you protest my word “hate” consider your word “maniacal”.
While not being as wordy you are as obsessive and single minded as Dave is and you similarly twist everything to fit your “maniacal media” view to explain events.
People like Ted Cruz, Orin Hatch, they are singing the same song about naming the evil of right wing racism that the media so offends you by singing today. Maybe its a good song. Maybe you should stop and think that the song has actual merit. David Duke believes that trump is on his side. The Alt right believes that trump is winking at them. Would it be presidential and a generally excellent idea to squash that like a bug? And yet, for you, that does not appear to be an interesting question. You are so far into your adoration of trump and hatred of the media that you have lost yourself. Its scary to watch.
You are proud to be on the same side of some issue as Orin Hatch and Ted Cruz ?
Frankly I am surprised that Trump has not jumped into this nonsense of making decisions based on emotions too. But thus far he has not.
Regardless, there is no upside for politicians on the left or right to not joining the left and the media on this issue.
Passions are inflamed and large numbers of people have made up their minds absent much in the way of evidence.
I bet you would have dismissed the ‘government media’ responsible for this anti fascist film as an irresponsible propaganda tool. You would have defended the speaker, with the same mistaken rationalization you defend tRump now
https://twitter.com/omanreagan/status/896563796071731201
I find your offering that film Hillarious.
The audience finds no problem with the hate and intolerance of the speaker until that hate and intolerance is directed at them.
You do not seem to understand that YOU are the modern fascists.
You lost the last election because far too many people grasped that YOU hate them.
These marches in Charlottesville would not be occuring – accept that those thousands of marchers are upset because YOU hate them.
You do not get that the strongest fountain of hate in america today – is the left.
Anyway the clip was good.
As I think about this more the degree to which people have jumped to conclusions is incredible.
The odds are many of those jumps are correct or partly correct, but they still are speculation, and have been framed as fact.
The marchers have been identified as anti-semites, neonazi’s, white supremecists, KKK and alt-right.
Because in thousands of protestors there were some confederate flags and two nazi flags.
And I guess because David Duke and Richard Spensor spoke to them at one point.
The car incident is identified as an act of terrorism by the white supremists.
This was the claim BEFORE the driver was identified.
To my knowledge the driver has not been formally connected to the marchers.
Again he probably is related to the marchers – because it is more likely that a white late 20’s male from ohio with a beard who was formerly in the military is from the marchers that from the antifa or BLM – assuming the identification of the driver is correct.
But all we actually know is that a dark colored dodge drove though crowded streets at high speed, hitting people who did not get out of the way and running into the back of another car when its path was blocked.
We have rumours regarding the identity of the driver as well as that he paniced when protestors started beating his car. But we do not actually know.
Yet the media, and the left, and lots of politicians including plenty on the right have jumped to conclusions.
While atleast some of those conclusions are likely to prove right, these are not things we know.
Trump immediately condemned the bigotry and hatred that led to this situation, which resulted in 3 deaths ~ 2 of them police officers, who were trying to maintain order as Antifa counter-protesters (who are communists) showed up to this rally with bats and began brawling with white nationalists (who are neo-Nazis). It was eerily similar to the last days of the Weimar Republic, with Reds on one side and brownshirts on the other.
Roby, I don’t believe that you think that the majority of the “right” ~ again, shorthand for those on the conservative side of the political spectrum ~ is made up of white supremacists. Just as I don’t believe that the “left” ~ shorthand for those who call themselves liberals, progressives and socialists ~ is primarily revolutionary marxists and/or anarchists.
I don’t recall demands that Obama denounce the BLM rioters who torched Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte and Dallas, and who marched through the streets~ and are marching even today~ chanting “no justice, no peace,” and “pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” Far from denouncing the murder of police officers, Obama invited BLM leaders to a White House reception. Did Obama ever denounce the Nation of Islam, La Raza,? How detailed would Trump’s denunciation have to be before a person like Jay would accept it? Answer: he would NEVER accept it. He is part of the problem.
And for how many years have Islamists been committing acts of terrorism, only for the media to write about how they are just “lone wolves” or crazy people, not motivated by ideology. We’ve been told that they are peaceful people, and it’s conservatives who are the deplorable Islamophobes.
So, I don’t think that it’s Pat or Dave ~ or me~ who are not seeing clearly, or obsessed with “the media.” I think that there is often willful blindness on both sides, but that media left-wing bias is real, and has been one of the many factors that has led to this. Has the breakdown of the family, the politicization of public education, the development of a political class divorced from the people, extreme income inequality coupled with declining opportunity, the breakdown of the rule of law, political correctness and the war on free speech etc. etc. all played a role? Of course. Is there still racism and antisemitism in this country? Yes. But the role of the media in stoking the fires of the cultural and political divisions in our society, ranks right up there.
It was not Black vs. White beating each other in Charlottesville. It was not Democrats vs Republicans beating each other. It was not Conservatives vs. Liberals beating each other. It was political extremists, mostly young white men, who have been radicalized in the same ways that all extremists become radicalized….through propaganda that demonizes the opposition as evil, promotes violence as the only answer to poverty, unemployment and social ills, and encourages a level of angst and frustration that can only end in people truly hating their countrymen.
We’d best not buy into the lie that this is about Trump.
Whose rally was it? Was it a communist rally? Who killed the young woman and critically injured 5 others, was it a communist? I’m not buying the evasions and neither were a long list of conservative politicians with some conscience and sense of decency this time. My hat is off to them. My hat is not off to the POTUS who evaded saying the dreaded words. There are always a million ways to rationalize trump yet again, its all it its rationalizing. Its not going to convince me.
In truth, after trump was elected you (and Dave, who has yet to stop) were all over the left for being violent, few if any weasel words were used over my constant objections, I contested that with you over and over, blanket statements about the left, about college students. Now the rhetoric is suddenly much more careful when the right acts up. Uggg! I’m not fooled.
I despise the anarchists, the violent far left and I have never made any attempt to spare them, I want them stopped. I even admitted upon watching video that the Berkeley rioters involved students. These left nuts exist, they are a scourge, they do nothing but harm to the much milder versions of liberal thought that I might sometimes subscribe to. (Dave will jump in here and tell us yet again that “the left” is monolithic and violent and scares him, unlike the much more innocent right). I’m sick of it Priscilla, sick to death of Dave, sick of the evasions on trump.
Why can’t trump and his enablers just come out and have at the white supremacists who descended on Charlotte with all the clarity that they had at the Mayor of London?
This is disgusting and Many, Many people recognize it.
Whose rally was it ?
It was identified as “unite the right” – a legal march by a number of different right leaning groups.
BTW why does it matter “whose rally it was ?”
People are allowed to march. They are also allowed to protest.
Who killed the young woman ?
The driver is beleived to be james alex fields jr. Possibly by now the police have formally identified him.
At this point he is not officially identified as belonging to any group.
It is likely that he was part of unite the right – based on his background.
But that is a guess, not something we know.
Are you saying all bearded young white men from ohio and formerly in the military are white supremcists ?
Looking at the video’s I can find bearded young white men in the antifa counter protestors.
What evasions ?
Suddenly you respect Cruz and Hatch ?
Are they going to be able to count on your vote ?
Trumps remarks were appropriate – the violence must stop.
Isn’t that the actual problem ?
You need to remove adjectives from your vocabulary, it would make it clearer to you that your remarks say nothing most of the time.
Does rationalize mean “not saying what you want me too” ?
No one expects to convince you.
From what I am able to glean the violence yesterday came mostly from the left.
And apparently particularly from Antifa.
There is lots of video – both of the groups engaged and inteviews before and after.
You can listen for hours.
I would suggest that you do.
Not with the objective of determining who you agree with or not.
But with the objective of determining who was civil or not.
Of course the violence on the left harms the milder form of left thought.
But more importantly it is only distinct in degree.
You speak hate and intolerance here, but I am not expecting you to throw a water bottle full of urine at people you do not like.
You say we have contested blanket statements about the left.
Sorry Roby the left has a view about the past election that REQUIRES them to hate the right to beleive that everyone or atleast very large portions of the right are hateful hating haters.
I have been watching alot of video of the supposed “white supremecist groups”.
I do not agree with them – but they are for the most part defensive, not offensive. Both in their actions and in their words.
You can listen to video of the antfa people – and the character is entirely different.
Frankly I can listen to YOU and you are more offensive than these “unite the right” people.
I do absolutely beleive the “unite the right” marchers went out with the expectation that there would be violence.
Not because they intended to cause it.
But because they know the left is out of control.
That all you have to do is show up with the intention of speaking on the right and you can expect that the left will react violently.
They did not expect the vehicle incident, and we still have to see how that plays out.
They also did not fully understand how the media was going to control the narative.
These groups have not yet effectively figured out how to reveal the left for the violent thugs that so many of them are.
They are at a vast disadvantage – because the media is so tilted.
When one speaker from the right results in a violent campus protest – it is very hard for the left to spin that – though they try.
But when a bunch of people from the right show up knowing there will be violence, but
prepared to defend themselves – it is too easy for the media to repaint the story.
Regardless, the existential threat to the country at the moment is the left.
The objective of the counter protestors was to silence the “unite the right” people – violently if necescary.
The objective of the left is to silence all who disagree with them.
So long as the left is committed to this identitiy politics – there is going to be violence.
A bunch of white guys who want to see a Roberty E. Lee statute remain – are not a threat to the country.
A bunch of white guys chanting
White lives matter, or you will not replace us
or
whose streets, our streets,.
or
Anti-white, anti-white
are no more a threat than a group of blacks chanting the same things/
Regardless, atleast some of us understand when the left complains about “white supremists” they mean anyone who disagrees with them.
I am old enough to have protested actual nazi’s and the real KKK,
and these guys are not that.
This country has lots of problems. Pretty much all of them are rooted in government,
I am prepared to disempower government – regardless of whether that maims some sacred cow of the left or the right.
I am not affraid that some unite the right group might try to hold on to a few Robert E., Lee statues.
The left has tried to hold tooth and nail to the abject failure of Obamacare.
YOUR treatment of any who disagree with you on that is no different than your treatment of these right groups.
Pretending that you distinguish between actual white supremecists and people who just disagree with you on PPACA is disengenuous.
When your argument becomes “people will die!” and the accusation is targeted at anyone who disagrees, you have lost any claim that you are not the extremists, and that your targets are only the extremists on the right.
I do not share the views of the marchers in charlottesville.
But I am more comfortable being falsely grouped with them – than with you.
They are less dangerous.
Priscilla,
I am not even prepared to conceed at this point that the majorith of the marchers were “white supremecists”
The marchers appear to be made of a number of groups,.
Some claim to be trade workers unions, some are confederacy groups. There were a few that self identified as white nationalists, but many who did not.
One marcher from the night before being interviewed by the SPLC was accused of being a nazi – and challenged the SPLC reporter to find a single swastika or nazi (there are atleast two Nazi flags in the march the next day), and was then accused of being anti semite and was told that this was not about jews or race and the protesters had no problems with jews or blacks.
There are claims that the antifa groups brought water bottles full of urine and feces.
That when the police did finally intervene they declared the march illegal and drove off the marchers but left antifa and BLM to take over the park.
“Far from denouncing the murder of police officers, Obama invited BLM leaders to a White House reception.”
Bullshit on the not denouncing the deaths of police officers. Its the bullshit alt universe distorted world of lies that far too many on the right believe today. God am I sick of it.
“I unconditionally condemn today’s murder of two police officers in New York City,” Obama said. “Two brave men won’t be going home to their loved ones tonight, and for that, there is no justification. The officers who serve and protect our communities risk their own safety for ours every single day.”
In response to violence in the St. Louis-area after the shooting of Michael Brown, Obama said: “There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.”
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jul/12/william-johnson/law-enforcement-lobbyist-says-pro-police-speech-ma/
I could do this with nearly every statement you make Priscilla. You twist things nearly as badly as Dave.
Priscilla, I’ve had it with this alternate conservative universe game. Conservatives who stick to reality, who don’t try to hide and somehow distort every event, I’m with those conservatives, I respect them more than ever. I am sorry, we have been through plenty, but flat out, you are not one of them. I am incredibly sick of the lot of you distorters and enablers. I am sick of this discussion, and sick of TNM, a giant waste of my time. GoodBYE!
Yeah, my feelings now too.
You Trump rationalizers are full of shit.
It’s a waste of time conversing with you.
History will judge you the same as it has other ideological fools.
👎👎👎👎👎👎
I agree that much of our exchanges are a waste of time.
Because facts do not matter to the left.
When you say “trump rationalizers” you make it clear in your world there is no instance Trump is not wrong. Whatever he says or does – wrong.
It is becoming increasingly clear that neither Trump nor the russians had a damn thing to do with the hacking of the DNC.
Not only that but that the claim they did was MANUFACTURED.
Not only were you told something wrong that you beleived,
you were lied to and you beleived.
So what happens to the Trump/Russia collusion story without the DNC hack ?
How is it that the evil Trump managed to collude with Russia to win the election,
if the two big factors in Clinton’s loss – her private email server and the DNC hack revealing that democrats and the press conspired to tank sanders both were self inflicted wounds ?
What is left of the Trump/Russia collusion is that either RT did it, or the Russians hacked voting machines.
How well do you think that is going to sell.
Rather than trying to alter the outcome of the past election – why not get a clue:
1) actually figure out why you lost.
And it is not because of russia
and it is not because you failed to sell enough free things to white working class males.
2) Come up with policies that actually work.
No one should ever forgive you for inflicting the harm of ObamaCare on us.
Try taking a class or two in basic economics.
Figure out that whatever you tax you get less of.
Do you want less investment ?
Whatever you regulate – you get less of
do you want less jobs and small businesses ?
3). Oppose republicans when they are wrong
There are plenty of things they are wrong about.
But you need to figure out how to oppose what is wrong rather than what is republican
4). Support republicans when they are right.
5). Let go of the indentity polictics and the hate rhetoric.
http://theduran.com/julian-assange-asks-us-said-nothing-obama-supported-ukrainian-neo-nazis/
Cruz and Rubio condemned the white supremecists and the response from the NYT is they are just posturing for 2020.
So Jay – why is it that anyone not on the left should rush out to do as you ask ?
One of the problems that many of us have with the left’s views on all of this is that
it is a game. It has always been a game to you.
It is the left not the rest of us that beleives that speach can be restricted – but it is only the purported hate speach of the right you want to restrict.
Trump is being condemned for not treating NeoNazi’s as seriously as ISIS.
Really ?
The ACLU is being condemned for supporting the free speach rights of Nazi’s, and one of the most respected Us professors of constutitional law is telling us that some speach should not be protected.
Richard Spensor is not a threat to our national security. ISIS and actual terrorism are.
It is never going to be possible for anyone not on the left to be taken seriously by those on the left, there is no good reason to try.
What is this some bizarre game left over form the USSR or Mao ?
If you do not denounce the right groups immediately you are evil ?
I have a great deal of problems with how the Obama administration handled many things.
But I am not interested in a stupid argument over whether Obama used exactly the right words to denounce something.
My problems with the obama administration are less with their words, than with what they did or did not do.
They used the IRS to target political enemies.
They used the intelligence services to target political enemies.
They engaged in a deliberate scheme to provoke a backlash against gun violence that backfired when they got caught.
The had the opportuntity to do something at the federal level about
asset forfeiture,
drugs
sentencing reform
immigration
police shootings
and many other similar issues
and they failed.
They either ignored the issue or acted lawlessly making things worse not better.
So your new approach is that my arguments are twisted ?
Still not an actual argument.
It is nothing more than hyperbole
arguments are refuted by facts, logic and reason.
Not adjectives.
Well they have probably found the driver’s facebook page.
and contacted some of his family.
He is definitely a republican and a Trump supporter.
He was part of one of the security groups for the march.
If you use a really broad definition of Nazi you might be able to call him a nazi.
But purportedly he was just a quite guy with a parapelegic mother whose father had been killed when he was young.
There are things that tie him to the extreme right but nothing to indicate that he is violent and no prior record of violence thus far.
If Bernie runs again, this should be included in his platform:
According to the studies I have seen in the US.
Those on the left have the least frequent and least satisfying sex.
While those on the right – particularly christian evangelicals have the most frequent and most satisfying sex.
So should we elect Pat Robertson ?
This is just a rehash – with alot more detail of what has already been provided.
But it is from the nation, and doubly damn’s the Guicifer2.0 story.
1). The files were not hacked over the internet.
2). What was provided by Guicifer2.0 as purported proof that he had hacked the DNC is forged and fraudulent.
QED
CrowdStrike is WRONG. The FBI is WRONG,
Assessments from the intelligence community are WRONG.
If they are wrong about something that they should have been able to get right because evidence existed – then why should we rely on any of the rest of their conclusions ?
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
It is interesting to compare how the clinton email 18cfr793(f) investigation – which was of an actual crime, was handled in comparision to the Trump/Russia collusion.
We have no grand jury, no subpeona’s no searches no evidence gathering in the clinton case where we have probable cause of multiple actual crimes.
In the Trump/Russia case where no one has yet identified an actual crime – we have a grand jury and no knock pre dawn raids (which used to be considered illegal gestapo tactics).
http://nypost.com/2017/08/12/comey-botched-the-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/
A pretty good peice on Charlettesville.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/13/notes-charlottesville-state-emergency/#.WZBpvNhMi-U.twitter
Someone earlier suggested that the Unite the Right marchers were local and the antifa and BLM protesters were outsiders.
I am not sure how much that matters, but the facts appear to be more complex.
Many of the Unite the Right people came from out of state.
Many of the Antifa and BLM counter protestors came from UVA.
There is even an argument that the prior night Unite the Right march through the UVA campus was a deliberate effort to bring out BLM and antifa protestors the next day.
Where people came from does not matter much to me.
Nor does the non-violent efforts by either side to provoke the other.
Both groups we free to wave their flags, to say whatever they wanted to say.
What they were not free to do is engage in violence.
Dave I said that based on the news conference and what Gov. McAuliffe said. I must have misunderstood what he said.
Doesn’t really matter. Both groups came looking for trouble and trouble occurred.
Does anyone know if the woman who died was part of one of the groups or just an innocent person in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I have read that she was part of the left wing group, but I don’t know for sure.
“Doesn’t really matter. Both groups came looking for trouble and trouble occurred.” For sure, Ron.
Absent actually doing something to bring about harm to yourself the status of the victims does not matter.
The can be violent communists – if at the time they were mowed down they were not engaged in violence, their status does not change anything.
Unless you wish to believe they threw themselves in front of the car hoping to be killed or injured.
The only way in which their status would be relevant is if they had been part of the unite the right march. That would make it more credible that the driver was not deliberately trying to mow people down.
Accept the part where Glenn suggests that there is some significant moral virtue that distinguished the extreme left groups from the extreme right ones I am fully in agreement.
a good article about partisanship by Derschowitz.
Also a good standard for evaluating choices.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/346307-opinion-dershowitz-the-partisan-shoe-is-on-the-other
Apparently in Seattle there is something similar going on.
Except that the police are doing their job and keeping the two groups apart.
The purported right group is peaceful, and the left group and the police have been constantly sparring.
Dave, this is something that I was thinking about yesterday, especially after Roby got so angry with one of my comments. Certain analysts were pointing out that many people were criticizing Trump’s critics by using “whataboutism,” that is, responding to every criticism of Trump by saying “What about Obama? He did this” or “What about Hillary? She did that.” The problem with whataboutism, according to these folks is that it’s basically a “2 wrongs make a right” argument.
And I generally agree that saying that it’s ok for Trump to do something, because Obama did it, or because Hillary would have done it, is a poor argument. And I have been guilty of making that sort of poor argument from time to time.
On the other hand, I think that the real purpose of bringing up Obama, in this case, is not to criticize Obama, or to say that, because Obama did something, it’s ok for Trump to do it, but to compare the media treatment of Obama and Trump, when they are doing essentially the same thing. So, after the Fort Hood shooting, and despite the reports by eyewitnesses that the shooter had yelled “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire and killing 13 soldiers, Obama said,
“We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts,”
And the media was fine with that. Just fine. But Trump came out and said,
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time.”
And he has been absolutely savaged in the press, called “unpresidential,” a tool of Nazis, and more……..
But, this obviously a double standard, the kind of hypocritical double-standard that is causing people to disregard media reports about anything Trump-related. We know that a guy mowed down some people with his car, and that one young woman has died. We know that it happened during the course of a riot between right- wing groups on one side, and Antifa and BLM on the other. What we don’t know, is why the driver of the car drove at these people. Was it a premeditated act of terrorism, did the driver panic, was it something else?
The DOJ will be investigating this crime to see if this was a premeditated conspiracy to commit domestic terrorism.
I am going to distinguish between legal and moral.
Our laws are supposed to be moral, but all morality is not the legitimate sphere of law.
Postive morality – what we SHOULD do, must be outside the scope of law and government. How can it possibly be moral to force us to do what we should do.
We should have a much higher standard of conduct (adherance to the law) for those in government. Whether it is Trump or Clinton or either of their minions we should expect that their actions as our agents should be subject to intense scrutiny and they should be held highly accountable. Regardless of party.
One party should never be excused for illegal conduct in a government role.
There should be no “whataboutism” with respect to the conduct of those who create and enforce our laws – from congress through to the police officer, more than anyone else they should strictly obey the law – regardless of any other ideological issues.
Reality is the exact opposite. Whether the subject is congressmen, presidents, whitehouse staff, or police on the beat. We can argue whether those wearing red shirts are worse than those in blue, But those in government should never behave lawlessly.
James Comey’s ridiculous non-indictment indictment of Hillary was a serious failure.
It was the government of men and not law that John Adam’s feared.
Prosecutorial discretion, lenience are for ordinary people outside of government.
They are not for those wielding the power of government over the rest of us.
The Trump and Clinton campaign’s conduct during the election is private – in the sense that it is conduct without the power of government behind it. It is public in the sense that it is the conduct of those seeking public office. The scrutiny and judgement of that conduct belongs to the voters. We get to decide which candidate smells the worst.
That is also a domain where “whataboutism” is not merely appropriate, but the norm.
There is or should be no legal standard for how (without violating normal criminal laws) a candidate gets dirt on their opponent – or even what constitutes dirt, or whether a campaign should be negative or positive. Voters get to decide those issues.
But the same conduct inside of government should always be criminal.
The involvement of the machinery of govenrment in the political process is or should always be criminal. Whether that is the IRS engaged in viewpoint discrimination, or the use of the national security apparatus for political spying.
Regardless of party – those are illegal and should be prosecuted.
There is no “whataboutism” for government conduct. It is either legal or not, and if illegal it should ALWAYS be prosecuted.
Dave, on this comment, I read all of it and agree with everything you said.
So I hope you will agree with me when I say this will never happen because people in power protect their own, no matter if they are dictators, communist, socialist, democrat or republican political leaders. As long as they have this power of protection, they will use it any time it is ever needed.
Ron;
You have just made the argument for limited government.
Whatever power we give government – and it does not matter whether that is left or right government, it will be near impossible to get that power back.
Even if government fails – as it usually does, or fails catastrophically, as if sometimes does.
It will take a holy war to get back power that government has used badly.
Apparently one of the next battles is the debt ceiling.
We are getting ready to go over $20T in debt.
To me, raising the debt ceiling is EXACTLY the time we should be discussing what we need to do to reduce furture debt and reign in spending.
If not now, When ?
Yet, democrats, many republicans and the Sec. Treasury want a “clean” debt limit increase.
More word games – “clean” is being used to imply “good” rather than evil.
My voice in what happens will be small.
But I side with anyone who attempts to do anything to increase the time before we have to do this again.
My vote is no debt ceiling increase absent congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment.
I have other serious problems with word games about “whataboutism”
Words are critical – they are how we communicate, they are how most of us think.
Frequently in the various debates issues devolve to the meaning and use of words.
Words can mean whatever we want them to. But when their meaning shifts with little reason we damage our ability to think and communicate.
Terrorism – is defined by us.
Is driving a car into a crowd the same as flying an airplane into a building ?
Does it matter if the act was planned or premeditated ?
Does it matter if it was out of fear or out of hatred ?
Does it matter if it was driven by ideology ?
We can define terrorism such that shoplifting is terrorism if we wish.
But if we do then we make it far more difficult to denote the significant moral difference between that and wearing a suicide vest to kill people on a bus.
Words matter, and those who intentionally bend and stretch the meaning of words harm us, and our ability to communicate.
What is alt-right ? What is white supremacy ? What is neo-nazi ? What is fascist ?
This weekend we had a “unite the right” event in Charlottesville,
We also had a “patriot prayer” event in seattle,
and we had a street protest in Richmond.
Each of these turned violent.
In Richmond the entire event was between confederate monuments and BLM and antifa groups, there were no “right wing” groups present at all.
Still reporters were beaten and people were arrested and damage was done.
In seattle the “patriot prayer” group went to great lengths – both long before and during the event to exclude neonazi’s white supremecists, ……
Their event was peaceful and respectful.
The media still reported them as alt-right, and white supremacist – even though there were many minorities among those present.
A few counter protestors managed to get into the event.
Those were rude and disrespectful – but not violent.
A much larger group of counter protesters – antifa and BLM were kept more than a block away by a very well prepared Seattle police force. Numerous attempts were made to circumvent police barriers. Assaults of officers occurred there was violence against police and many arrests,
Much about Charlottesville still remains unclear.
The march on Emancipation Park was a scheduled and permitted event.
The organizing groups were extreme right.
But the people who participated were somewhat diverse.
Many right leaning groups chose to not participate – because some of the organizing groups are anti-semites and white supremacists.
I spent time trying to learn who the marchers at Charlottesville are, and all I have been abl to conclude is – they are not the KKK, if this is white supremacy it is much tamer than when I was young, and that these people are not people I want as friends.
Regardless, the media portrayal of them as nazi’s and white supremacists is deceipt.
The police were out in force in Charlottesville – as were the national guard – throughout the event.
HOWEVER, they had been ordered to “stand down” – they were present, and available, but they did not get between the protesting groups. They did not intervene for several hours – until the city declared the event illegal, at which time the police and national guard cleared the marchers from Emancipation park – but did not clear the antifa and BLM groups who remained for the rest of the day.
During the several hours that these groups faced off, reports vary, but most have the antifa groups and BLM as the aggressors.
Further many of the marchers were armed – with guns, and yet there was no gun violence all day. There were several people in the media who were beaten – as best as I can tell all by antifa. Finally, prior to the police and national guard intervening, the primary group breaking up violence was an armed New York millitia group.
I started this with a discussion of words and meaning.
The media has a changing meaning.
There were myriads of people with video cameras reporting these events.
Some of these are affiliated with major media, some with local TV, some are freelance and some are completely independent – just reporters with blogs.
How this was covered seems to vary with who was covering it.
The violence against the media was targeted at the independent, freelance and local media. The “mainstream media” was more prone to characterize this as ‘white supremacist, KKK, and nazi”.
Depending on the media source the portrayal of the event was radically different.
Absolutely the press and the left are more interested in WHO than WHAT.
I have written alot about who “unite the right” is – and in the end I do not know.
In the press they are the KKK, Nazi’s and white supremecists.
And once those labels have been applied – the discussion is over.
But I thought that we allow free speech – even by those we hate.
That what matters is not WHO, but WHAT.
We have another label “antifa” that label is some how more benign,
In a conflict between “antfa” and “nazis” it is apparently obvious that we should be rooting for “antifa”.
Yet when we examine who antifa is – many of those are left anarchists, and violent communists, and other groups that explicitly argue for violent overthrow of government.
I hope we never have to actually chose between real nazi’s and real left anarchists.
Regardless, the choice is not obvious.
Regardless, I presume that nearly everyone protesting in charlottesville held views repugnant to my own. Still they are all free to speak, and my judgement should be of what they say – not what others say about them.
But the more important judgement is of what they do.
I would also note that both sides have been engaged in a political game of gotcha.
And as I think about it there are complexites I think we miss.
Those who have any position of authority over a criminal investigation should NOT be making strong statements that could shape that investigation.
It is one thing for the president to speak out about an act in another country – and call it terrorism, or to quickly condemn a strike against the US in a foreign country.
Whatever the president says should be tuned by our foreign policy and national security interests – not our constitutional rights.
When the president speaks about something in the US that is going to be a part of a criminal investigation, then his remarks should be much more measured.
That should be true whether the president is republican or democrat.
It should also be true of governors and mayors and DA’s and …..
In the twitter storm of the past day one meme that popped up was that of past republicans.
Apparently Trump was compared unfavorably to Dole who in his acceptance speach asserted that the republican party while inclusive did not have room for those who hate.
This was interpretted as a condemnation of NeoNazi’s.
I think that Trump’s remarks – have met the Dole standard. If not – I think it is reasonable to push Trump to renounce hatred.
But I think it is unreasonable and wrong to demand targeting identifiable groups – atleast not until there is strong evidence against that identifiable group.
Which brings us back to our use of words.
Is white supremacist or Nazi a label that fits the entire “unite the right” participants ?
This is important because the left, the press, and the participants use these labels differently.
The march in seattle was of far right groups – but of much different character.
They were being identified as white supremist, but the media and antifa
but they absolutely rejected that label for themselves.
The organizers of “unite the right” claimed that there were no nazi’s involved.
At the same time there were atleast two Nazi flags and purportedly atleast one group suggested their members bring nazi symbols.
I read a peice by Ben Shapiro excoriating the “unite the right” groups.
Much of what he wrote was pretty good, but alot was mostly an effort to make sure that people understood he was not one of them.
That bothers me alot. I am pretty sure that at this point Jay and Roby have decided that I have lost it and I am some kind of neonazi or neonazi sympathizer.
It used to be a value of the left that –
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire.
I was proud that the ACLU was involved in securing the right of “unite the right” to march. ‘
That is the ACLU that I used to know. That is the left that I can support.
But now most of those on the left think that some speach should be criminal and prohibited
And even people like Shapiro are so scared of being affiliated with some viewpoints that they come close to supporting criminalizing and prohibiting it in order to make sure no one confuses them with the hated group.
And I am sorry, but this is a tactic of the left.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
If we say “white supremacists marched in Charlottesville.
Then everything is done.
If there was violence – it must be them.
Or we can just presume violence.
We have followed alinsky and it is not necescary to deal with facts.
And we have been so successful that no one will say “now wait a minute – what are the facts?”.
This is back to the politics of hate that I beleive is a major factor in Clinton’s loss in 2016.
It is also likely a part of Trump’s reluctance to get specific about condemning groups at Charlottesville.
Because to the left and the media – everyone not on the left is a white supremacist, racist, nazi, hateful, hating hater.
Whether something is “terrorism” depends on the definition of terrorism.
Within my wife’s experience as a public defender I have seen within the law an organized effort – primarily by the right to criminalize more and more and to slowly convert minor offenses to capital felonies.
While this has been lead by the right, all too often the left is complicit or seeks to do the same with their own particular favorite form of misconduct.
The left – and far too many moderates here dance awfully close to at least believing that profit is a crime – or can be.
Sorry, absent the use of force or fraud all profit – no matter how large is moral.
The scale of profits are self regulating. If someone actually makes 1000% profit without force or fraud – others will move in quickly to compete.
The only legitimate means of regulating profits is competion.
But back to the topic – what is terrorism ?
If we define terrorism too small – then all violent crime becomes terrorism.
I would define terrorism as the organized use of violence to create sustained public to accomplish a political objective.
I think one element of terrorism is that those engaged in terrorism would likely call what they were doing terrorism. Actual terrorists want to be called terrorists – or atleast they want to be tied to their actions. They think their actions are heroic.
That is just my own draft definition. I am open to modifications and critiques.
I am just trying to make the point that words should have meaning.
And highly consequential words should be reserved for highly consequential situations.
It does not matter much whether we label Mr. Hill’s murder by vehicle “terrorism” or not.
If we do – then what do we call things that are much more serious ?
If we do – then how do we avoid calling every instance of road rage terrorism ?
As a life-long Republican, but the Rockefeller variety, I join other Reps lambasting those groups by NAME. I am not posturing for any election, but I am sending a message to fellow Reps that there are some deplorable people out there and most are the equivalent of soccer hooligans, skin heads and other blood thirsty and hateful groups. No, I’m not going to say “the other side also does it”. -Not this time-, because we have an a—– president, who unlike Obama (I didn’t like him, BTW) is stupid and venal; that’s the difference, Trump is not a politician, he is a wanna-be Nero.
For the past couple days this site has had none stop comments concerning the act of violence in Charlottesville Va. Although not a bad situation, why is it that three dead get us all worked up, the media spend hours covering the story and the talking heads talk for hours on the issue of racism and hatred. Then we have this:
http://heyjackass.com/
In 6 months, 406 dead (on track for 800 dead by year end) and 2300 wounded (almost 5000 by year end), some seriously. Could it be that society is racist and that is why we don’t hear the none stop coverage of this situation since the largest majority of these individuals are black and the woman run down in Va was white?
The problem in our society today is our attention is being dictated to by the media. Why is it that the media does not cover daily the murders in inner cities of minorities in America, but they can spend hours covering the murder of a white woman in Va.?
I don’t have an answer to that question since most of the media is very liberal and one would think they would want attention brought to the issues facing the minorities daily. But the fact that fighting breaks out between the extreme alt-right and the liberal opposition and one person is run over gives them a way to discuss the bad things about the right and the weak response of the president, while ignoring the issues in the inner city allows America to forget the real problems facing a huge percentage of our population today.
Ron, your comment made me think of a couple of things:
The situation in Chicago is brought up repeatedly by conservatives, particularly Second Amendment defenders, who point out that Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular have the toughest gun control laws in the nation. It was often brought up when Obama was president because he was from Chicago and his first Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel is now the Mayor. Deaths due to gun violence, domestic abuse, gang warfare, etc are off the charts, as you point out, and the thousands of victims are primarily black, often young black men. I never see anything about this in the media, even when, as happened last month in Cleveland, black church groups organize rallies and marches to raise awareness of it.
This whole subject of the alt-right continues to be a somewhat phony issue, created by the media. According to the Urban Dictionary, “alt-right” is “a curious term defined by the Democratic Party noise machine as meaning: Any non-Democrat whom the media can portray as a “white supremacist”, “racist”, or “extreme right-winger.” Current favorites include the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, etc” (and it points out that Nazis are technically socialists, not right-wingers, which I think is something that Dave has mentioned) There is no unifying alt-right ideology, it’s just a way for the media to conflate conservatism and Republicans with fringe extremist groups.
Thanks for that link ~ I haven’t seen that before.
Priscilla, I did not post those stats because other conservatives use them to support gun rights. They were used to show the hypocrisy of the left and how they put the camera on anyone not within their group, but when something sheds a bad light on them, they sweep it under the rug. How does two police officer deaths and one white female death justify hours of coverage, while 800 homicides and 5000 injuries get a few minutes, mostly local coverage.
So here is another example. Have to key in the exact right words to get info, while you can type “charlottesville” and get pages on it.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police/homicides/index.php?show_results=UPDATE+MAP&range=2017&district=all&zipcode=All&cause=shooting&age=all&gender=all&race=all&article=all
This ties in with my arguments about language.
And why 2016 did not play out as expected.
It is important to get past overused labels like terrorist, racist, nazi, homophobe, misogynist.
The labels allow us to avoid having to understand what is really going on.
However you label them – the “unite the right” groups came to Charlottesville for two purposes:
First to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue.
Second, with the expectation that various groups like antifa, and BLM were going to confront them.
They were engaged in a twisted form of MLK’s nonviolent resistance.
They were not intent on initiating violence.
But they were expecting violence and they were not going to be the ones hurt if violence occurred.
We can not like those purposes, but neither is an inherently evil purpose.
Further these are not people calling for revolution.
I keep arguing that the violence of the left at the moment is something different, something more dangerous.
The unite the right groups – were not there challenging the legitimacy of govenrment,
they were not challenging law and order.
They are not seeking extra legal change.
These were people who did not seek to get there way with others through the use of violence.
These were people who were not going to have their will subdued by the illegitimate violence of others.
I keep fixating on the current violence of the left – and their extralegal challenge to the legitimacy of government.
If things continue – it could well be the brownshirts vs. the red shirts in our cities.
But it is the red shirts that are driving this.
Yes, we are looking at clashes between the extreme wings of the left and the right.
Yes, antifa is not the entire democratic party.
But we are seeing too much of the country worried about the wrong group of extremists.
I will use your segway into guns to segway back to Charlettesville – and Guns.
Some of the reporting I am seeing is that the “unite the right” marchers were encouraged to bring guns to charlottesville for self defense.
Apparently a large number did. Yet despite violent confrontations and an absence of police interventions no one pulled a gun and no one was shot.
Atleast one story I read reported that the “New York Militia” – a far right group for several hours took on the role of police, separating the two groups from each other, and patroling between the two groups.
Ususally when I am noting the makeup of the right I am distinguishing between fiscal conservatives and evnagellicals and neo-cons and ….
But the “far right” whatever that is, is equally diverse.
Militia groups tend to be hyper constitutionalist, minarchists nearly to the point of anarchy.
The tend to leave people alone and want to be left alone.
They often get into trouble because they tend not to follow laws they do not beleive are constitutional and may not pay taxes.
Regardless, militias do not seek out confrontation. When militias are involved in violence – the government typically comes after them.
Groups resembling the KKK, or neonazi’s – as those groups would have been described when I was young, are very close to non-existant.
Yes, there are a small number of people who want to purge the country of non-whites – including jews. But these seem to number in the small hundreds in the entire country.
There is a larger body of “racist” groups – “white supremacists” Which more and more seems to be working class whites who oppose affirmative action or any other special preference because of race. That is the ideological characteristics of modern “white supremacists”. But they are not really that ideological. They are really more aggrieved and angry that an assortment of preferences and handouts are going to everyone else and not them. We can tell a middle aged while male professional to “shut the F’ up” about reverse racism and special preferences. But pretending that poor white males possess “white privilege gets a bit strained.
Anyway, these are not eloquent people. They are not getting ready to lynch people, but most of us are not likely to like what they have to say about race.
The Charlottesville mess also revealed a group I was not aware of – that I would call the cosplay nazi’s. These are apparently middle class white males – even from colleges or college graduates who get off on “playing” angry white men periodically – either online or far away from their homes.
The group in Seattle on Sunday seemed to be a bunch of evangelical Trump supporters having almost nothing to do with the groups that showed up at Charlottesville.
I did not see any evidence of KKK at Charlottesville. But politically the KKK has historically been strongly tied to progressivism. Virulently racist progressivism, but still progressivism.
Modern progressives tend to forget that the roots of progressivism are in southern racism.
Aside from the militias, most of these groups are NOT limited government advocates.
Nazi’s really are socialists. German nazi’s were white collar socialists.
I think modern american nazi’s are more poor white trash socialists.
Regardless, most of these groups have a view of the scale and scope of government that is closer to the left than the right.
These are also mostly groups that are incredibly authoritarian (again like the left),
and extremely respectful of authority – particularly the police and military.
It is not surprising that the left without conflict when they were asked by police and national guard at Charlottesville.
I would not be surprised if an unusually large portion of many of these groups are police officers.
The amount of noise directed at most any issue is disproportionate to the importance of that issue.
AGAIN – why to the extent possible, we should not involve government.
Free people are pretty good at using their own resources and values to shape their own lives to match their personal priorities.
Government is absolutely horrible at that.
I do not care much about statues of Robert E. Lee. I think that is something communities can work out on their own.
Though I would ask if we are going to rename Washington DC and Washington State because George Washington owned about 500 slaves.
In fact some of Washington’s slaves may have eventually become some of Robert E. Lee’s slaves – the families are directly related.
I do care about the right to free speach. None of us can presume a right to free speach if the worst of us are not free to say things that are repugnant.
I also care that the police in Charlottesville did not do their job – and apparently because they were ordered not to.
Ron, to your point, the literal carnage in our cities is horrific, and under reported. I would guess that even the local news in Chicago ignores many of these deaths.
And it’s the same with inner-city schools.Billions of dollars spent on public education, and kids are graduating ~ IF they graduate ~ without basic reading and math skills.
And poor urban families? The rate of fatherlessness is staggering, particularly among minorities. Among poor black familes, the percentage of children raised with only a mother, or a grandmother, is between 60-80%, depending on the study. And fatherlessness correlates to almost every social ill that we worry about.
You would be hard-pressed to hear about any of this in the media ~ maybe once or twice a year, when some study comes out. But we’ll read about Charlottesville for days, maybe weeks.
Off topic, Lil Kim has apparently called off his attack on Guam. Interestingly, on the day that the US was rumored to be invoking trade reciprocity with China. I guess there may be a correlation there……
Priscilla, it could be that NK looked at Trump and said “there is a good possibility that Trump will nuke us or t least use all the MOAB,s on us”, or China put pressure on them by saying ” your on your own if you attack”.
Whatever the outcome today, they will continue to develop nukes and then begin selling this crap to anyone that has enough money, including the taliban , ISIS and Al Quida.
We need to continue to pressure China to stop supporting NK and convince them to work to eliminate nukes in NK. At some point in isolation from all outside resources even the military will get hungry and move to overthrow Kim
Well said! This is precisely why I am running as an Independent. We are in this together and we must work to strengthen our communities – together.
Richard, where and for what position are you running?
Hey Ron –
Iowa House of Representatives. It is a suburban and rural district on the outskirts of the state capital, Des Moines. Check it out: http://richarddedor.com.
Shapiro has a very balanced piece in National Review today, in which he basically blames identity politics and racism on both sides for our current situation, and concludes that fringe extremist groups, such as Antifa and the Alt-right are growing in opposition to each other.
Despite the criticism that it was “too little, too late” for President Trump to call out the alt-right extremist groups by name, it’s important that he did it. He did not invite them to the WH for a reception.
As time goes on, he should double-down on this criticism, as he often does when he criticizes the media. The media deserves it, as does the alt-right.
And, if we are going to call this movement the Alt-Right, it needs to be continuously defined, in order to counter the Left’s unceasing efforts to smear all conservatives as racist.
Antifa, with its marxist and anarchist thugs needs to be carefully defined as well, because, right now, it is being praised by those on the left, just as Black Lives Matter, a racist hate group has been praised and given legitimacy by the Democratic Party.
Identity politics is tearing this country apart.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450462/antifa-alt-right-twin-cancers-eating-america
We need to get past this nonsense that EVERYTHING is a national issue and the responsibility of the president.
It used to be that there were few if any federal crimes. The federal govenrment has no general police power. The courts have absolutely ruled on that.
Unfortuntately the broad interpretation fo the commerce clause has ultimately lead them to a near defacto police power.
We need to get back to where nearly all law enforcement is local.
I am tired of this nonsense that somehow the president failed whenever anything went wrong.
While there are SOME things that the federal govenrment bears primary responsibility for – the failures that lead to 9/11 were not failures of the NYPD.
Protecting chicago is the responsibility of the chicago police – not the FBI.
Protecting Charlottesville is the responsibility of the Charlottesville police.
There is fairly good information that there were more than sufficient forces available in Charlottesville they just were deliberately improperly deployed.
Apparently in the KKK rally that occured about a month before the police protected the KKK from antifa protestors and several antifi protestors were injured while assaulting the police to get at the KKK. In consequence the police appear to have been ordered not to get between the groups.
I have a problem with demanding that politicians denouce everything in creation.
There is a legitimate complaint about Obama and terrorism – because a failure to identify terrorism is a failure to denounce the use of violence as the means to a political end.
Government is obligated to respect all of our rights – equally.
Our passionate divisions are not the business of government.
Our non-violent actions towards each other are not the business of govenrment.
Denouncing Nazi’s, the KKK, white supremecists, racists, BLM, Communists, Antifa – because of what they BELEIVE in, is our role as individuals.
Government is not there to police our beleifs. It is there to police our actions.
Crying out that some beleifs are repugnant is OUR job.
The current mess poses problems there.
When people were protesting the KKK and Nazis by marching with candles and speaking out and singing hymns – I was there. Those who were doing that on saturday deserve credit for their bravery.
Those engaged in violence are morally indistinguishable regardless of their affiliation.
The threat to society from various purportedly extreme rights groups is farcical.
The protest in Charlottesville were over whether a statute of Robert E. Lee remains.
The world does not turn on the outcome of that.
The extreme right groups were not seeking to resegregate busses and schools.
And had they been no one would have paid any attention.
The extreme right groups are small and inconsequential.
They may be entitled to our scorn but they are not entitled to much of our attention.
Amoung maybe 1000 white supremicists, nazi’s and KKK in Charlotesville
the racist rhetoric of most seemed to be directed at ending affirmative action and racial preferences. Not restoring white power and priviledge.
To beleive that these people are a serious threat requires not only believing that their views are worse than they express, but that they are the tip of the iceberg.
that they are just a few steps past the views of millions on the right.
That the right as a whole is thinly veiled Nazi’s.
The far larger problem is on the left.
The only way that I see a large violent movement from the right – is in response to a large violent movement from the left.
The purpose of Antifa and BLM at charlottesville was not to protest it was to silence – violently if necescary.
The antifa is today what the KKK once was.
More important, while those on the right are not the tip of some iceberg – those on the left are.
Many on the left – even here. Have little problem demanding that voices they do not like are silenced.
What happened in charlottesville should tall all of us that the millions of hateful hating haters that the left has been pummeling – do not even number 1000, and are just not the super villians they are being painted as.
The alt-right or neonazi’s or KKK or white supremacists
are not tearing this country apart.
Even antifa, and BLM for there far larger impact – are not tearing this country apart.
The real problem is the larger left. The left that is distinguishable from Antifa primarily in that they are not as of yet violent.
Here I am, late to the debate as usual. (I’m too slow a reader to even attempt to stay current.) Fear not: I’m about to start writing my commentary on Charlottesville, and it should be up there tonight or tomorrow morning. Let’s see if I can help us avoid a civil war, at least on this site. (Roby — come back, we need you!)
Yes, Roby. Do come back. I think that you and I can work this out (sounds like we’re getting a divorce, lol).
I think that the “fog of war” surrounding what happened in Charlottesville got us off track.
Rick, I would recommend you watch this video (it’s short, about 5 minutes). Gavin McInnes is a right-wing leader of a group called Proud Boys ~ he was invited to come to the Charlottesville event, to bring his group and to speak. He refused and explains why. He also identifies those people who he feels bear responsibility for Heather Heyer’s death, starting with James Alex Fields, of course……
I do not know much about your speaker, and I can quibble about some details.
#2 and #3 are in the wrong order.
The choice of the organizers to go through with the march is a complex judgment call.
If you say that the Unite the right marchers should have canceled because the left was going to provoke violence and the city was not going to stop it,
they you are saying that government can silence disent by failing to do its job and that you are going to blame those who wish to speak.
Gavin add’s a bit more information to the
Why weren’t the police doing their job ?
story.
I also have a problem calling fields a terrorist at this point.
That might prove to be true, though I doubt it.
There are now some slow motion analysis of the Dodge running into the crowd. These do not make a convincing argument that Fields was provoked.
However, the car was struck by a baseball bat BEFORE striking protestors,
and several of the protestors were injured when AFTER the original impact they surrounded the car and started bashing it with baseball bats and were thrown out of the way – one even getting caught between two cars as the dodge backed away.
I think that McInness is making the point that calling this protest “Unite The Right,” and making it seem as if its purpose was to preserve an historical monument was a lie. That this was always intended to be a platform for white supremacists, and that positioning it as something more mainstream was a way to deceive non-racists into attending. There are reports that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the rally, was an Occupy Wall St. leader as recently as November 2016.
I am against the tearing down of historical monuments. It is a very “1984” thing to do, by flushing the truth of our history down a memory hole, merely because that history offends some people. In the Smithsonian, there is a bust of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who was a racist eugenicist. The left has never asked for it to be taken down. But, now that we are tearing down monuments to confederate leaders, there are already demands to tear down memorials to all slaveholders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
Our history has made us who we are. Better to face it, to learn from it.
I speculate on other peoples motives – we all do.
But I try really really hard not to. It is a losing game
I frequently come across here as very very hard right.
Because TNM rarely discusses the issues that I am really really hard left on.
And because the extreme left has become so authoritarian that even where I agree on outcome, I am at war with them on means.
I think my views are easily understood and my positions highly predictable.
I could create an eliza like AI robot to respond for me in posts and it would be reflect me nearly all the time.
Yet, people here and elsewhere constantly get me wrong, get my intents wrong.
get my positions wrong.
I will be happy to speculate on the “motives” of the “unite the right” groups.
But I do not care much – it is their actions that matter, not the why.
As to my crystal ball ouija board view:
As I understand it a very small KKK group protested the Robert E. Lee monument removal in June. This resulted in a confrontation. In that confrontation the Police protected the KKK from the antifa, and there were several antifa arrests and violent confrontations with the police.
I think that the “unite the right” groups were very deliberately trying to create exactly the same result but on a much larger scale – one large enough to get national attention.
And had the police been allowed to do their job – that is exactly what would have happened.
Conflicts between the right (extreme or otherwise) and antifa – BLM always follow one of two patterns:
Either the police separate the groups – and those on the right act respectfully to the police and have no problems with them – and that BTW includes the KKK and Nazi’s.
And those on the left end up at war with the police
Or they do not – in which case we end up with what we had in Charlottesville.
On Sunday there was an Antifa protest against confederate monuments in Richmond.
There were no Nazi’s KKK or anyone from the right present.
It still turned violent and 15 people were arrested and reporters were beat up.
I think that all these assorted “right” groups – regardless of their particularly ideology,
know that all they need to do is show up somewhere and the left can be counted on the whig out and turn violent.
This is true of white supremecists, Nazi’s and the KKK.
It is also true of Milo Yanopolis, Ben Shapiro, and even Charles Murray.
As we have seen at yale and evergreen it is true even when the left speaks at odds to the extreme left.
I do think these guys care about the Robert E. Lee statute. I do think that is important to a small portion of these people.
But people do things for more than one reason.
There was a holy war over the firing of Comey – because multiple reasons were given and Trump deviated from the Whitehouse and DOJ.
This bothered the hell out of the left and the media.
And I think Trump did a poor job of clarifying.
But having actually hired and fired people – there is almost never ONE reason.
Though there is often a last straw. Comey was fired for many reasons.
The “unite the right” groups showed up at Charlottesville for many reasons.
So tactical, some legitimate, some despicable, some banal.
I think this was also a recruitment measure – and I suspect that as badly as it went, it still succeeded for them.
But the reasons do not matter to me.
What matters is that I value individual liberty – including the liberty to say stupid, repugnant, hateful things.
Overall my impression viewing alot of clips of this event was that these people were less stupid, repugnant, and hateful than I expected. That does not make them attractive.
But in the end that does not matter.
I value their right to free speach.
I value it more than they do.
I also value it more than most here, and the entire left.
I think the rope-a-dope over Trumps failure to satisfactorially denounce white supremacy is complete bunckum.
I oppose racism, I oppose white supremacists, I oppose nazi’s. I also oppose communists, maxists, socialists, ….
I will denounce the views of all kinds of groups right and left.
But I will vigorously support the rights of any of them to express their repugnant views.
I make note of the fact that BLM and antifa engage in hatefilled rhetoric – not because they are not equally free to do so, but because too many – particularly on the left do not grasp that BLM and antifa and other extreme left groups are indistinguishable from those on the far far far right.
No actually even that is not true. The KKK and Nazi’s are atleast not assaulting police officers.
The violence of the “unite the right” groups is supported by nobody.
While there are legitimate questions as to how violent they were,
Their culpability in the violence they did engage in is indisputable.
But we are whitewashing the violence of those on the left.
We are doubly whitewashing it, because the story has become
not about the violent acts – whether of the right or the left.
But solely of the ideology of those on the right.
The left has won this confrontation – because their meme – that some ideas are so repugnant they can not be allowed to be spoken has prevailed.
Trump and many many many republicans got roped into that nonsense.
Real freedom is sometimes ugly.
Real freedom means letting antifa and BLM and the KKK and Nazi’s speak.
It means letting people overdose on drugs.
It means not bailing out banks when they fail.
It means not balling out people when they fail.
It means living next to a neighbor who painted their house flourescent pink.
Freedom is not perfect, it does not produce the best outcome all the time.
But it does inarguable produce the best overall out come that we can possibly acheive.
Nazi’s do not want freedom. the KKK does not want freedom, AntiFa does not want Freedom, BLM does not want freedom.
I want freedom – that means all must be allowed to speak, and only violence is not tolerated.
Yes, there are stories that Kessler was part of the extreme left in the past.
These seem to be credible – thus far.
There is also a slightly less well founded story that James A Fields Jr. was diagnosed as schizophrenic.
Assuming that is true, then we are once again demonizing mental illness.
If that is true – all the ideological arguments with respect to Fields actions should be dismissed. All the claims that this is terrorism should be dismissed.
Most schizophrenics are not violent. They are only about twice as likely as ordinary people to engage in violence.
But they are attracted to very extreme ideologies – in fact they often espouse both extreme left and extreme right ideologies concurrently.
We did this with Jeremy christians – the bus stabber in oregon,
who was presumed to be a violent right wing ideologue until his facebook page demonstrated he was a left wing extremist, and then finally it turns out he was just a schizophrenic self medicating with alcohol.
We can go through a long list of high profile instances of individual violence and we find the same pattern – confused extremist ideology and serious mental health problems.
The left wants to pretend that the ideology drives us towards violence – and possibly towards mental health problems. But the evidence is that people with these kinds of mental health issues will find or create their own ideology if nescary to justify their violence.
Good video — smart, funny and thoughtful. I was growing a little paranoid because, after watching CNN’S coverage, I wondered why I seemed to be the only civilized person who wasn’t horribly outraged by Trump’s comments — and what was wrong with me? Why is it sacrilegious to point a finger at the antifa thugs along with the alt-right thugs? He castigated the neo-Nazis in no uncertain terms, and yet CNN’s commentators are on the verge of emotional breakdown.
What parts of what occured in charlottesville are are national and what are local ?
Whether the president is Obama or Trump or …. what is it we expect out of the president ?
What is the presidents role ?
Is he responsible for everything that occurs in the US.
I think what you expect from the president depends on how you answer those questions.
Ron and Priscilla are making an issue of the extent to which the much greater violence in chicago is being ignored. I am not sure I agree.
But if all aspects of charlottesville are a national problem for the president – then chicago is too.
The distinctions are also relevant.
What is occurring in chicago is just violence.
If charlottesvile was about violence – the events would not have much national profile.
The issue at charlottesville is speach. That is why it is on the news, that is why antifa and BLM where there, that is why the left is appoplectic, that is why the demands for the president to speak out.
No one is demanding that Trump take a stronger stand against violence.
Nor are they really demanding that he take a strong stand against extremism – or remarks condemning extremists on both sides would be acceptable.
Nor is this about Nazi’s and the KKK – is there anyone that actually doubts that Trump is not a Nazi or KKK member ?
What is being demanded is that Trump state there are things you can not say in america.
Dave, Here again you are taking a completely different view than the one I have in the Charlottesville issue. Violence is violence. It should not matter if it is during a free speech demonstration, a demonstration supporting southern history or a kid walking down the street to play basketball getting shot by a random bullet. Each person has a right to free speech and right to feel secure where ever they are. What difference is it when someone dies at a free speech demonstration and someone dies in their home from a drive by shooting into homes?
My point in bringing up the inner city violence is the fact that one mentally ill individual like Dylaan Roof in Charleston who killed 9 or James Fields in Charlottesville who killed 1 get hours upon hours of non stop news coverage while daily multiple murders get no coverage by these same news organizations. It is all political and they want to make all the conservatives look like extremist, no matter where they fall on the political scale.
I am sick of Charlottesville. How many ways can one cover a story? How many ways can the president be chastised for not saying “extremist”? Why have we heard hours of this coverage and these same news organizations did not spend the same amount of coverage on Obama not calling ISIS “Islamic Terrorist”. POLITICS!
Had this demonstration been handled properly, the outcome might have been completely different. People on both sides comment that the police did not handle this correctly. Based on this story, why were demonstrators and counter demonstrators allowed to be in the same space? In most every major demonstration that takes place in any city in America of this size or larger, these groups are kept separate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/could-the-police-have-prevented-bloodshed-in-charlottesville/536775/
I hate to say this, but in some ways it looks to me like the police wanted something to break out so the Nazis and KKK got the shit beat out of them by the larger number of counter demonstrators. One can only pray that other cities will take heed and insure that when one group demonstrates against something and another group shows up to demonstrate for that same thing, those groups are kept separate, much like the women’s march and the counter groups were kept separate in Washington D.C.
But one thing in my mind is sure. This country is going to hell fast and it is due to the government we have today, If they are setting an example of division in everything that happens in Washington, then the people will follow suit. If they would unite and work to solve our problems, then maybe the people would not be so fast to pull a trigger or drive a car though groups of people. It is no different for government setting examples than it is for parents setting examples for their kids to follow.
So, like I said, I am sick of Charlottesville and everything that is being discussed, so I think I will wait for something Rick posts in November or December that has nothing to do with this issue to make any further comments.
How are we at odds ?
Violence is violence – and with rare exceptions that are mostly not relevant is not jusitified.
I have repeatedly tried to make a distinction between law/public morals and private morals.
From the perspective of law why a person engaged in unjustfied violence is at most a curiosity. Jurors like to here a motive before they convict people.
But motive is NOT an element of any crime.
When we start discussing the morality of ideas, thoughts and expression we are in the personal and not public sphere.
We can go through a long list of ideas and expressions that I think are morally repugnant.
While I have looked at alot of youtube video of the “unite the right” groups – and have thus far found little that resembles the actual KKK or neonazis that were more common when I was 20, their views are still morally repugnant.
Frankly I find them to strongly mirror those of the left.
Mr. Fields conduct is criminal.
It appears he is schizophrenic.
That is not an excuse – or not much of one.
But it is a reason to get past probing his motives.
He is schizophrenic, his motives do not make sense or matter.
And if we are going to ban viewpoints because they might drive schizophrenics to violence discourse would be bland.
There are alot of issues regarding the violence at charlottesville.
I am hard pressed to think of a single one that is federal or relevant to the president.
There are no national security implications.
There is alot for the state of Virginia and Charlottesville to address
including the abject failure of law enforcement – which appears to originate with the mayor and governor not with the police themselves.
There is Mr. Fields and his conduct.
There may be an awful lot of smaller instances of individual conduct,
I would not have a problem with law enforcement using whatever videos they can get ahold of to identive people at the protests who initiated violence against others.
Those are all local issues.
Absolutely the issue of violence is the same between chicago and Charlottesville.
The issue of free expression is not.
I have not heard an argument that a drive by shooting is an example of free expression.
The issue of free expression is of local and national importance,
What is disturbing is that there is debate over the answer.
No view is so repugnant it can not be expressed.
Of course this is all political.
If course they are trying to make conservatives look bad.
But it is actually bigger than that.
They are trying to legitimize the suppression of ideas.
They are starting with the very idea that free expression is legitimate.
Once that topples we are F’d.
You are concerned because it is easy to paint conservatives as barely distinguishable from the extreme right.
Certainly the same identity politics was on display in the past election.
But this is an attack that is bigger than just the legitimacy of conservative ideas.
I do not care much about Robert E, Lee statues – but Thomas Jefferson is next on their list.
41 of those who signed the declaration of independence owned slaves.
That is repugnant. But it does not alter the fact that they did something that had never been done before. Further they put forth in very real terms – and paid for in blood a new and better philosophy of government.
And that is a part of what is under attack.
If we can ignore anything that anyone has ever done – if we can label them as racist, we can tear down the entirety of enlightenment philosophy and thought that is the basis of the west and of this country particularly.
The modern left is nihilist, Ideas do not matter, grievances do.
I think this weekend was a major victory for the left.
But they will not ultimately prevail.
Because they seek to subordinate the thought of 75% of the country to their own.
I increasingly beleive that the failure of the police in Charlottesville was deliberate and directed from above.
There had been an actual KKK rally approx two months before that resulted in left violence against the police who were separating the KKK from the antifa.
And that is exactly what would have happened saturday if the police had intervened.
That would have resulted in an entirely different story.
There are antifa(or other left groups) protests or antifa counter protests all over the country.
They nearly uniformly lead to violence. When the police do their job – which is most of the time – the violence is by antifa against the police.
There was a patriot Prayer march in Seattle on Sunday.
Something like 15 antifa counter protestors were arrested for assaulting police.
No one in the Patriot Prayer group engaged in any violence.
Even in Charlottesville – the unite the right protesters separated when the police stepped in and respectfully did as the police directed.
While the antifa protesters remained violent.
In Richmond on Sunday antifa protested at monument way.
There were not other groups present – they still beat some reporters and there were a handful of arrests.
Charlottesville is like that car crash you just can look away from.
I actually doubt we have covered all the issues.
More and more comes out every day.
And this too is one of the problems with the media.
We get a snapshot when an event occurs that frames all the issues for us.
Then over several days we learn many facts that are at odds with that narative.
The fact that fields was schizophrenic is very significant to me.
It does not excuse fields, but we do not – or should not try to impose significant meaning on the bad conduct of schizophrenics.
And if you remove fields car crash from the narative – which you should, but we just can’t manage that days afterwords. then the entire thing collapses.
Then what we have is a bunch of extremists pissing on each other – and nobody cares.
Dave, I agree with what you’re saying about the media demands that Trump say that only one side was at fault for the riot occured in C-ville. The media wants that, the Democrats want that, and many Republicans and conservatives want that. It’s almost bizarre to watch the extent to which they berate and hector him, in their attempts to get him to cave to their insistence that hate speech should not be permitted in our society, and that Antifa’s violence was justified.
If I were still a history teacher, I would take this opportunity to review this Supreme Court decision of 1977 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
I would note to the class that Thurgood Marshall was in the majority, ruling in favor of the Nazis right to march with swastika flags, and that, at the time, 1 in 6 residents of Skokie were Holocaust survivors.
On the other hand, I still believe that the obsession with this story says more about the failure of the media to inform, and everything about their Trump derangement.
The media is not looking to force trump to say only one side is at fault.
There is alot of fault in this.
There are trying to rope-a-dope him into saying that some ideas are so repugnant that
they should be suppressed.
Aren’t we all sick of charlottesville ?
Apparently Time is now reporting that Fields is schizophrenic.
http://time.com/4898983/charlottesville-car-james-fields-nazism/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hurrah-for-the-aclu-1502751069
The failure in charlottesville was not one of evil speach, it was of evil acts.
More on the political failures.
Even the ACLU is reporting that the police say they were ordered to stand down.
Further that when they intervened they apparently drove the marchers into the Antifa groups.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/avoidable-mayhem-15394.html
This is a really really good article on immigration – regardless of what your position is.
Frankly the core point applies whether the issue is immigration of charlottesvile, or ……
And it echo’s what I keep begging moderates and progressives here to offer.
Our big national debates are about our VALUES.
We need to better understand our own values and the principles that hopefully underpin them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450370/immigration-values-not-economics
How many nations have to be reduced to abject poverty before we get how bad an idea socialism is ?
Much more on the police at Charlottesville.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/14/no-virginia-state-police-werent-outgunne
This was the first KKK march in early july.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-klan-protesters-arrested-in-charlottesville-as-kkk-and-antifa-pledge-rematch
sjJf)().”,.,'(
sjJf’) AND 2111=4887 AND (‘erNx’=’erNx
sjJf’) AND 1664=1664 AND (‘klYn’=’klYn
sjJf’) AND 4203=7991 AND (‘CRon’=’CRon
sjJf’ AND 1664=1664 AND ‘XMEX’=’XMEX
sjJf%’ AND 3827=9261 AND ‘%’=’
sjJf%’ AND 1664=1664 AND ‘%’=’
sjJf%’ AND 8774=4749 AND ‘%’=’
sjJf) AND 1700=1871 AND (7917=7917
sjJf) AND 1664=1664 AND (9631=9631
sjJf) AND 4938=1093 AND (1622=1622
sjJf AND 7025=9415
sjJf AND 1664=1664
sjJf AND 7991=9260
sjJf AND 6157=2207– lpqI
sjJf AND 1664=1664– VDGB
sjJf AND 1736=2816– aRgA
(SELECT (CASE WHEN (8637=2291) THEN 8637 ELSE 8637*(SELECT 8637 FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.PLUGINS) END))
(SELECT (CASE WHEN (6529=6529) THEN 6529 ELSE 6529*(SELECT 6529 FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.PLUGINS) END))
(SELECT (CASE WHEN (7794=3482) THEN 7794 ELSE 7794*(SELECT 7794 FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.PLUGINS) END))