The Charlottesville Terror: 12 Takeaways
August 16, 2017
Neo-Nazis marching with torches at the University of Virginia. Clashes in the streets of Charlottesville. A bloody terrorist attack by a crazed white supremacist. A tepid Trump response. Liberal outrage. Nonstop news coverage.
It’s been another one of those all-too-American nightmare scenarios — a grotesque real-life morality play authored by polarization, race hatred, anger, violence and round-the-clock opinionizing in the media. Is it possible to witness such a disturbing drama and keep a moderate perspective? Yes and no, as you’ll see. Let’s look at the talking points (and potential talking points) that emerged from the terror in Charlottesville…
- Those troublesome Confederate monuments. Robert E. Lee has been dead for nearly 150 years, and presumably he’s still dead. He was a talented and complicated man: fearless and brilliant in battle, ruthless in managing the slaves on his estate. (Unlike George Washington, he had no reservations about breaking up families.) His soulful, sad-eyed mug makes it hard to hate him — and yet, at the critical moment, he chose his ancestral Virginia and slavery over the Union and freedom. Should we tear down his statues, then, along with the statues of all the other Confederates who rose in rebellion against the United States? No, we probably shouldn’t. Once the Southern states seceded and war was declared, these men were simply defending their home turf against invasion. It strikes me as facile and presumptuous to declare, along with the revisionists, that their only motive was the perpetuation of slavery. They had homes and families to protect, and a few hundred thousand of them died prematurely in the process. Even liberal filmmaker Ken Burns accorded them due respect in his famous Civil War documentary series. If we start destroying every monument to men some of us no longer admire, we’re no better than ISIS with its wanton destruction of pre-Islamic artifacts. Who’s next? Those slave-owning Virginians Washington and Jefferson? Let’s think before we dismantle the past.
- The “Unite the Right” demonstration. Catchy name, terrible cause. Yes, ostensibly this march was organized to protest the imminent removal of the Robert E. Lee statue. That would have been fine. (Even the ACLU granted them the liberty to demonstrate.) But as it turned out, the most malevolent specimens of the far right assembled in Charlottesville: not only the predictable latter-day Confederates and white supremacists, but blatant Nazis as well. (You could look in vain for reasonable National Review conservatives here.) The torch-bearing extremists chanted Naziesque slogans like “Blood and soil,” while “You will not replace us” quickly morphed into “Jews will not replace us!” They encircled black and Jewish places of worship with the purpose of inflicting terror and intimidation. What should have been a simple, sober protest against the removal of a historic statue turned into a Nazi orgy. Could this be happening in America? The fact that so many of the protesters looked like clean-cut retro-collegians in polo shirts and khakis made it all the more chilling, in a Triumph of the Will sort of way. (I might have to think about changing my wardrobe.) These weren’t Duck Dynasty troglodytes; they were educated young men with a grudge.
- Understanding (and defusing) white male anger. Let’s face it: white males have been taking it on the chin from aggrieved feminists and people of color since the 1960s. Granted, they’re not exactly a disadvantaged minority, but they’ve surrendered a lot of territory over the past half century. Worse yet, they’ve been cast as perennial villains by the cultural left — with no socially acceptable means of rebuttal. (Any attempt to assure the accusers that not all white males are privileged oppressors is invariably met with cries of racist and misogynist.) The steady drip of insults becomes wearisome. I’ve grown tired of being cast as a villain, and I’m barely white by today’s definition. I resent the wild and inaccurate generalizations, and I take them personally. But I’m not so angry that I’d gather with other white dudes and lust for revenge. Apparently many thousands of other white dudes are that angry, and their anger is toxic. How do we defuse their rage? First, stop insulting them. Let the reasonable voices among them speak up and be heard — without exiling them from polite society. Don’t drive their anger underground, where it festers and eventually bursts. We need to challenge the anti-white, anti-male narratives being disseminated on our college campuses and elsewhere. Our public discussion of race and gender needs to be a two-way street from now on — as long as it stays civil.
- Far-right terrorism is now a thing. It hasn’t yet reached the scale and savagery of Islamist terrorism, but give it time. So far the damage has been done by lone wolves, not organized cells. The deranged loser who plowed his car into a crowd, ISIS-style, cared nothing for the individual lives he was intent on terminating. That’s the mark of a terrorist: people become interchangeable symbols of the hated other. But Heather Heyer, the anti-right activist who lost her life, wasn’t a symbol; she was a sweet-faced, selfless young woman just entering her prime. Now her life is a closed book, courtesy of one demented Nazi sympathizer. Nothing personal, of course. We can’t blame all the right-wing protesters for her death, but we can accuse their overheated ideology of inspiring and emboldening the terrorists among them.
- The “antifa” left is suspiciously fascistic, and yet… What can you say about anti-fascist brigades that march in lockstep, carry clubs and habitually attempt to shut down free speech by force? That they bear a creepy resemblance to the right-wing fascists they claim to detest? If anything, the antifa are less tolerant of speech than the far right. That said, I don’t think they share equal blame for the ugliness in Charlottesville last weekend. If they had attacked the right-wingers simply for peacefully protesting the removal of a statue, we’d be justified in calling them out for their tactics. Instead, they battled against a truly disturbing demonstration of neo-Nazi solidarity on a revered college campus. Both sides overreacted with physical violence, but in this case the antifa held the higher moral ground.
- Where on earth were the police? Charlottesville is a progressive town, so you’d think the police would have prepared for the possibility of violent clashes when the alt-right entered their turf. They wouldn’t have had to stage a military-style intervention like the cops in Ferguson, Missouri, but they could have separated the crowds and forced restraint on both sides. Instead, the two factions freely confronted each other, swung bats and threw heavy objects. And of course, that one homicidal maniac was free to ram his car into a crowd of leftist protesters. (At least they caught him.) A puzzling postscript: The widely shared photo of a black police officer protecting white-supremacist protesters turned out to be a relic of a previous event.
- Trump kept shooting himself in the foot. Three brief speeches, three opportunities for eloquent moral leadership, three blown chances. In the first speech, he roused the wrath of the liberal media by famously denouncing the violence “on all sides, on all sides.” Aside from the fact that there were only two sides, he should have known that he needed to castigate the neo-Nazis by name. His vagueness was perceived as a dog-whistle to his supporters on the alt-right. His second speech, two days later, was a weird exercise in damage control: yes, he finally called out the white supremacists, neo-Nazis and KKK — but with such a tepid, robotic demeanor that some pundits accurately described it as a “hostage video” — in other words, he was simply mouthing a scripted speech calculated to placate his “captors” in the liberal media. The third speech, delivered at Trump Tower after I already starting writing this piece, was vintage Trump: both combative and defensive — and a little off-the-wall. He insisted, with questionable accuracy, that not all the conservative demonstrators in Charlottesville were far-right fanatics… that many of them were simply protesting the removal of a statue. He clearly denounced the neo-Nazi element, then wondered aloud (as I did in print) whether statues of Washington and Jefferson would be the next to tumble in response to revisionist fever. This speech sealed it for the pundits on CNN; they seemed to suffer a collective nervous breakdown. Even David Gergen, that perennially level-headed elder statesman, was aghast. One panelist actually called it the worst day in American history. (I don’t know about you, but I can think of several others that beat this one.)
- Where does Trump really stand? Every right-minded progressive citizen seems to brand him as a racist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi bigot who would make Archie Bunker look like Mister Rogers by comparison. But let’s look a little deeper into his enigmatic beliefs, assuming he actually believes in anything other than himself. There’s no way #45 can be a Nazi sympathizer; his most trusted advisors are his Orthodox Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his beloved Jewish-convert daughter Ivanka. Aside from some exclusionary real estate policies early in his career, he’s shown no animosity toward blacks who aren’t named Barack Obama. Yes, he opposes illegal immigration, as we all should (because hey, it’s illegal) — although his proposed Mexican wall is as mean-spirited as it is impractical. And yes, he’s leery of inviting Muslims into the country because of the radicals who might be hiding among the innocent. I just don’t see Trump as a raging bigot. The one disturbing note (actually, it’s more of a symphony) is his courtship of the alt-right. At least three of his most prominent White House staffers, led by the brilliantly villainous Steve Bannon, belong to that unsavory tribe. KKK wizard David Duke and neo-Nazi leader Richard Spencer have tweeted their approval of various Trumpian pronouncements. Trump has repeatedly attempted to distance himself from the uglier representatives of the far right, but they keep coming back to him like faithful dogs. Could it be that they keep hearing those high-frequency dog-whistles? Trump needs to stop whistling.
- Notable Republicans are breaking ranks with Trump. Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John McCain — as well as House speaker Paul Ryan — are among the big-name GOP leaders who joined Democrats in tweeting their unconditional condemnation of white supremacists. Of course this looks bad for Trump and his ability to lead; he needs those GOP partisans in his pocket. But it’s also a good thing: a welcome relief from the hyperpartisan rancor that has paralyzed Congress (and the country) for far too long. Maybe Trump will bring some semblance of unity to our legislature after all — by uniting the majority of our elected representatives against him.
- A convenient distraction from Russia. With all the widespread outrage over the events in Charlottesville — and the even greater outrage over Trump’s comments — the ongoing questions about the president’s alleged Russian collusion have paled into insignificance. At least for now. We’ll have to wait until the TV pundits grow tired of raking Trump over the coals for his Charlottesville remarks.
- Kim Jong Who? Does the baby-faced North Korean dictator still plan to launch destruction in our general direction? Who knows? Because of Charlottesville, World War III has been put on the back burner.
- The Civil War just won’t die. Sometimes, in my darker moments, I think Lincoln should have let the Confederacy go its own way. We really seem to be two distinct nations, with different cultures, different accents, different manners and beliefs. More than 150 years after Appomattox, we’re still feeling the hangover from that dreadful war. What is America’s far right, after all, but a chain-clanking ghost of the Confederacy, still moaning about the Lost Cause and the inherent right of white people to rule? We need to end the war, finally — not by suppressing the grievances of the latter-day Confederates, but by taming them. And we tame them not by treating these folks with contempt, but by trying to communicate with them, understand their grievances and put them to rest. For that we need wise and inspirational leadership. Trump is probably beyond redemption, even though he’s not the Nazi his haters make him out to be. But I do know this much: our next president cannot be a polarizing figure. We need to discard resentful identity politics on both sides, overcome our differences and reunite as best we can. The future of the American experiment depends on it.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate and author of Lifetyles of the Doomed, available wherever e-books are sold.
1,691 Comments
leave one →
Rick, this is a remarkably fair and typically well-written piece.
Antifa is an organization largely composed of violent anarchists, who believe that violence against its enemies is justified. In fact, it’s not only justified, it is the only tactic that antifa uses. Soda cans filled with concrete, balloons full of urine and feces, baseball bats, axe handles and 2×4’s are part an parcel of the accessories that any good antifa member must bring to a parade or demonstration by their enemies.
And antifa’s enemies are not, by any means, restricted to neo-nazis. Any demonstration by Trump supporters qualifies. Law enforcement qualifies. Anyone who believes that the right to free speech and free assembly should be protected, even for the most repugnant ideologies, so long as no violence or incitement to violence is involved, qualifies.
In the previous thread, I mentioned that there are very few people anymore who recall the circumstances surrounding the 1977 SCOTUS decision regarding a nazi group that wanted to march ~ in full nazi uniform, bearing swastika emblazoned flags, through Skokie, Illinois. At the time, 1 in 6 residents of Skokie were Holocaust survivors, and the rest of the town was majority Jewish. The Court, ruled in favor of the nazis right to march, and Thurgood Marshall, the first African -American justice, ruled with the majority. (As it happened, the group never did march through Skokie, but moved to Chicago instead, and held a rally)
Antifa is not an organization that should be defended, under any circumstances, even when trying to silence nazis and white supremacists. Once we accept that violence is the answer to repulsive ideologies, we have lost.
Thanks, Priscilla. I like Trump’s blanket term for the new leftist extremists: the alt-left. They’re the mirror image of the alt-right: irrational radicals hellbent on sowing discord. I’d include in the alt-left not only the “antifa” (what a lame name!), but the college students and faculty who shut down conservative speakers as well as the more violent elements of Black Lives Matter. The alt-right espouses a hateful ideology, but the alt-left espouses hateful methods (and their numbers are legion).
Rick;
I am coming around to the view that the nation is dangerously polarized.
I do not think the political differences and dysfunction in congress are that big a deal.
Frankly I think they are a good thing. The less congress gets done the better.
As the hippocratic oath goes – first do no harm.
I am particularly interested in your views – Using Prof. Haidt’s analogy – you are the elephant. I may be speaking to the rider, but I am hearing from the elephant.
I do not think the alt-right, whatever it is, is in anyway representative of this country.
The alt-right is not just a more extreme version of the right in the US,
Conversely antifa, the alt-left or whatever you want to call the angry left in this country is just the more extreme version of the left as a whole.
Further democrats in particularly are abandoning the center. They are increasingly a relatively homogenous party of the left quarter of the country.
Remove Trump from our debates. Is there any doubt that a near majority of this country does not want more of what the left is selling ?
If Trump vaporized tomorow – a large body of the electorate still wants most of what he promised. We will still be fighting over the same things.
Before, but particularly after Charlottesville the left and media paint this country as violently divided over race.
In my lifetime americans have never been less racist than they are today, and yet listening to the media and the left that nation is one step removed from the Klan and we are on the verge of race war.
I keep banging the drum that, if you call everyone that is not you “hateful, hating haters”, you make your self into the intolerant hater and you make the rest of us hate you.
And yet the left doubles down on this.
I found the country after this election beyond belief. The left lost, and yet they are holding the nation hostage. If we do not continue as if Hillary had actually won – there will be violence. It is only acceptable for the left to lose an election – if those who win do as the left would have anyway.
There is no backing down. We have spent nearly a year on this the russians stole the election nonsense, and as we go forward it gets weaker and weaker.
The Russian DNC hacking has been debunked.
Which not merely discredits the left, and the media, but significant portions of our intelligence community.
More recently we are discovering there were numerous attempts by Russians to open dialogs at the lower levels of the Trump campaign, and it was that evil Trumpkin Maneforte who put his foot down and said there will be no working with the Russians.
Yet, it is Maneforte who is in the special counsels spotlight.
It is way past time for the left and the special prosecutor to fold up and go home.
If Trump is somehow bad for this country – how is a media and political party that has taken the country hostage for a year with lies somehow better ?
Rick, great post. I appreciate that it is relatively in-depth. If there’s one thing I’m tired of, it is shallow, knee-jerk reactions to complex, multi-threaded issues. You consistently look at things honestly from multiple angles and “sides,” and our society needs more of that. And then there’s your writing–so many excellent sentences up there! Keep up the good work–we need it!
Much obliged, Pat. I’m amazed at the one-sidedness of so much of the Charlottesville coverage. I do enjoy trying to hammer out those “excellent sentences” — which probably explains why I’ll never have a syndicated newspaper column.
The coverage is onesided because our language is being destroyed.
Once you say nazi, kkk or white supremecist – all rational conversation ends.
This is even true of WWII. We are so revolted by the Horror of the Nazi’s that we gloss over the fact that Stalin murdered between 40 and 80M of his own people, and that Mao was worse than Stalin.
Nicely Done Rick. I wish you were a syndicated columnist (But I’ll bet you don’t!) Bravo.
I can understand the arguments about removing those statues of both sides. But, first of all, who is removing statues, is it the federal government mandating it, shoving it down the throats of the locals, or is it local communities themselves making their own choices? Its local communities doing this and
Its Their Own Damn Choice
to have a statue or not. There is no law that says you have to have a statue of RObert E Lee in your town. The right would be the first to protect the right of a town to make that choice if they did not have a confederate bug up their ass that overpowers their love of free choice.
Many of those aggrieved white men are NOT newly aggrieved, they are not some new response to a new set of circumstances. They are carrying on an ancient tradition. One thing I am realizing from reading American history this year is that no conflict ever dies, no contested ideas ever stop struggling with each other. Which is not to say that many people don’t move on, but many people don’t move on and they just keep the same basic battle going for hundreds of years in new forms. The Palestinians and the Zionists will still be at each other in 200 years. The Civil war, slavery, and white supremacy grievances will still be carried on in 200 years.
One of the rules of historians is not to judge the past by the morals of the present. Difficult rule, that one. Apparently if a person was born in the South in the 18th century slavery seemed like a normal thing or for some even a wonderful thing that “brought great benefits to slave and master alike” and economic prosperity. But, not all Southerners were equally blind. The south and the pro-slavery movement brought the Civil war and reaped the whirlwind. I’m going to have to carry out my Northern fate and reprise the Northern argument. The KKK, the lynchings, the segregation, the racism, George Wallace, murders of Civil Rights workers its a real thing and its still in the culture, just watered down, not as close to the surface. It isn’t just a few hundred or even a few thousand people. There are still millions with a strong case of it.
There are still millions of far lefties with a secret or not so secret passion for Karl Marx as well. There are 300 million plus Americans and I am on solid ground saying that for any extreme political, ideological, or theological idea there are more followers than we want to admit especially if they are on our side of the left-right divide. They are mostly invisible in daily life, The events, such as Unite the Right in the recent case, or extreme BLM-activist inspired marches in another case that try to revive cultural Frankensteins, are first of all, protected free speech in some form and second of all, not without real dangers to real people. Our leaders should lead, they should be careful and yet clear and bold when necessary. trumps failure to condemn the far right was so clear regarding the consequences of the far right descending on Charlottesville that he brought many of his own party’s politicians to openly comment on his failure and the David Dukes of the world to applaud him. I see nothing misplaced in any but the most overwrought criticism (no, it was not the worst day in our history) of trump with his bannon and his alt right connections. A US president with a connection to the far right? Its totally wrong. Defending him on this, defending the far right, rationalizing, trying to explain it away all infuriate me. And I have high blood pressure in the first place.
Which brings me to: Rick, you do a wonderful thing here. I may continue to make a comment or two on your essays when you publish them if I can finally find a way to turn on the notification function. Being a participant in the comment war that follows your essays has been been my habit (often my addiction) for 10 years! Ten Years! Well, we are in the dystopic age of trump now and with the taking over of your pulpit by a hyperactive sometimes rational but sometimes totally cranky right-coddling left-hating fanatic, with all the increasing segregation into righteous and factually challenged alternate universes, its just painful to be here, its painful to be anywhere that is political actually. You guys are going to have to let me off the hook, I really can’t take any more of listening to Dave and I really can’t take any more of debating whether trump merely has some somewhat unusual habits or whether he is at an unacceptable extreme in his habits and character. The fact that its even a question with decent educated people still shocks me to my core. Yeah, I will miss the upside of all the personalities here. But that downside, Ouch! Its psychologically destructive and flat out unhealthy to be part of that.
The lead singer for my band dropped dead of a heart attack in March at 63. Our bass player has been fighting stage 4 cancer for 2 years. The music died for that rock and roll band. Life is short, At 61, I’m feeling very mortal and feeling that the positive things in life are precious. Keep up the moderate struggle Rick and Best wishes to all!
It was a pleasure to have crossed paths with you, and productive good fortune to you in the future!
Thanks Jay, the same right back at you!
I do not understand why anyone on either side actually cares a whole lot about statues of people dead for 150 years.
It should therefore be obvious that the fight is over something more, and something more important.
I have zero interest in defending the confederacy. If you are actually familiar with them they were an early form of socialism.
But that should not be surprising – the actual KKK and actual Nazi’s are practically indistinguishable from antifa.
My concern is that the extreme left is trying to rewrite early US history to make slavery not only the defining issue but the only issue.
This is a major battle ground between the right and left.
Is this nation exceptional ? Not are americans by virtue of race or place better than others, but are the foundational ideas of this country superior to anything that was or has been.
Much of the left is seeking to drag us towards european socialism. No excuses are made for the assertion that the US is worse by most every measure than Europe.
It may seem a reach to get there. But is there really anyone who beleives this is a fight over statues ? We do not shed blood over statues.
History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes – Twain.
Yes, we are covering much the same ground as 50 years ago, or 150.
But much is different. We can fight over whether the marchers at Charlottesville were Nazi’s or whatever, but there are quite different from those with the same labels 50 years ago.
Racism remains an issue today. It is not the same issue it was when I was 20.
My kids experience real racism all the time. It is not something that makes me feel good about the world. At the same time I am so glad that they are not growing up in the same world as I did.
Northern Ireland has settled down – who would have thought.
If a bomb goes off in London it is near certain mid-eastern terrorists, not the IRA.
Things do change.
The modern republican south is NOT the same as the democratic south of this nations first 200 years.
East and west germany are re-united. And there is little chance of an ascendant military Germany – nazi or otherwise. The soviet union is gone.
Change does happen – usually tediously slowing. But not always.
I am thoroughly shocked at how fast we have gone from homophobic to practically trans friendly. No those transitions are not complete – and you and I might not agree on what needs to be done – but the world has changed – for the better.
I expect that Israel and the palestinians will come to terms. I do not know how many more decades that will take.
Bannon wants to deconstruct the administrative state that would group him with the likes of Reagan. almost 50% of the editors at Brietbart are jewish.
There is a policy war between Bannon and McMasters and Nichols regarding Afghanistan.
You are a big McMasters fan – should he win that fight ? Should we send 4500 more troups to afghanistan to preserve the status quo for another decade and cost us another 50B/year ?
If that is not what you are for – than you are with Bannon.
I do not presume I am going to agree with some political figure on 100% of the issues. Do you ? Can you accept that the president or whoever will be at odds with you on many issues and still support them when you share common ground ?
Are Trump’s “habbits and character” so repugnant to you that you can not address decisions on issues ?
I would love a president with good character – which one was that ?
But I am not getting what I want.
Obviously Trump is “acceptable” – we accepted him.
I am not happy with that and I did not vote for him.
But it is how it is, how is trying to relitigate the last election – one in which your candidate and mine each lost, going to change anything ?
Regardless, an awful large part of your position devolves past Trump is evil to half the country is evil.
We debate what constitutes the far right. Using your standards I would see that from the center left all the war to the right.
If moderate means center – your not. Neither am I, but atleast I know it.
If you are going I wish you well.
I strongly suspect we would have gotten along far better in person.
I think we have far more common ground than has been apparent,
and I think you would find I am to the left of you on many issues – just not ones that have often come up here.
Really sorry about your bandmates, Roby. I’ve been meaning to ask about the band, as you hadn’t mentioned it recently. I hope you find some others to rock out with.
Take care.
Thanks Priscilla, you too. Let me know if you should happen to start posting on a blog on some subject that has no connection to politics. I am sure we could discuss victorian houses or classic cars or gardening quite happily.
Roby: I understand your exhaustion in dealing with the comments here. My solution, as you’ve probably noticed, is to comment a couple of days after I post my column, disappear for a few weeks, and add a few comments before I start the next column. There’s no way I can respond to more than a couple of Dave’s voluminous posts. It’s a shame, in a way, because I have to admire the time and thought he puts into them. But I know in advance that I’m not going to change his mind, and I’m just too slow a reader and thinker to keep up. I hope you continue to read The New Moderate and post an occasional comment — you’ve been a valuable contributor here — but I understand your need to disengage a bit. Real life is waiting in the world outside the screen and, as you’ve noted, it doesn’t last forever.
Rick;
You and others here are more likely to change my mind than I am to change yours.
Rick, wonderful article. I said my comment about C’ville last night was my last, I lied.
Your comment “But I do know this much: our next president cannot be a polarizing figure. We need to discard resentful identity politics on both sides, overcome our differences and reunite as best we can. The future of the American experiment depends on it.”
It will be worse. Someone from the Shumer/Pelosi/Warren/Sanders wing of the Democrats will run against Trump or someone from the christian conservative/Tea Party wing of the GOP, making the division worse since many more from the sensible center will be unrepresented! And government will continue to send the message that division is fine.
I beleive that you are correct regarding what is coming post Trump.
Trump is an odd duck politically. Contra the left he is NOT a political conservative.
He got elected by constructing a unique collection of democrats and republicans.
He alienated a large number of republicans. He alienated many conservatives as a result he had a very weak showing in the south, but still enough to win the confederacy.
Most importantly he appealed to blue collar democrats in the rust belt which tipped the election.
There is no current republican that can likely duplicate that.
There is also no current deomcrat that can likely repeat Obama’s coalition.
Dave “Most importantly he appealed to blue collar democrats in the rust belt which tipped the election.”
No there is not anyone in the future that will duplicate what he did. Diarrhea mouth and the bitch generated the second highest turnout of voters by percent since 1968. The lowest turnout by percent was 1996 when 49% of eligible voters turned out . Only 1924 was lower. But with the polarization of the parties, it would not surprise me that this 49% is replaced as the lowest turnout come 2020. Two reasons. Lack of candidates that appeal to the 40% or so of voters that are moderate right or moderate left and two, the lack of interest in politics by the younger generations that would be hard pressed to give coherent answers on anything political today.
Not until we have moderates running to bring in moderate voters will we ever see the 60% plus turnouts that were norm in the ’60’s and before when moderates dominated politics.
Mostly I would agree.
But I would note that Trump could have run as either a democrat or a republican.
His platform and the group he appealed to crossed party lines.
He is not different from many generations of centerist democratic candidates.
There is almost no position that Trump holds that you can not find some prominent democrat in the last 40 years that held.
Trump’s “style” is not democratic – it is also not republican.
I do not know what would have happened had Cruz or Rubio or Bush been the GOP nominee. Clinton was an incredibly vulnerable candidate.
I do not think any other candidate would have won the rust belt.
But Trump would have won had he lost the rust belt and picked up NV and NH – which was what most everyone was predicting was his likely route to victory.
With other candidates NH, NV, CO, NM, and possibly VA might have been in play.
For an enormous number of reasons this election had a high probability of being a republican election.
We had 8 years of weak economy, Clinton was never going to be able to get out the same voters as strongly as Obama did.
I do not know what the future holds. But democrats appear to be moving further left.
I think that is a huge political mistake. Trump has proven that Republicans can win in the rust belt. NH, NV, NM, CO and VA are all potentially in play for any republican candidate.
I do think most of the 2016 Republicans would and will be weak in the “swing states”,
But the potential democratic nominees will too.
I think that Republicans have more potential routes to victory than democrats do, and less incentive to shift much towards the center.
Having lost an election that most everyone predicted they would win, that Hillary publicly mused – why am I not 50 points ahead, Democrats should have been the party that moved towards the center.
They have not.
Worse since the election they have not only shifted the wrong way, but they have doubled down on identity politics and this stupid meme that they lost because of outside interference.
While you MIGHT be able to persuade some voters that was true, they are all going to tell you that someone else’s vote was changed not theirs.
Separately, I have a different conception of moderate than most here.
For me, a moderate is someone who combines the republican values that are right with the democratic values that are right.
The middle is not a compromise on each issue, but not following one party or the other on every issue.
Dave, “For me, a moderate is someone who combines the republican values that are right with the democratic values that are right.”
So glad to see this comment. Where we now disagree on “compromise” is now the meaning of “compromise” itself.
To me not compromising to get positive things done in the name of party politics is not the “right values” of either party.
We – you, I, others hear have debated compromise endlessly.
It remains a tool, not a value. Hammers are neither good nor evil.
What is done with them is good or evil.
This is doubly important.
Most here define moderate literally in terms of compromise.
That makes compromise a value, not a tool.
Ideologies are defined by aspirational values.
Nothing in my definition of moderate precludes compromise.
But nothing requires it either – tools are not parts of definitions.
I can choose, as an individual or a party to compromise on issue X today, for exactly the reasons you cite.
On issue Y I can decide not to compromise at all. I can decide that losing is better than compromise.
I can also decide tomorow to be willing to compromise on something I was not today.
There is absolutely no connection between compromise and what I beleive.
As a tools compromise is sometimes a means to an end – the end being my actual values.
As a value it is an end in itself – and that is a very bad thing.
Thanks, Ron. I have a sinking feeling that you’re right about our next president. We’re so polarized now that the Democrats will want to run an Anti-Trump as their next presidential candidate. Trump is our third consecutive polarizing president — four if you count Clinton. I have my doubts that the U.S. will survive in its present form if we elect another divisive figure.
It is not the president that is the problem – it is where the people are.
It should be self evident that Obama was a centrist – atleast in comparision to the actual power within his party.
I do not think Obama, Bush or Clinton were particularly polarizing.
I think all three were far more moderate than their own base.
Even Trump while uncouth and verbally irritating, is closer to a moderate republican even a centrist democrat.
If he is polarizing it is not because of his policies.
A part of why I tend to defend Trump is that what the left seeks is to reverse the election.
I think it is dishonest to say that it is Trump’s rhetoric or style that is the problem,
he is not unfit because he speaks in a way they do not like.
He is unfit because he is trying to do what he was elected to do.
If we could get past Charlottesville and Russia – and that will eventually happen, the conflict will remain. The virulent opposition to Trump is not so much over what he says, but what he stands for – and that is what we elected.
If tomorow we have President Pence – who was mild mannered and soft spoken but effective in advancing the same campaign promises that Trump made – the left would remain apoplectic.
The vast majority of us really do want smaller less intrusive government.
We do not agree on how to get there.
We are all prepared to sacrifice the parts of big government that benefit someone else, and more reluctant to shed what benefits us.
But we still want less government not more.
And yet we are being held hostage by those who want more and lost.
HI Rick:
We need to look at the history of those statues, all erected well after the civil war as an FU and reminder to non-white southerners as to who was still in charge.
I also am troubled by your offer that many southern fighters we simply defending their homes. My reading shows a strong belief that they were defending the “Southern” way of life that rested upon the back of the slave economy.
How do you feel about statues and monuments of American presidents who were slave owners? How about buildings and highways named for former Klan leaders? How about those who voted against the Civil Rights Acts of 64/65? How about presidents like Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson who whose racist policies are part of history?
I’m not trying to be snarky. I’m trying to understand where this all ends. Shall we ban books that may portray Robert E. Lee in a positive light? All books about him?
Where do we draw the line? And why not allow cities and towns to determine if they want to have statues of confederate leaders remain standing, after a full hearing from all the citizens of the town?
I recall learning that, had Lincoln survived, to carry out the amnesty and reconstruction that he believed was the only way to unify the country, much of the ugly history of the post-Civil War South would likely have been averted. I guess we don’t really know for sure.
The words “I will forgive you, but I’ll never forget what you’ve done” never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally from his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship.” ~Martin Luther King
There never were enough souther white slave owners to fight the war much less win it.
Only a tiny fraction of whites in the south were slave owners or benefited from slavery.
Well, true. The vast majority of people in both the north and the south were neither slaveholders nor abolitionists, and the reconstruction plan that Lincoln wanted to implement was a moderate and reasonable one, that would have allowed the south to re-enter the union without humiliation or undue punishment. Unfortunately, that plan was never implemented, and the harsher, more radical Republican plan prioritized punishment and imposed extreme economic hardship on the South.
In many ways, it is far more difficult to reconstruct a country that has suffered a civil war than it is to rebuild a vanquished enemy nation. In order for people to become countrymen again, there needs to be a healing process that may not satisfy those who remain bitter and angry that the war ever happened in the first place.
The allies draconian punishements of Germany after WWI are near certain the causes of WWII.
There was actually a period of something like 10 years after the civil war – mostly under Pres. Grant, that the south was a very friendly place for blacks – they owned land, they voted, they held public office – even in congress, and they controlled some state governments in the south.
I have heard credible arguments that the biggest mistake the North made when it left the south – was confiscating the guns of blacks first.
Hey Kevin… good to see you here. I honestly didn’t know about the history of Confederate monuments until days after I wrote this piece. Obviously the statues wouldn’t have been put up during Reconstruction, but I wasn’t aware that so many of them were so recent.
That said, I’m afraid of the “slippery slope” phenomenon that Trump brought up. Lee today, Washington and Jefferson tomorrow. There have already been calls by left-wing activists to defund or destroy monuments to Founding Fathers who owned slaves, and I think it’s terribly myopic of them to judge 18th-century Southern planters by today’s standards. Where does it stop?
As for the Southerners’ motives for fighting the war — yes, the buildup to the war, and the secession, were based on defending “the Southern way of life” — including slavery (although, as some of the other folks here have noted, only a small percentage of Southerners actually owned slaves). What I was pointing out was that once the war began, those Confederate soldiers and officers had to defend their land and homes against assaults by the Union forces. We can hold Lee responsible for the tough decision to side with his native Virginia (and slavery) instead of the Union (and abolition), but I don’t see why we should blame the ordinary Confederate soldiers who fought and died to protect their home turf from invasion.
It is not the monuments that matter. It is their thoughts, words and actions.
It is the good and the evil that they did.
Marble and bronze is just a placeholder for those.
The founding of this nation is incredible, it is an earth changing event.
It was done by men who were both good and evil.
Slavery is our “original sin” it is a blot on the birth of the nation.
But the evil that mars the souls of most of our founders does not change the great thing they accomplished.
And that is what we are really fighting about.
The “alt-left” does not want to tear down the jefferson memorial.
They want to pretend that the declaration of independence and the constitution are just the political writings of a different era – not revelations of fundimental human truths.
It is necescary to destroy them to replace them.
An observation:
There don’t appear to be any statues or monuments celebrating the defeated WWII leaders Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, etc in Germany.
Because they are illegal.
However Portland has statues of Lenin transported to the US after the collapse of the USSR – because they no longer wanted lenin and our colleges and universities did.
I am also not so sure that Hilter and the Nazi’s were big on statues.
What is your point, Jay, or are you simply making an pointless observation?
*a* pointless observation
I was ‘pointing out’ that most cultures don’t celebrate defeated ideologies by erecting statutes to honor participants who fought to perpetuate them. Isn’t that – perverse?
Displaying statues or other artwork of Civil War heros in museums or at battlefield sites is appropriate, but in public parks and at government buildings? That seems to suggest the cause (protecting slavery) was just, even if defeated in battle.
“The Cause” was not protecting slavery.
If Slavery was the issue the war never need have started.
Lincoln never “freed the slaves”, The emancipation proclamation which was later in the war only freed slaves in the confederacy.
There was never a point during Lincoln’s presidency where actually freeing the slaves was polically feasible.
The war was over states rights, and union.
While obviously slavery was a factor in the war.
Both the north and the south throughout the war made a point of the fact that the war was not about slavery.
Most whites in the south did not own slaves. The confederacy would have collapsed if the driving force was slavery.
Many northerners owned slaves. Further – just as FDR and Churchill had to be politically careful not to make fighting Germany appear to be about Jews, Lincoln did not have the political support in the north to go to war over negro’s.
The country had been building towards war since its founding.
Slavery was one of the largest wedge issues, but it was not the only issue of conflict.
Except that the geography was different, much was like the current red/blue political conflict. Two different regions of the country with increasingly different values and institutions.
You’re a rationalizing fool. And nothing will change that.
Jay, although slavery was an issue during the Civil War, it was not the main reason for the war.
States Rights was the reason for the war and the economic concerns of the south which included tariffs on southern goods, the movement west and the norths support for this and not the south and other economic issue, including, but not limited to slavery. Had certain other states rights issues not been present, slavery may never have driven the country to divide and fight.
Slavery became the face of the war and became the sole purpose of the war in history books that were written over the years. One must be careful when analyzing anything in history because facts do change over long periods of time with different people writing the facts as they see them.
Check out some information on the web and see the different articles on this subject.
I know the History, Ron.
And I’m thoroughly convinced that if slavery hadn’t existed in the South, or the intense roiling opposition to it in the North, there wouldn’t have been a Civil War. Slavery was the pertinent underlying wedge seperating North and South.
This debate is much like that of why Trump fired Comey.
There is not and need not be a single answer of single cause.
Slavery was inarguably a source of contention between the south and north from before the revolution through the end of the civil war. Race remained a huge issue in the south until the 70’s.
Many of the conflicts such as states rights were atleast partly proxies for slavery.
Further the civil war only settled two issues:
A state can not on its own leave the nation.
Slavery was ended.
All other issues of states rights remain even today.
With Trump’s election the left has suddenly regained a welcome interest in states rights.
It is unlikely there would have been a civil war but for slavery.
At the same time both the north and the south had to make the civil war about issues other that slavery because neither side was willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands for slavery one way or the other.
Ad hominem is not argument.
A valid argument is correct regardless of how you label it.
Do you have a counter argument ?
Can you show me the error of an argument – rather than just insulting it ?
More pointedness:
Slavery is not an ideology. And, Ron is correct in saying that states rights versus federal power was the political division that caused the break, .
Thant’s not to say that slavery wasn’t a tremendously polarizing issue, but, in the context of the times, both abolitionists and pro-slavery absolutists were considered extremists.
It was the economics of slavery and the territorial expansion of the US that led to slavery becoming such a divisive issue. When Lincoln, an opponent of allowing slavery to expand into the new territories, was elected without any southern state’s support, it led to the South’s belief that it would be politically powerless.
The link below is another story addressing the debunking of the Russia Hacked The DNC meme.
How is this relevant ? Because whether it is charlottesville pretty much anything else, the left and the media define the truth for us.
A good narrative trumps the truth. Claims that fit what we want to beleive need not be substantiated, Enormous amounts of effort and vast amounts of time need expended to debunk false stories that catch fire.
At this time the evidence that the russians were involved in the DNC hack is pretty much gone. But people continue to beleive that occured – and most will beleive it forever.
Anyone who does nto beleive it has been proven that the Russians hacked the DNC to throw the election to Trump, is a conspiracy theorist, a tinfoil hat nutcase.
Yet based on actual facts – it is the majority of people who have been sold a conspiracy.
These types of misrepresentations are dangerous.
We have gone to war many times over similarly false stories sold to us by the media.
“Remember the Maine” lead the US to destroy what little was left of spain as an empire.
Worse it made the US into an imperial power.
US relations with Russia are as hostile as during the cold war.
Because most of the left beleives a narative that is false.
This is not only a media narrative. It is not only a narrative sold to us by the left.
It is a narrative that the US intelligence community has sold to us.
This is extremely important. The intelligence community is a major influence regarding whether we go to war or not. The group debunking the DNC was hacked by Russia is the same people who challenged the intelligence community assessments of Iraqi Weapons of mass destruction. These are all highly credential former NSA and CIA analysts.
This is not tinfoil hats vs. the experts, it is more like the wise mentors vs. the young turks.
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/15/what-if-the-dnc-russian-hack-was-really-a-leak-after-all-a-new-report-raises-questions-media-and-democrats-would-rather-ignore/
I would strongly suggest weighing this with respect to Charlottesville as well as the rest of the news we get, and with respect to everything we are told by experts.
None of us should just beleive the VIPS report.
Nor should we have beleived uncritically what the media and the intelligence community reported to us.
We have a responsibility to ourselves to think critically, not to beleive everything we are told, not by the right, not by the left, not by the media.
We can not become experts in everything. But we can look into a few things enough to determine who we can trust and who we can not.
Trust is one of the most critical traits in the modern world.
In our increasingly complex globally connected society we have the riches of more sources and more choices then ever before in human existance.
The extent of our success depends on our skill at determining who and what to trust.
1). I do not understand the ire over statues of Robert E. Lee. If the citizens of charlottesville want the statue gone, they can get rid of it.
I am more concerned that what is going on is a deliberate attempt to obliterate the past to be able to recast it to fit whatever narrative suits those doing the destroying.
Slavery is the original sin of the United States. It is a horrid stain on the most significant step in human history – government established as a servant of the people.
Almost 80% of those who signed the declaration of independence owned slaves at one time or another. The most influential thinkers and leaders in human history, whose most remarkable achievement was creating a nation, a government whose purpose was the protection of individual liberty – owned other human beings.
The incongruity is beyond belief. Nor is it something that we should ever forget.
It is important not to forget – because slavery is such a great evil. It is also important not to forget because despite such a pervasively immoral flaw, these men shaped not just their world, but our world and that of much of the human race for good.
As great as their sin, their accomplishments are still greater.
We should not forget their evil, but we can not forget their good.
My great concern is this is not about statues, it is not about the civil war, it is an effort to change history. It is an effort to change the present and the future by altering our understanding of the past.
There is already discussion of tearing down the Jefferson memorial.
This is not about Nathan Bedford Forest or Robert E. Lee.
It is not about the civil war.
It is not about slavery.
The real objective is to diminish the significance of the great good that was accomplished with the founding of this nation.
Statues do not matter. Even the people really do not matter much.
Their ideas matter a great deal – both the good ones and the bad ones.
2).
Blood and Soil is a Nazi reference. But it is much more than that.
jus soli – the right of the soil is birth right citizenship – the right of citizenship granted to anyone born on american soil. The US is one of very few countries with birth right citizenship. Without it almost all US hispanics would not be citizens.
This is something that Trump and some of the extreme right want to get rid of.
I have been watching videos for days trying to find anti-semetic references,
I was unable to find any until I tripped over a VICE peice that was tracking Christopher Cantwell. At the same time web searches will turn up anti-semetism in antifa.
Symbolism was incredibly important in this, on both sides and in the media, and the politics and our perceptions.
So much so that it completely destroyed any ability to perceive reality.
There were some Nazi flags – I have only been able to find two. There were also alot of WWI German empire symbols.
The marchers went out of their way to use symbolism to incite the left to violence.
The tiki torch march through UVA the night before – which was entirely peaceful without any police involvement and protection, was also a deliberate effort to “invade the space” of the counter protestors. To assure that the largest possible number of counter protestors would show up and that they would be as angry as possible.
I am not “mind reading” in this – several notables from unite the right have openly stated this.
A significant minority of the marchers went to Charlottesville with the expectation and desire for violence. They were drilled not to be the aggressors, not to start anything – but to end it. They came fairly well organized. The Well Armed New York Millitia was responsible for breaking up most of the violent confrontations – because the police were not.
3). I lived through the race riots of the 60’s. I lived through Martin Luther King and Malcom X’s murders. I lived through Rodney king and the subsequent riots.
I went to an experimental school where inner city blacks were taught with suburban whites, tempers sometimes flared, there was anger and resentment all arround. There were also friendship and cooperation. I have close black friends that grew up in real poverty in crappy and violent neighborhoods. After I was married I lived for years in a neighborhood the police only showed en-masse and knife fights often occured on the streets.
My home was the only one on the block that was not broken into – because I owned a german shepard and a doberman. My wife was assaulted by a black man for 4 hours, in an incident that made headlines for 3 days. changed our lives for ever and took a decade for us to get beyond.
The point is that I know what real racism is.
Today after we elected a black president – twice. One who was respected by nearly all of us – whether we agreed with him or not.
Today, I am expected to believe that racism, sexism, homophobia are somehow worse than they have ever been ?
My children are both asian. Most of my friends are gay or minorities, or gay and minorities, or some other permutation of the tossed salad that makes our incredibly diverse country today.
We still have problems. But with rare exceptions these are very small problems, nor do I expect they will ever go away. We are humans we will not ever be perfect.
Just yesterday my daughter made the mistake of saying loudly in a restaurant that she would never date an asian boy. An asian family at the adjacent table looked up – prepared to atleast deliver disapproving and disgusting looks, until they saw that my daughter was chinese.
I am not sure how my daughter came to the racist conclusion that she will not date asians.
Certainly not from her parents. Nor have I got a clue as a white male with asian adult children how to even address it. It is not evidence that our world is going to hell.
Both of my kids are very strongly against affirmative action – because they were raised by ordinary over achieving white middle class professionals. They can not possibly compete with actual asians raised by tiger moms for the few slots in college for asians.
They are only getting in to college on merit when compared to ordinary white people.
3). there are lots of societal conversations we should have. Issues of race among them.
That said our problems with race today do not rise to the level of public attention it receives.
The “white male anger” you are noting – is NOT widespread.
It is primarily the anger of working class young white males.
It is there because as a group these are a larger disadvantaged group in our country.
They see a world where if they were anything else they would have advantages.
It is not surprising that many of them believe that absent preferences given to others they would be better off.
It is not surprising because the left insists on painting the world as zero sum.
The implicit premise of the social safety net is to create equality from inequality.
The explicit premise of progressive taxes and redistribtution is that whatever someone receives comes at the expense of others.
If you teach that zero sum garbage – you should not be surprised when people beieive it.
You should not be surprised when angry white males think that every other groups success – real or imagined is coming at their expense.
Much of the worst of Trump. Much of the worst of the extreme right is either the same or the logical consequence of the fallacies that the left has sold so many of us on.
Hitler made it clear that his virulent hatred for communism was because both groups fought for the hearts and minds of the same people, and they did so with much the same arguments. There was only room in politics for one.
4). Bzzt, wrong.
James Fields is not Timothy McVeigh.
Fields is a schizophrenic, it was inevitable that some extremist perspective would consume him and lead him to violence. If it was not the right, it would have been the left and if not that he would have invented an ideology on his own.
We have a long list of people like Fields. With time and distance we are usually wise enough to grasp that these are broken people, not terrorists.
Jeremy Christian was suposed to be a neo-nazi murderer until it turned out he was a Bernie Bro, and then it was acceptable to attribute his actions to mental illness.
Two people died as a consequence of Christians bad acts.
This is important.
If you are caught shoplifting 3 times – it becomes a felony.
Getting caught two more times will result in a manditory life sentence – for shoplifting.
We are criminalizing life at a rapid rate.
When ordinary acts become crimes we must escalate real crime, we slowly work towards making everything into a capital offense.
Cole younger commited numerous bank and train robberies that resulted in many deaths.
He went to prison for 20 years and had a successful carrer as an author an entertainer afterwords. James Fields is never likely to be free another day in his life.
When we call everything terrorism, we diminish actual terrorism.
But this is a common problem.
Much of the conflict in this country today – between left and right, and between different posters on TNM is due to “twisting” the meaning of words.
Hate speach is repugnant and immoral. But it is not actual violence.
We also distort our actions and responses as well as those of govenrment.
We have a “war” on drugs – because in war we do not have to follow the same rules as we do with ordinary crime.
We wage “war” on whatever is the cause of the day.
War is the legitimate sphere of the govenrment – particularly the federal government.
So if we can wage war on something – we can bring the full resources of government to bear, and we can do so without respecting individual rights – because after all – its war.
Calling a hit & run by a schizophrenic prone to violence in a situation beyond his ability to cope with an act of terrorism bends our law unrecognizably.
We are not going to calm down and become more rational if we are ratcheting up the rhetoric.
5).
Rick – what is the difference between:
peacefully protesting the removal of a statue
demonstration of neo-Nazi solidarity
Both are inherently peaceful.
As best as I can tell the core of your argument is that because the right groups wanted the left groups to respond violently, that diminishes their culpability.
We have had myriads of events involving antifa accross the country over the past year.
Near universally they result in violence.
Antifa has protested ordinary republicans.
The have been violent to people wearing Trump or MAGA hats.
Antifa has unequivocally noted that anyone with the slightest inclination towards Trump is a fascist, nazi to be beaten.
It is probably a stupid thing to rile a mad dog – but they are still a mad dog.
We are not free to respond to repugnant speech with violence.
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927).
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927).
“we are not free to respond to repugnant speech with violence”
The pope is wrong.
That is a stupid argument.
It is also a ridiculously stupid fallacious appeal to authority.
Should our law on gay marraige reflect the views of the pope ?
What of abortion ?
But then as Prof. Haidt says – I am arguing with the rider and the elephant is not listening.
You only hear emotion.
6). This stinks more the more we learn.
There was a similar but smaller event in early july.
50 actual Klan members protested the statues removal.
The police provided them the normal protection,
No KKK member engaged in violence.
22 Antifa were arrested – mostly for assaulting police officers.
MacAulfie claimes the unite the right group was better equiped than the police.
The unite the right group was well equiped.
They had home made riot protection gear,
Many were armed,
The new york militia in Khaki and armed with “assault rifles” performed the task you would have expected of the police – breaking up conflicts.
But overall the marchers were not a fraction as well armed as the police, state police and national guard that were on hand.
The resources to squelch this were readily available.
The police even had armoured vehilces – which were used by police traviling through antifa areas.
MacAulfie also publicly claimed that the police recovered “weapons caches” – the police have denied that.
The security plan for the march is now available.
There are serious problems with the plan.
The various police forces completely surrounded the park on 3 sides – east, north and west. The south side was left open to the street.
The marchers were brought from an assembly area in a different park down the street – I beleive a distance of 2 miles, running a gauntlet of antifa protestors on both sides of the street with police stationed only at intersections blocking vehilce traffic.
After running the guantlet the markers were herded into protected pens on either side of the monument where they were to be for the speeches.
30 min before the event was to start – after running the antifa guantlet, the governor canceled the permit and told the marchers that if they did not leave they constituted an illegal assembly. The marchers left – AGAIN running the same guantlet they had to get in,
though this was a bit less organized and small groups of marchers sought to get out of the street and take a more northerly route away from antifa to return to McIntyre park were they dispersed.
All or nearly all the video you see of conflict between markers and counter protestors, is during the two trips down the street to get in and out of the park.
I have heard some reports that the march down the street into the park was not part of the original plan – that marchers were supposed to arrive into the park from the north away from antifa.
Regardless, the plan itself makes it clear than antifa were the aggressors.
Much of the video that you see of marchers in what look like riot gear are forces that were deliberately deployed – as the police should have been, to protect the flanks of the march.
It is not always clear from the video’s but for the most part marchers are moving towards the park BETWEEN those with the sheilds and helmets.
There is also a separate issue that shows in some videos because the marchers were forced through a narrow choke point at a set of stairs to get into the park – and antifa was in control of either side of the stairs.
I am still trying to get accurate information on the arrests, so far I beleive 23 people have been arrested – James Fields and 22 counter protestors.
Many of the arrests of counter protestors are for assaulting police or for assaulting media.
We saw similar results in Richmond and Seattle on Sunday.
In richmond something like 15 antifa protestors were arrested – mostly for assaulting police or media during a protest against civil war statues on monument way.
There were no alt-right or right anyone else present.
Antifa does not need opposition to be violent.
In seattle a group called “patriot prayer” held an event. The police attempted to isolate antifa from that group by several blocks, Antifa spent hours trying to get arround the police lines and only the mobility of bicycle police in riot gear prevented about a 1000 antifa from descending on about 200 peaceful protestors.
Again about 15 antifa were arrested for assaulting police.
No one from the patriot prayer group was disruptive much less arrested.
A very small number of antifa protestors did manage to get to the event, they were disruptive and a few were arrested but no one engaged with them.
These are but a few of the dozens of instances over the past year.
In most cities antifa has made it absolutely explicitly clear they are going to oppose any public events by any group they deem unacceptable – and they think everyone who supports Trump is a nazi.
7).
Sorry Rick. Trumps first remarks were all that were ever necescary.
Trump did shoot himself in the foot. He never should have said anything more.
This was NOT an opportunity for “moral leadership”
Trump was being rope-a-doped into the distorted narative on this event.
This was not an act of domestic terrorism.
It was not an event that requires any federal government attention.
To the extent Trump has any obligation to speak at all, it was because he can not seem to shut his mouth about similar things that do not require his expression.
The one thing Trump mostly got right – which you and the media and the left DO NOT.
Is this was about VIOLENCE. We can argue about who was the aggressor,
But the exercise of protest or counter protest, the exposition of ideas even repugnant ones does not EVER justify violence.
If we can not agree on that – we are in serious trouble.
And it is that that is at the root of why antifa is primarily culpable.
Antifa was not there to counter protest.
There were there to forcibly prevent the expression of a viewpoint.
Whether the marchers were KKK or actual Nazi’s, they were engaged in legitimate expression.
Antifa was not there to provide a counter argument – unless you beleive violence is argument.
It is irrelevant what James fields thought while driving.
It is irrelevant what he said.
It is very mildly relevant whether he was provoked by violence – his car was actually hit by a baseball bat when he slowed down before striking those in the streets.
There is also a bit of question regarding the police in this too.
Once the streets were open to vehicle traffic why were the police allowing protestors on them ?
Regardless, this is all about violence and nothing else
Or are you actually arguing that it is acceptable to respond to repugnant speech with violence ?
8). Can we please end this dog whistle coded speach nonsense ?
This is a stupid left wing meme.
First, what you are asking for is impossible.
Obama – though ?I think he was a failure as a president, and I think he should be viewed as a failure – even by progressive standards.
He presided over the worst recovery since the great depression.
Whatever he did was inarguably a failure.
Yet, his supporters continue to treat him as a demi-god.
Why ? Because no matter the reality, no matter what he says they are going to find in it coded – and sometimes not coded speech confirming their own beleifs.
They are going to find that – almost no matter how extreme their views are.
I know very few on the far far left who do not see Obama as a hero.
Who do not beleive that he was fighting their fight, that he wanted what they want.
Those few on the left I have the greatest respect for – like Glenn Greenwald, are those who are capable of saying “the emporer has no clothes”
So if those on the left – no matter how extreme are going to find support in whatever Obama says that he really is one of them, why would you expect differently from those on the extreme right ?
While modern politics quite often involves tediously focus group tested rhetoric to get nuanced phrasing and words to appeals to the largest possible group, and maybe you want to call that coded speach or dog whistles, for the must part Trump in particular does NOT engage in that.
I think Trump speaks inarticularly – I think that he does so somewhat deliberately.
Just as I think the speach patterns of Bush and Obama were also tailored for an audience.
But I do not think he laces his speach with dog whistles.
I do think he should quit doing press conferences himself. I think that he might want to consider entirely shutting down the whitehouse press corp.
I think that Trump is fairly effective in communicating through a variety of other methods.
Using twitter alone as an example – while his tweets are inarticulate – they go directly unparsed to his constituents
I think that would be a wise and bold move.
I also think something similar is coming eventually anyway.
The traditional media is dying.
There is no reason to keep feeding dinosaurs.
8). one last remark on “dog whistles”.
This concept is destructive of language and communications.
We must take words to mean what they say rather than being sure they have secret meanings. Because otherwise we can not commincate.
I further find the dog whistle argument absurd.
A dog whistle is something that can be heard only by the dog.
If those on the left are sure they know what Trump dog whistled to his people,
then it is not a dog whistle.
The only way this nonsense about coded speach works is if those who are not supposed to hear it can not.
Otherwise it is made up nonsense.
It is a means of further destroying language by saying you did not actually mean what you said and I can judge your speach – not on what you said, but what I think you said.
This is the destruction of communications, and it is the actual expressed intention of the extreme left.
9). I expect politicians right and left to think for themselves. I do not care whether they side with Trump or not. They certainly should not be defending him when they think he is wrong.
But I think you misread this. I think large numbers of republicans rushed out to condemn nazis and racists, because most republicans other than Trump are terrified of being called nazi’s and racists.
I further think it is stupid – because they get called nazi’s and racists anyway.
I do not think the myriads of republicans who spoke out engaged in any act of courage.
Most of them engaged in an act of cowardice.
Courage would be
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire.
Actual courage has been notably lacking from most everyone, regarding charlotesville.
If you are not on the side of free speach. If you think that the real and imagined repugnant views of some at charlottesville permit the violence that occured, then I think you are the coward.
30 years ago. I was with the ACLU allowing the KKK to march through my communtiy.
30 years ago. I was out singing hymns by candle light as they marched through.
I would not go to a counter protest today – I am not afraid of the KKK or Nazi’s
I am afraid of standing beside people who respond to offensive speach with violence and are at the very best no less morally repugnant than the KKK.
It takes no courage to speak out against the KKK or Nazi’s.
12).
The marchers in Charlottesville were outnumbered by counter protestors 5-1,
That is the norm everywhere anything like this occurs.
The actual evidence is that the KKK and NeoNazi’s are at a nadir, they are not resurgent.
This even was probably a big boost for them.
Regardless, their numbers are miniscule, and their influence nearly non-existant.
Only the extreme left beleives there is this vast resurgent white supremacy movement.
Why ? Because they beleive the identity politics they have been spraying.
Wear a MAGA hat – you are a hateful white supremecists.
They beleive this election tipped – because about 100,000 white male working class neonazi’s – who have voted democrat in the prior two elections, were somehow magically influenced by russians to vote for Trump.
Trump was elected because of a backlash against identity politics.
If you are on the left – identity politics means chastising racists, and homophobes, and misogynists. And that means if you lost, that the country must be racist, misogynist and homophobic.
I wish I saw this going away. But I do not.
This does not end until those on the left grasp that race, orientation, sex, and gender, while still and always issues are no longer the defining problems of our country.
I would have hoped that losing this election would have produced that teachable moment.
But it has not.
The next president needs to work to solve our actual problems.
It is irrelevant whether that person is polarizing or not.
“It is irrelevant whether that person is polarizing or not.”
By far, one of your most rattle-brained comments.
Polarization limits/inhibits/prevents consensus legislation.
What part of that escapes your confused brain?
And why do you think I want consensus legislation ?
Just because something is so bland that most of us do not oppose it does not make it a good idea.
I am very hard pressed to think of any new legislation we actually need.
But I think we could get rid of 2/3 of the CFR and not notice – except for a rise in standard of living.
“The marchers in Charlottesville were outnumbered by counter protestors 5-1,
That is the norm everywhere anything like this occurs.”
BZZZTTTT. CLOUDY ASSERTION.
Yes, more unarmed benign counter protestors, from mainstream church and religious organizations ( the usual people who protest white nationalism) but also a good number of local people who showed up on their own behalf to protest – like the woman who was killed, there with people from her office.
The MAJORITY of those who showed up to march were members of out-of-town white nationalists & KKK & Neo Nazi groups, MANY of them armed. There were FEWER so-called Antifa troublemakers than KKK Nazis, Etc. prove otherwise.
Your statistical ‘outnumbered’ observation doesn’t mention that far more marchers showed up with guns and other military-style toys of violence.
So the 5:1 ration is false because ? Locals do not count ?
The woman who was killed was practically a professional protester – I am not looking to cast blame, just note she was not typical.
Further the assertion that this was all ministers and church goers is complete crap.
I have been at those types of counter protests – they do not involve throwing rock, waterballoons full of urine, macing people and cursing like a sailor.
And they do not involve people with aluminum baseball bats.
Go actually look at the video of James Fields driving into the crowd.
Again no one is looking to exhonerate him. But lets atleast be honest.
His car was whacked atleast once with a baseball bat after he slowed down, and then immediately after impact atleast a sozen people with baseball bats went at him and the car.
Maybe you can argue some kind of justification – but you can not argue these people were not armed and prepared for a fight.
Finally, this march was advertised for a month. About 1000 antifa showed up at the prior march were there were only 50 KKK members,
are you honestly saying that a group that shows up in strength everytime someone marches with a MAGA hat on, that has been involved in violence all over the country every single time they show up, that has a hard on for Nazi’s and the KKK that brings fire to their eyes, decided “Nah, we are not chowing up at charlottesville” ?
You do know that Charlotesville is about 2hr from DC, and about 3hr from Balitimore ?
Please Jay, lets not strain credulity here.
The student body at UVA is about 22,000 students. I would guess you can get 1000 antifa right there.
I am not really interested in some statistical debate about the exact makeup of the crowds.
Absolutely agreed the marchers came from all over, mostly not from charlotesville, but mostly from Virginia, or west virginia, or ohio or kentucky which are all close by.
Where is it that you think you go to find NeoNazi’s – New England ?
In atleast one post I have noted that many of the unite the right protestors had guns – including semi-automatic weapons.
Absolutely!!!
And yet no one was shot, not a single round was fired, they had no problems with the police – aside from the police not showing up.
Chris Canterwell – head of one of the groups that showed up that actually was a NeoNazi group, had atleast 2 hand guns, a military knife and an assualt rifle.
He was maced twice in 2 days and did not shoot anyone.
And absolutely many or the unite the right people showed up with essentially home made riot protection gear – much the same as what the police had.
And given that the police did not protect the legitimate permitted marchers from the counter protestors who had no legitimate reasons to be on the streets, it is very fortunate that they did.
Jay, even nazi’s are actually allowed to protect themselves from people throwing rocks etc at them.
Are these the churchgoers and ministers that you are preaching about
http://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/08/unite_the_right_rally_9_gi.jpg?itok=pLnN1Pzb
“New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg made the mistake of admitting that along with the abhorrent, violent, white supremacists who terrorized Charlottesville over the weekend, many Antifa protesters were also enacting “hate-filled” violence, as they’ve done in several other cities in recent months. For noting that the “hard left seemed as hate-filled as the alt-right” — citing “club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park” — Stolberg was hammered online, even after repenting and issuing a correction that depicted the violent left in more heroic terms.”
Those who showed up for the march – wherever they came from showed up legally, with a permit to march. They marched down the streets they were directed to march to the fenced in areas in the park they were supposed to stay in for the actual event,
When the governor declare the event illegal – pretty much in violation of a federal court order, these same people obeyed the police and marched back throught the gauntlet they came to MacInyre park 2 miles away.
The police refused to allow any of the marchers to send vans back to pick up other marchers and protect them from antifa attacks while they returned, and the police did not secure the march root, or the south side of the event, pretty much guaranteeing that antifa was going to attack the marchers along the route.
Both sides had protective gear – as did a very large number of reporters and camera crews.
I have no problems accepting that people coming to a march with helmets and weapons are coming expecting violence.
Given that the marchers – regardless of their labels or beleifs obeyed the direction of authorities and stayed withing the designated march route until the police terminated the event, that places the onus for violence on the counter protestors.
There are several reporters who have filed stories claiming they were threated and asulted by antifa. Atleast one fromt he hill pressed charges and it turned out the guy she carged was an antifa leader with outstanding assualt charges from other events.
“Those who showed up for the march – wherever they came from showed up legally, with a permit to march”
BZZZZT. Over broad inaccurate generalization.
Only ONE permit was issued by the city for ONE location.
( get off your lazy butt and google it)
The ‘marchers’ scattered to many locations, chanting, yelling, flashing signs. The counter protestors shadowed them.
The Violent Antifa at those gatherings are scum, but we’re only a tiny percentage of the counter protestors.
The Neo-Nazis and KKK are worse.
Are you really making this argument ?
I have googled this. I have become quite familiar with it.
As I have told you many times before – it is not hard to get facts right – all you have to do is not make them up.
The city issued a permit.
The city and police worked with Unite the Right to coordinate the security of the entire event. The assembly and disbursement areas were worked out with the city, The route worked out with the city.
EXCEPT that a federal court ordered that Unite the right must be allowed to gather at Lee park where the statue was rather than MacIntyre Park – where the city wanted the event to occur and where the unite the right groups were directed to assemble and disburse – aside from that one issue, everything else was structured by the city.
The unite the right groups assembled as and where directed, marched from there to the park along the route directed – a route that as I understand was changed by the city on the day of the march. The unite the right groups remained inside the spaces they were permitted and directed to occupy from the start through until after the assembly was declared illegal and even after that primarly fled as directed by the police down the same guantlet they had been directed to enter by
All the conflict occured along the route from macintyre park to lee park.
Once the marchers were in lee park they were separated from the antifa and there was no violence. In fact the gov. and mayor declared the assembly illegal after the marchers had all reached lee park and the violence had stopped, and just before the event was supposed to start.
None of the above is secret.
Are you saying that the marchers need not have followed the plan the city and police provided ?
Are you saying that they should have figured out how to get themselves airdropped into lee park ?
With respect to antifa vs. other protestors.
I have no idea what the mix and neither do you,
Nor is antifa some formal group.
Many leftist students from UVA showed up and essentially called themselves antifa for the day.
Regardless, the counter protestors along the route of the march were nearly all violent and almost as well prepared as the unite to right groups.
Many of those had helments and shields and there were a huge number of bottles, rocks, urine water balloons, mace, pepper spray, baseball bats.
Watch the video of James Fields running into counter-protestors.
His car is hit atleast once by a baseball bat on the way down the street.
After impact atleast a dozen people with baseball bats attack his car as he tries to flee.
Probably half of the injured are those who attacked his car as he tried to flee.
You can argue whatever you wish about whether they we somehow justified.
You can not argue that one one side street – the one that Heather Heyer was hit on, that atleast 1/3 of the crowd had baseball bats.
And that is among people NOT on the march lines.
And yes on leaving Lee part the unite the right groups were directed to return by the same route they came in. Many choose to leave the route and head further north
AWAY From antifa and the counter protestors.
There were some conflicts as they headed north and east towards MacIntrye park – because antifa chased them
There was not supposed to be any counter protestors north of the march route between the two parks.
As I understand it the marchers were supposed to enter the park from the north – a full block away from the protestors, and that was changed by the city on the day of the march.
Again a failure of the government.
“The actual evidence is that the KKK and NeoNazi’s are at a nadir, they are not resurgent.”
What evidence?
The number of HATE GROUPS is rising. Only 457 hate groups existed in the U.S. back in 1999; 892 in 2015; and close to 1,000 last year.
The rising numbers are attributed to the internet and Social Media dissemination and proselytizing via that technology:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-nationalist-movement-twitter-faster-growth-isis-islamic-state-study-a7223671.html
“The number of white nationalists and self-identified Nazisympathisers on Twitter have multiplied more than 600 per cent in the last four years…”
“These accounts saw a sharp increase in followers, from about 3,500 in 2012 to 22,000 in 2016. ”
“Donald Trump is a prominent subject among white nationalists on Twitter. According to the study, white nationalist users are “heavily invested” in the Republican’s candidacy. Tweets mentioned Mr Trump more than other popular topics among the groups. “
Possibly because more groups are classified as “hate groups.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes a list of “hate” groups is a highly partisan and controversial organization, and routinely includes faith-based pro-life groups, right along with violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. I did see that California is #1 in on the SPLC list….you Golden Staters need to simmer down out there! All that weed, and you’re still all hatin’ on each other…..
That said, there does seem to be a lot more hate these days, and a general lack of respect for the humanity and dignity of others.
Hate groups is an absolutely nonsensical term.
It is a reflection of some of the stupidity the left has managed to get into our law.
Whether hate is morally repugnant or not depends on your moral system.
Christianity makes hate – even of your enemy immoral.
But in the US the left has zero problems with hate of an enemy.
In the left moral system – Nazi’s are evil, therefore hating them is morally good.
In the real world most hate – even hate of the hateful diminishes you as a person.
Worse still the identity politics of the left, ultimately ends up directing hate at people who are just slightly less than perfect.
Discrimination can not possibly be rooted out. We all discriminate.
But those forms of discrimination that we generally feel are bad, are diminishing over time.
But the hate for discrimination that most of us can not see or may not exist is so grreat in many it consumes them. They become the “hateful hating haters.
I am not worried about the marchers in Charlottesville,
They do not have sufficient power to stop the removal of a statue.
But the violent extremists on the left are capable of far more damage.
and as evidenced by charlottesville – they are far most strongly supported and protected by the left.
That makes those of you incapable of condemning ALL the violence in charlotesville complicit. And that is a huge problem for the country right now.
That is a far greater danger than racism.
I think you should syndicate.
11)
North Korea was not likely to remain on the for burner for long.
It is highly unlikely that NK is invading SK tomorow.
It is highly unlikely they actually have the capacity to nuke Guam today.
The problem is not what they can do today – but what they will be able to do tomorow.
Confrontation may occur if NK continues to test – which it is likely.
I would be happy to here from anyone who has any idea how to deal with NK that is demonstrably better than what Trump is doing.
I have yet to hear anything promising.
Dave: I promise I’ll get around to your point-by-point breakdown after I get a decent night’s sleep. Seriously, I appreciate the time you’ve put into your responses, and I’ll address as many as I can.
Do not sweat it. You need not respond. Most of my critiques are small.
Overall your post was quite illuminating too me.
I expected a different response from you.
I keep refering to Prof. Haidt’s elephant and rider analogy.
I do not know how to speak to the elephant.
But your posts give me a pretty good idea where the elephant of the ordinary man is at.
And it is not quite where I expected.
I noted I have been following twitter for a few months.
I am following a large number of people that I respect – though not always agree with.
The picture I am getting there is not what I would have hoped for, and not where you are either.
I disagree with you on some points, but you are strongly reflective of where much of the country is – even if I think that is wrong.
Rick;
Despite my critiques, I think mostly this was a very good article.
Thanks much!
I think it might be time for the congress to look at the 25th amendment and use it to remove Trump from office due to his inability to discharge the office of president due to mental instability. His appearance at trump tower arguing with the press shows a man in some form of mental deterioration.
Basically, “Donald Trump” your fired! Maybe then VP Spence could work to bring the country back together with the help of congressional leaders.
The 25th amendment allows the vice president AND a majority of the cabinet to TEMPORARILY remove the president.
If you did so now, Trump would immediately notify congress that he was not incapacitated, and each chamber of congress would have to vote by a 2/3 majority that the president was incapacitated.
This is little different from impeachment, and it is not going to happen.
We elected him, he has not fundimentally changed. Many of us may not like it, but if you wish to alter that you much either impeach or win the next election.
And if you impeach absent the support of the vast majority of the public you risk far worse than what you saw in charlottesville.
Removing the president is not like removing a confederate statue.
I would further note that while I think Trump should have made his original statement and then shut up, and that he has subsequently botched these stupid rope-a-dope demands that he do more, this all has little to do with the actual job of president.
The events at Charlotesville have or should have no nexus with the federal government.
The permitting, and security for the event rests with the city and the state of virginia.
The responsibility for subsequent investigations rests with the same people.
If you beleive that the president should interfere with Charlottesville – then you are granting similar ability to intervene throughout the country in any crime or protest that he pleases.
As an example I do not have a problem with “sanctuary cities”. At the same time I beleive that the federal govenrment should not be funding cities (or anyone else),
Cities should manage themselves with many they raise from their own taxes.
We should not be redistributing the costs and benefits of rural or urban life to others.
People should be subject to the real costs of where they live.
But if you think Trump can and should involve himself in Charlottesville – then why can’t he mess arround in the government of any city or state he choses.
Why can’t he nationalize the police in San Francisco, if they will not cooperate with federal law enforcement ?
Do not get me wrong – I do not want that. It is unconstitutional. But it is no less unconstitutional to presume the president should interfere in other areas you wish.
If you want a more effective and reasonable way to deal with the speach of those you hate, try something like this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHXo7E7V0AAyaTs.jpg:large
Another idea is to make fun of them.
What is not acceptable is to suppress speach or to resort to violence.
No No, this is only about the confederacy.
No one is looking to erase washington or Jefferson or ….
If you beleive that I have so much to sell you.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/346940-opinion-removing-washingtons-statue-is-a-slap-in-the
No antifa is not violent and does not beat journalists and then actually try to claim moral superiority for doing so.
Giving the tremendous efforts that those on the left are going to, to identify and out “white supremecists”, I find it odd that they do not grasp that – if you engage in public protest – you have given consent to use your image.
I get very tired of this were are entitled to be treated in way X but others are not hypocracy.
This post is laced top to bottom with hypocracy.
The author littlerally argues that violence against white men who are running is justified.
It is unacceptable to out people of color and anti facists – but it is acceptable to out white supremecists ?
What an evil person – he did something different from what we told him we wanted – in a public space – how dare he!
I do not have anything polite to say to those of you who do not grasp that antifa is atleast as dangerous as white supremecists.
These “unite the right” people were attempting to protect an old statue.
The antifa people are seeking to change the rules of conduct for the world.
The new rules are – whatever we say goes, and the rules are different – depending on who you are.
Who is the antisemite ?
Burge’s like a flipped coin- I like this one that came out heads up
He’s suggesting a good use for Civil War statues
If this is just about civil war statues why all the violence ?
I do not think many of us care that much about civil war statues.
If the two groups at Charlottesville do – let them fight it out.
Again ad hominem.
It is irrelvant whether you like burges or not.
antifa – and much of the left is as anti-semetic as the marchers.
That is true no matter who makes the argument.
A must read for those of you who continue to express wishful thinking excuses for your tRump support, from one of his most ardent early supporters:
Behind NYT’s pay wall.
Would you care to sumarize his argument ?
Another reminder that tRump has always been a self serving idiot-liar
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/details-details-donald-trump-has-plaque-at-his-golf-course-commemorating-civil-war-battle-that-never-happened/amp
Even the Center-Right Economist has concluded that tRump “is politically inept, morally barren and temperamentally unfit for office.”
He needs to be removed from office.
You continue to beleive that we get to re-do elections based on the whim of the day.
There is no more merit to the economist or some other authority saying Trump (or anyone else) is inept, than there is when you say so yourself.
It is a naked appeal to authority, and worse about an opinion.
Trump is president – get over it.
The arguments over his qualifications are tiresome.
The qualifications for president are natural born citizenship, age and getting elected.
There are no others. He has met those.
I have no doubt there are many many people that you and I could both agree might be better. Those were not our choices in November.
I personally think Trump and the whitehouse should stop given press conferences.
I think they do not provide the people any value.
I do not think the hysteria over the latest thing Trump has said matters much.
Further I find the fact that the media and the left have turned Charlottesville into some kind of litmus test for republican politicians and that so many of them have been stupid enough to play disconcerting.
There is nothing about charlottesville that is a federal issue – atleast not anything that is actually being discussed.
The fate of civil war monuments should be in the hands of local governments.
Public speach over that or any other issue – even by revolting groups is and should be constitutionally protected. Hate speach is not and can not be regulated.
Does the fact that Trump will not publicly mouth precisely the words about some extremist groups that you wish him to, have anything at all to do with being cheif executive of the united states ? If so how ?
Is there some reason that the left and media are entirely unable to grasp that the speach of antifa is atleast as offensive ? Frankly their speach is nearly identical.
You seem to have no interest in the fact that prime failure in charlottesville was of government.
Had the police separated the groups – which is what they have done everywhere than anything similar to this has occured for decades none of this would have happened.
Worse still this does not look like a mistake, it appears that a deliberate choice was made to create the conditions for violence.
Most of you seem fixated on words, not actions.
The role of government in Charlotesville was not to silence either group, but to prevent violence. We are each free to assess the words as we please.
Acts of violence are crimes.
One of the critical roles of government is the prevention and punishment of violence.
At charlottesville it FAILED. If government can not manage its most critical function why are we to trust it with anything else ?
We can debate the culpability of different groups for the violence. But the left does not seem to care all that much for the one part of charlottesville that actually matters most – the violence.
Replace Civil War Statues With Trump Monuments – like this one
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/opinions/wp/2017/08/17/we-have-the-best-statues/
It’s not only Lefties gagging on the tRump presidency:
“Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) delivered a stinging rebuke of President Trump on Thursday, telling reporters in his home state that the president has yet to show the “stability” or “competence” necessary to be a successful leader. “He also recently has not demonstrated that he understands the character of this nation,” Corker said. “He has not demonstrated that he understands what has made this nation great and what it is today. And he’s got to demonstrate the characteristics of a president who understands that.”
Dingy Donald’s Got To Go!
Jay, you have made this point over and over many times for many reasons after many situations that Trump has gotten himself into.
So how are we going to do that?
Assassination?
Impeachment?
Exercising the 25th amendment and finding a way to make it permanent?
Voting him out in 3 1/2 years?
I dont want to be part of #1. How about you?
We can’t do #2 or #3 ourselves and congress does not do anything the people want unless it is good for them or their party.
So we are left with #4.
If so maybe we can discuss something else until we know if he will be the GOP candidate in 2020. Right now I highly suspect he will not be.
“So how are we going to do that?”
The power of positive thinking: a focused concerted HEX that an asteroid hits him smack in the comb over.
OK, that’s wishful thinking. How about a heart attack?
So Trump keels over tomorow.
President Pence is sworn in, and procedes to impliment exactly the same agenda as Trump did.
What are you fighting ?
Your attacks are all on the person – ad hominem, but I do not beleive your target is the person, but the ideas.
Again you continue to make this argument that because there are people who are not happy with Trump that his presidency is illegitimate.
Do we have to Trot out the quotes from Reid about the lights skinned well spoken black guy ?
You wish to remove Trump from office – impeach him or vote him out in the next election.
All the rest is just meaningless hysteria.
I have my own complaints about his style. So what ?
I am not a pupetteer controlling Trump’s mouth.
Do you have a substantive argument about Trump ?
Such as how we should deal with North Korea ?
Or are you just going to deluge us with more links to people who do not like trump ?
I do not like Trump. But that has nothing to do with anything.
On atleast some issues regarding Trump’s actions or proposed actions – you and I might be able to agree.
I did not vote for him. He has not disappointed me. If someone had put a gun to my head and forced me to choose only between Hillary and Donald, I would probably have picked Trump.
I suspect the character of a Clinton presidency would be quite different.
I doubt every press conference would have produced a feeding frenzy.
But I highly doubt she would have done as well thus far as he has.
“Again you continue to make this argument that because there are people who are not happy with Trump that his presidency is illegitimate.”
No, as usual,you’ve distorted your comments with unfounded nonsense misrepresentation.
I’ve said OVER AND OVER he’s proved to be a devisive fool, incompetent to govern.
If we can’t remove him through impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment, we should contine to undermine his authority whenever and where-ever possible. Arent you in favor of blocking government whenever possible? If we short circuit tRump, government influence will shrink. Why aren’t you on your soapbox, yelling for more tRump impediments?
Divide what you have said over an over abotu Trump.
Eliminate the hyperbole,
and discard everything that is about style or rhetoric.
What we are left with is actions and polices.
Using those and those alone – demonstrate that he is an incompetent fool.
Even god judges us by our actions – not our thoughts or even our words.
For the most part Trump is dismantling government – that is something I support.
So why would I want to get rid of him ?
Further if as you claim he is divisive and nothing is getting done – why would I want to get rid of him ?
I want sand in the gears – if I can not actually shrink government.
Trump is great gobs of sand in the gears.
I would actively oppose removing him – because pence of someone else might end or slow the deconstruction of the administrative state, and might actually work to pass more bad legislation.
I would have been happey to seem PPACA repealed. There are a few alternatives I would have also been happy with – I think Cruz’s poison pill amendment would have had anything else acceptable.
But most of the GOP repeal planse were nothing more than ObamaCare lite.
Why is Obamacare that takes even longer to fail a good thing ?
No you are not getting my support to remove Trump.
Aside from the fact that even if I accepted that all the things you do not like with respect to him might be true, they have nothing to do with Trump as actual president.
You seem to think that offensive tweets of combative press conferences make him incompetent. Maybe if he was white house press secretary.
But he is president.
It is early, but the economy is on the road to recovery. It is still too early to credit Trump with doing better than Obama – Obama had two positive spikes that died,
but if what we have seen so far is sustained, having a (D) behind your name in Nov. 2018 will be the kiss of death.
More importantly maybe we can increase the size of the freedom caucus and get rid of some neo-cons and rhino’s and begin the business of actually shrinking government.
The central issue for the Unite the Right crowd was their belief that the removal of Lee’s statue constituted a slap in the face to “white” history. The irony is that their appearance at the site puts the lie to their ludicrous claims that the demonstration was not about racism.
As to whether Confederate monuments should go or stay, here is what Stonewall Jackson’s great-great grandsons have to say about it:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/stonewall_jackson_s_grandsons_the_monuments_must_go.html
Rob this sounds like a good idea! Things congress can not do:
Balance the budget
Reduce the national debt
Fix a screwed up healthcare reimbursement system
Pass tax reform to make taxes fairer for all
Get an infrastucture bill passed
So the next 4 years they can:
Remove all confederate statues
Remove all confederate names from federal buildings
Remove all confederate names from military bases
Remove all confederate names from counties
Remove all confederate names from cities
Remove all confederate names from schools
Remove all confederate names from streets/highways
And if there is anything that has a name like Lee that is not named after Robert E, but after someone else with that name like a trooper being memorialized by his state, too bad,it has to go since outsiders will assume it is Robert E Lee and not someone else killed protecting the local citizens and may cause outsiders to riot.
Walt Disney was a racist, as well. I’m thinking that we should ban all of the Disney films that were made during the time that he headed up the studio….or, at the very least remove the name Disney from all of those cute little films (lots of dog whistles in them anyway). It’s a stain on our cultural history,
And Babe Ruth ~ another racist ~ should be summarily erased from baseball history. We don’t want the “national pastime” to be perverted.
Elvis Presley? He was not only a racist but a cultural appropriator. Off with his….oops, he’s already dead, so just don’t play his music anymore.
In fact, let’s call it “Year Zero,” starting as soon as we overthrow the evil emperor tRump!! This nation shall be born anew! We can do it just as Mao did – purge the nation of all Republican racists, anyone who voted for tRump. Purge those bastards. Executions, prison camps, you name it. This is the only way we will get rid of racism. And the brave antifa forces will be our guide ~ I’ve been reading that they are just like the heroic forces that stormed Normandy in WWII. Brave, patriotic, and good. And they love bashing in Nazi heads, and spraying urine and feces on the pig cops.
JFK slept with a german spy – and pretty much anything else that moved.
RFK was little better.
MLK was infamous as a womanizer.
We can go on and on. Our heroes often have clay feet.
That is actually good to note. It makes them human, accessible.
It makes it possible to beleive that we can accomplish things too.
The increased excesses of the Alt Left were an inevitable outcome of electing tRump. Antibodies swarm to fight open wounds.
If a moderate Republican had been elected (like Kasich) we wouldn’t be seeing this level of divisive violence on either side.
I will agree that the violence of the alt-left was an inevitable result of Trump’s election.
But the alt-left is not fighting the orange combover.
They are fighting the platform he ran on.
They and you are saying that people who demanded their rights back from govenrment may not have them.
Kaisich was not elected.
Trump was.
He was elected both because of who he was – which you are fighting about
What he stood for – which you are fighting
and who and what hillary was.
You are free to oppose Trump’s policies, but atleast be honest.
It is what he stands for – what those who voted for him want, that you are fighting.
Ron;
I can agree with many of your points.
Names, monuments etc. are the business of local govenrment not the federal government.
It is looking like Roy Moore is going to be the Senator from Alabama.
That pretty strongly suggests that parts of the south are nowhere near ready to remove Robert E. Lee statues.
One thing the antifa and white supremecists are in agreement about is that it is about erasing history.
You kept repeating “confederate” but Since Saturday the left has been demanding defunding the jefferson memorial and expunging George Washington.
That is not “confederate”.
I grasp the greivance of blacks in particular.
Our history should not ignore the repugnant things our nation and its leaders have done in the past.
Nor should we ignore the great things they have done either.
The actual objective of the left is to destroy the past entirely.
Dave, you are way too literal when it comes to some comments I make. My comment concerning congress and names was complete sarcasm since they are all complete morons lead by the moron-in-chief, the Majority and Minority Morons and the Speaker Moron .
How else do we end up with the complete mess we have today in Washington?
The internet is a poor vehicle for sarcasm. Sorry I misread your response.
What!? No Peggy Lee Blvd!?!
Jay, we can have Peggy Lee Blvd. We just can’t have Lee Blvd or Lee Street. The left may not be able to distinguish that the house Peggy Lee grew up in and is located on a street named after her is not named after Robert E Lee if it is Lee Street only.
by the way, isn’t it comforting to know we have a country with so few critical problems that we can spend hours debating insignificant issues.
And I place these in the insignificant realm given the terrorist attacks, North Korea, the staggering debt and the incompetent healthcare reimbursement system we have today. So glad all those issue have been taken care of by our illustrious leaders.
These issues are inconsequential, and 2018 and 2020 will be about the economy, not statues.
Dave, these issues are not inconsequential. Do you really think Trump can stay on message about the great economy (if it is) when the democrats practice the “rope-a-dope” to get him off message. He is a sucker for getting taken off message.
No I do not think Trump can stay on message.
I also do not think it will matter.
If the economy continues to strengthen, short of starting a highly unpopular war,
republicans will do well in 2018, fiscal conservatives will do well and trump will be re-elected.
The hysteria the left has invoked over Trump is extremely difficult to sustain.
Further as Emerson noted – if you strike the king – you must kill the king.
Dave: “The actual objective of the left is to destroy the past entirely.”
Another stupid broad generalization.
And yet that is precisely what is going on.
I thought that my “stupid broad generalization” would be difficult to prove – and yet with a day or two we have not alt-left by actual democratic congressment calling to defund the jefferson memorial and eradicate Washington.
Attacks on people and symbols are nearly always attacks on ideas.
You do not honestly beleive that “unite the right” was fighting over statues ?
Of course you don’t
Then why do you presume that the left is fighting over statues ?
“And they love bashing in Nazi heads, and spraying urine and feces on the pig cops.”
If they only bashed in Nazi & KKK heads would you be less critical of them?
How about pies in the face?
You may not initiate violence PERIOD,
Preventing and punishing that is the first and formost role of government.
Violence is justified only as a proportionate response to violence.
You may not “punch a nazi” or pi a nazi
This statute has got to go!!!!!!
How about a poll of sorts. We are just about to increase the debt limit to over $20T
Raising the debt limit is inevitable. I wish that were no so, but it is a fact of life.
My question is how should this be done ?
In my view given the mess we have, fiscally responsible congressmen should not vote for any fiscal measure – such as Continuing Resolutions or raising the debt limit without getting something for it.
I would support merely getting a vote int he house and senate on several constitutional ammendments
Term Limits: I would propose limiting holding elected federal office to 20 years aggregate.
Debt limit: Require a 3/5’s vote of congress to authorize any federal debt.
Spending cap: Limit federal spending to 18% of GDP absent a 3/5’s vote of congress.
Balanced Budget: Requite the federal budget to be balanced, permitting an unbalenced budget with a 3/5 vote of congress.
Regulation: Require every future federal law or regulation to have a sunset provision no longer than 20 years. Impose an automatic sunset provision on old laws and regulations imposing a reauthorization date on each falling sometime in the next 20 years.
Require every federal department to have a standalone reauthorization every 5 years.
Require every new regulation to receive a clean majroity vote from congress within 90 days of of being final.
Restore the commerce clause to its constitutionally intended function of preventing the states from regulating interstate commerce. Federal law must find support elsewhere in the constitution. This would be the commerce clause as madison intended it.
Allow states to submit constitutional amendments for ratification without congress,
Any proposed amendment approved by 1/3 of state legislatures must be submitted to all states for a ratification vote.
Allow 2/3 of states to invalidate any federal law or regulation.
Voting: require proof of citizenship to vote in a federal election, and establish uniform nationwide standards for voting in federal elections.
On the policing at Charlottesville
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/17/de-policing-the-neo-nazi-rally-in-charlo
The heckler’s veto/
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/08/18/ryerson-university-cancels-free-speech-panel-as-a-threat-to-public-safety/
That ACLU on Nazi’s and the KKK in 1934
http://documents.latimes.com/aclu-asks-1934-shall-we-defend-free-speech-nazis-america/
“Riddle me this. Why are Confederate monuments not okay because ‘oh no slavery’, but the Egyptian Pyramids are somehow fine?”
It is not extremism that is the problem.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/reasonableness-radicalism?utm_content=59105424&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Now this one I can fully agree with: http://thehayride.com/2017/05/take-em-nola-demands-removal-andrew-jacksons-statue/
Rick, your 12 points are as good as a 12-cylinder Bentley. Smooth and powerful.
Thanks, dduck! We moderates need all the horsepower we can get.
Beating anyone not on the hard left as a KKK member or Nazi is not a new game.
Under the right circumstances, it could be a good idea to re-locate some of these statues to museums, where they would be clearly understood to be relics of our history, rather than glorification of the Confederacy and, particularly, of slavery.
Rick’s point that most of these statues are not meant to glorify the Confederacy, but to memorialize the fathers and sons and husbands who died defending their homes and communities, is a powerful one. And, it’s that argument that persuades me that the decision to remove these statues, if made, should be made by those communities in which they stand. If, as Robert E. Lee himself believed, they conclude that Confederate monuments are divisive, then have them moved to a museum. If they are allowed to stand, place a sign or plaque by them that explains why they are there. I would like to believe that most Americans are not as divided as the most extreme partisans on the left and right, and that we can learn from our mutual history.
It doesn’t surprise me Jay, that you support Antifa, because they oppose Trump, but these anarcho-marxists have been around for a long time, certainly well before anyone ever had a clue that Trump would ever run for office. They are extremist thugs, named for the violent communist thugs of the Spanish civil war and they do not respect any authority other than force. If you believe, for example, that Josef Stalin was a “good guy” because he fought against Hitler, then you really don’t know that much about history. When it comes to the “alt-right” and the “alt-left” there are no good guys. Trump was right about that.
Priscilla, couple of questions.
1. Do you really believe the alt-left would allow this to take place without massive demonstrations? Remember, these same folks are the same ones that demonstrated and blocked Ann Coulter from just speaking about conservative views on colkege campuses.
2. Who do you think would put themselves and their families in harms way by just proposing this, let alone leading the building of this historical museum?
Not until history is cleansed of anything “confederate” will the alt-left be happy.
1) The left alt or not can non-violently demonstrate against whatever they wish.
I have problems when:
Government precludes any group the use of a public forum for reasons associated with content.
Government fails to protect people – marchers, counter protestors, …. from violence.
We are seeing an arrising hecklers veto.
Charlottesville cancelled the unite the right event before the speakers were able to speak – because of violence that occured while marchers were running a gauntlent of counter protestors without police protection..
This is becoming an increasingly common response of local governments.
Berkeley has already announce that it will not intervene in violence between counter-protestors and protestors.
Basically that it will errect barriers between the groups but will not intervene if either side breaches those barriers.
It is worth noting that at Charlottesville the “gauntlet” – the street the marchers came in on, had police baracades at the edge of the sidewalks but police only in each intersection.
If you see marchers and counter protestors in videos on the street or in the park, you already know that the counter protestors have breached the barriers.
That means whatever you are seeing – the counter protesters are the aggressors.
They are not where they belong, while the marchers are in their space.
This information does not transmit from these video’s.
You have to see the march plans and the barrier locations before you grasp that whatever conflict is occurring is inside the space that was supposed to be the march space.
In Berkley at the Milo event, counter protestors broke down barriers, set things on fire, maced people, and fired fireworks at the police.
Ann Coutler’s appearance at Berkeley was canceled because the city refuses to provide police protection.
Seattle has been dealing with this since the violent WTO protests in 1999.
The Seattle police have been effectively learning how to control antifa.
The have a strong police presence, effective barriers, separate protestors and counter protestors by significant distances – often more than a city block, and they arrest anyone who becomes violent – and because the police are separating parties the violence is always against police.
Today in Boston police separated groups, but still ended the event early for the “safety” of participants – i.e. they gave the counter protestors a hecklers veto.
Ron, that is exactly right. The “heckler’s veto,” is giving rise to militant extremists on both sides, and the media is glorifying the leftist militants as heroes, because they claim to be fighting white supremacists.
41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were, or had once been slave owners, including Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin.
Based on the perverted thinking of the left, we should renounce the Declaration, stop celebrating the 4th of July, and destroy the original document, as well as all of the copies.
I found it amazing that Trump ineloquently mad the “slippery slope” argument, almost immediately several leading lights – including people I greatly respect responded “that is nonsense, no one is going after jefferson and washington” and immediately after that several high profile people on the left went after jackson, and jefferson and washington,
and there was even a statue of Lincoln that was vandalized.
The Lincoln statue I find particularly interesting.
Was it vandalized because these groups are too stupid to grasp that Lincoln was the major voice of his time ending slavery ?
Or were they actually smart enough to understand that Lincoln was only enlightened for his moment. That he was a white supremecist, just not a supporter of slavery ?
Anyway this is not about statues.
Both sets of extremists understand that.
But much of the middle is clueless.
This is a direct attack on western thought.
It is an attack on the ideas that ultimately ended slavery.
The issue of “statues” is not of great consequence – locals can make whatever decisions they wish. In most instances their removal is no different than their erection, a reflection of the wishes of the local public at the time.
That said, it is interesting how Trump’s purportedly luny tweets so often become prescient.
In the past few days many prominent figures on the left have expanded their targets to Jackson. Jefferson, and even Washington.
Even a statue of Lincoln was attacked and burned this week.
Elsewhere it is made clear that this is not about statues, that it is considered “racist” and white supremacist for colleges and schools to teach the writings of people or cultures who held slaves.
I have no problem with noting the clay feet of our founders – or even our modern leaders.
But we should not be deprived of their truth because of their failures.
This is not about status. It is about ideas.
Trying to label antifa is difficult.
antifa is anything from extremely violent anarchists to left leaning college students marching against Nazi’s.
Some of them are paid instigators – George Soros has provided funding – though there are now youtube video’s of antfa members excoriating soros for failing to pay them a fair wage.
Regardless serious antifa members – those showing up in riot gear or blackblock,
are atleast as disreputable as the nazi’s
antifa clams to fight racism – but it is strongly anti-semetic.
Some antifa members can best be described as anti-white racists.
But this should not surprise much as in the left racism only means that of whites on minorities.
Further many antifa leaders have made clear that as far as they are concerned any protrump person, is a nazi and a white supremecist.
This is a part of what I keep trying to address relative to the destruction of language.
The pro free speech march in boston fizzled.
Only about 1000 showed up. Many could not get to the event – because 40,000 counter protestors showed up.
There are claims that some KKK and white supremecists tried to attend – they were rejected by the events organizers who represented libertarians, republicans and conservatives.
The police ended the event early because 500 cops could not protect 1000 marchers from 40,000 counter protestors.
The overwhelming majority of the counter protestors were peaceful.
They could not help but be, there were so many they could nto get within 1000 yards of anything they protested.
Thus far reported are 27 arrests – for assaulting police officers who were pelted with rocks, feces, and water bottles with urine.
The counter protestors chanted their opposition to nazi’s – without a nazi in sight,
I have zero problems with non-violent counter protests of nazis – which is mostly what occured.
I have a bit of a problem with accusing everyone who is not on the left of being a nazi.
I have a big problem with violence – which was mostly small.
You sound disappointed that there wasn’t more violence from counter demonstrators.
Where did you come up with 1000 “free speech for bigots” number?
“About 40,000 people flocked to the Boston Common area in a show of unity against hatred and bigotry. Meanwhile, a Globe reporter observed what appeared to be about 50 people at a controversial “free speech” rally.”
Are you for free speach Jay ? Or are you against it ?
If you are against it – then you should shut up. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
I did not come up with 1000 free speech for bigots.
I came up with 1000 people in boston protesting for free speach for anyone – bigots, KKK, antifa, Trump supporters, communists, socialists, scientologists. even moderates.
But Charles Cooke of NRO thinks they are wrong – you might want to check him out.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450610/new-york-times-free-speech-column-satire
Regardless, the 1000 number is what was being reported.
40,000 people quite stupidly counter protested.
Anyone not for free speach – has self selected themselves out of the right to be there.
If you do not have the right to free speed, then you do not have the right to protest bigotry.
But god forbid you use the brain cells you were given.
BTW, I have no problem with people protesting bigotry.
Buth there was no permitted protest against bigotry.
There was a protest for free speach and a counter protest – i.e. one against free speech.
And alot of people not smart enough to figure out that it is self contradictory to protest against free speach.
From what I can get now – there were 27 arrests ALL of counter protestors.
The free speach marchers thanked the boston police – as they would not have been alive without them.
There were no bigots or white supremecists – so 40.000 people came to protest a bunch of libertarians, aclu members and trump supporters.
And spent several hours slandering and libeling them.
Do you think that reflects well on the left ?
“There were no bigots or white supremecists – so 40.000 people came to protest a bunch of libertarians, aclu members and trump supporters.”
There you go again, MISREPRESENTING the facts.
The event was reported to be attended by the Ku Klux Klan and featured a MAIN speaker with ties to extremist elements: Kyle Chapman, who goes by “Based Stickman” on social media. He has a large following of supporters of online white nationalists who he invited to attend the “free speech” event, urging them to come to the rally and be “armed with a MINUMUM of mace.” This is the same guy charged with using a lead-filled stick to hit counterprotesters during a March rally in Berkeley, for which he faces up to eight years in state prison because of a prior violent felony.
A ‘free speach’ assembly including bigots and liars like him remains a stink weed, no matter what YOU call it. And protestors have a free speech right to SCREAM disapproval at causes they find offensive. If the police justifiably sensed the environment was unsafe and shut down the gathering, they were within their lawful rights to protect citizens from harm, as you always kvetch is the MAIN responsibility of government. And by doing so, they circumscribed the rights of the protestors to speak/shout/middle finger the speakers they found offensive. Counter protest IS FREE SPEECH. Get it?!
That would be you misrepresenting.
There were no KKK there.
There were no KKK invited.
There was one news story somewhere that maybe a 5 KKK members were going to show up uninvited.
It is a strange world we living in if 40,000 people and a 1000 or more antifa show up because 5 KKK members MIGHT show up ?
Regardless your response is indiciative of the problem with the left.
You do not actually grasp that there is any cnsequential difference btween the KKK and a libertarain.
You get pissed that people call you a communist or socialist – despite the fact that you are unable to distinguish your views from those of communists or socialists.
But it is OK to label anyone to the right of Sanders as a white supremecist, KKK member and Neo Nazi.
BTW that is also a position that you share with antifa.
If you are white – you are a racist and a fascist.
If you voted for Trump – you are a racist and a fascist.
If you are libertarian – you are a racist and a fascist.
You are actually doubling down on your own identity politics failure of the past election.
Regardless, your argument appears to be that because someone that you say was a speaker, is also someone that you say is a klansman, and is someone that you say invited lots of other klansman, that trumps reality ?
If you bother to check this out – not only publicly, but months before the event the organizers explicitly stated, both publicly and on radio interviews that the Klan and neonazis were not welcome.
That whati nationalist rhetoric, confederate flags, naxi salutes, nazi paraphenalia, hoods, etc,. would immediately get you booted.
BTW speakers from BLM and other left groups were invited.
But apparently, you can not read – or you prefer fake news to that of the actual organizers.
I can not find anywhere this chapman fellow was scheduled to attend – much less speak.
The charges he faces are for possession of a wood stick and have a max of 1 year.
the charges are based on videos, and the videos do not show him actually hitting anyone.
The charge statement makes no reference to hitting anyone.
So are you prepared to send everyone in possession of a stick at any of these protests regardless of their views to jail ?
While I disagree with your characterization of the event in Boston,
I would support the free speach rights even of white nationalists and the KKK.
Our Antifa and BLM.
I also support the free speach rights of protestors.
But actually no protestors do not have the right to SCREAM disapproval.
In fact absent a permit they do not even have the right to be present.
I think that is wrong, but it is actually how it is.
The police are actually obligated to assure that the event is safe.
If they have to shut it down because it is not – that is a POLICE FAILURE.
You do not get to silence other people by making their speach so dangerous it can not occur.
Berkeley is facing a very large lawsuit over this right now.
The first amendment rules for government controlled public forums are the most protective of the rights of speakers – particularly offensive speakers that there are.
BTW, police do not have “lawful rights” – all rights belong to individuals.
Governments have powers. Those powers are for the protection of the rights of individuals.
You do not seem to understand government.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
From the declaration of independence.
rights belong to individuals,
precede government which exists to protect them.
governments powers which only exist for the purpose of protecting rights come from the consent of the people.
And again you are misrepresenting me.
Government is not obligated to protect us from harm.
Governments roles are all a posteriori – after the fact.
To punish the initiation of violence.
To punish failure to keep agreements.
To punish actual harm done to another.
The clear use of language is important.
Government is not there to protect us from lightning or floods.
The only apriori preventive role of govenrment is – if the consequences of ones actions are violence, fraud or harm to another – then government may punish you.
Government does not punish you for what MIGHT happen.
But what has happened.
There is no ministry of pre-crime.
You clearly have not thought much about rights.
I have the right to self defense – that means I have the right to do violence to another.
But I have have ceded my right to initiate violence in return for governments punishment of those who initiate violence against me.
The right to free speach, does not actually include the right to shout others down.
You may speak, you may give others the middle finger, but you may not shout them down.
Just as you may not beat people up.
In a perfect world we would just respect each others rights and there would be no need for police and permits.
Given that men are not angels and some things like public forumns are controlled by government not individuals, the government is permitted to impose content neutral constraints on the use of public forums.
Those rules are subject to the absolute highest constitutional scrutiny.
In otherwords they are presumed invalid until proven nescecary.
Government may impose reasonable constraints on time and place.
As an example Charlottesville can tell the unite the right group that they must march to the park staying between police barriers to the event location.
And it can say that counter protestors will stay out of the march route and out of the event space.
It is nearly impossible in charlottesville to know who hit who first.
It is trivial to tell that through the march to the event, and mostly through the march from those evil neonazis stayed between the barricades erected purportedly for their protection, and that all conflict occured between counter protestors who had crossed those barriers and the marchers.
In boston they created a 50 yard barrier between the groups and you were arrested if you breached it.
Accurate language Jay.
Are you saying that free speach is controversial ?
Maybe, some topics are controversial. But atleast according to the supreme court the right to free speech is not controversial at all.
What is disturbing is that you and 40.000 people in Boston seem to think it is.
You do not seem to grasp that without free speach – who gets to decide what speech is allowed ? Trump ?
“There are claims that some KKK and white supremecists tried to attend – they were rejected by the events organizers who represented libertarians, republicans and conservatives.”
This contradicts your blanket rants that the Left is responsible for circumscribing speech, inductive of your problem with reiterated rote thinking.
“The police ended the event early because 500 cops could not protect 1000 marchers from 40,000 counter protestors.”
Doesn’t appear there was a thousand; and your next paragraph contradicts your biased assessment, not based on a factual assessment:
“The overwhelming majority of the counter protestors were peaceful.
They could not help but be, there were so many they could nto get within 1000 yards of anything they protested.”
That snide remark, which assumes they would have been violent if able, paints you as snidely prejudiced against these protestors in general.
You accent the ridiculous.
Eliminate the Moderate.
And mess with prejudicial dogma inbetween, siding with the bigots.
Jay, you do not understand what a right – specifically the right to free speach means.
It means that government can not tell you that you can not say something.
It does not means that your boss has to let you say whatever you want.
It does not mean that at a conference on molecular biology you must be permitted to give your lecture on abortion rights.
The organizers of any event have the right to determine who they will allow to participate.
If you are excluded – then setup your own event.
The left is not saying – do not speak at our event, go setup your own.
They are saying that they are permitted to shut down any legitimate event that they please if they do not like what is being said.
You may not use force to constrain the rights of another.
The about 1000 number was the number reported at the time I made the post.
I was not at boston I can not confirm that.
I have subsequently read reports that when the police shutdown the event about 30min early because the counter protestors were getting out of hand and they could not protect the free speach group – that most had already left.
Regardless, 20, 200, 200,000 does not matter.
It does however matter that some of the counter protestors were violent and that 27 people were arrested – primarily for trying to break through police barriers.
When the police are allowed to do their job – not even the Nazi’s misbehave.
When they are not – there is violence, mostly from the left.
Given that the police shut the event down early – because they could no longer protect the event from the counter protestors,
Given that as things were 500 police arrested 27 counter protestors and almost certainly allowed many goo,
Given that probably less than 1000 counter protestors could get to the police barrier because of the crowd size,
I do not think my remark is snide at all.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of counter protestors were peaceful.
I have been a counter protestor at actual KKK marches.
If the KKK showed up in my town again and antifa did not – I would be out peacefully counter protesting myself.
You do not seem to grasp the difference between
Shut up or I will make you and
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
With respect to my prejudices – you seem to think the word prejudice is inherently evil
Bzzt, wrong.
I am prejudiced against those who beleive they can silence others – particularly by force.
I am prejudiced against those who come to a free speach rally to protest against nazi’s.
Just as I would be prejudiced against people who come to McDonald’s for sushi.
I am prejudiced against those who spew hate and intolerance against others.
That includes but is far from limited to the KKK and Nazi’s.
That includes nearly all the counter protestors I heard at boston, as well as those at Charlotesville.
There is a big difference between telling someone they are wrong, and hating them.
Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
Do you disagree ? Are you prepared to compromise away half your rights ?
How about if you are free only on odd numbered days – the rest of the time you are a slave ?
I find it really odd that groups that are literally protesting against the evils of past slavery seek to enslave others.
I side with individual liberty, constrained only in that we are not free to initiate force or fraud, we are not free to walk away from our agreements, we are not free to walk away from those we have actually harmed.
I will defend the liberty of those I disagree with – no matter how repugnant their expression, to say what they wish.
More feedback to your niggling criticism of the counter protestors, Dave.
And the Boston Poiice commisioner would obviously be WRONG.
There are no “right reasons”, only wrong ones.
Regardless the reasons you came to Boston are irrelevant.
We do not government peoples thoughts, their motives.
We govern their actions.
If you came and initiated violence – you are a criminal.
If you used force – directly or through government to restrict the rights of others – you are immoral – and probably a criminal.
The Boston Police Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over thought crimes.
You keep saying I twist things.
What I do it strive to use words as them mean and point out that the meaning – that of the words used, of what others write is not what they intended.
If you write clearly. If you use words narrowly as nearly all of us understand them,
and if you read them the same way – we will be able to communicate – and you will be able to think more clearly, and much of the nonsense you adhere to will go away.
Because it depends on ambiguity and unclear thinking to survive.
Our electricity and internet was out most of yesterday ( this indicative of our precarious survival based on soeiderbweb technology)’ and thesevare misc replays to Dave’s comments I couldn’t answer.
“I want sand in the gears – if I can not actually shrink government.
Trump is great gobs of sand in the gears.”
Wow, you’re an anarchist, with the same goal as Antifa – to destroy the mechanisms of government. Who woulda thought! They’re more symbolically focused on one-on-one violence; you have the broader goal of the violence of unintended/unregulated consequence.
Persons of reason (meaning reasonable) don’t destroy government, they make it run smoother, more efficiently.
Those of us who are savvy (sorry, chum, you’re excluded) realize some government agencies are bloated, and should be trimmed; some are superfluous, and should be eliminated. Others are fine, and need to be properly maintained, for the benefit of society in general.
As our lives become dependent on more complex situations (Internet-interconnectivity-robotics-extended lifespan-increasing populations) new agencies will be required to regulate them. To believe otherwise is intellectually masochistic.
“You may not initiate violence PERIOD,.. Violence is justified only as a proportionate response to violence….You may not “punch a nazi” or pi a nazi”
Can you pie a Tucker?
Pie in the face is a form of critical political speech.
And surely no more physically painful than a celebratory slap on the back. As a culture we rarely if ever criminalize a woman’s slapping of a man’s face after a perceived wrong. A pie in the kisser seems appropriate in some circumstances. As does pouring beer on the head of obnoxious Celtic or Raider Fans. Or squeezing a grapefruit into (. ) puss.
“You are free to oppose Trump’s policies, but atleast be honest.
It is what he stands for – what those who voted for him want, that you are fighting.”
There ya go again, Blockheadly misrepresenting my positions. I considered tRump’s early positions on reducing illegal immigration, criticizing the Iran deal, finishing the pipeline, in line with my own thinking. Then he seemed unpolished but reasonable; but soon the intemperate Buffoon revealed itself, and it was apparent he was an erratic, unprincipled liar, who would do multiples more harm to the nation than good. Which has already proved true to all but partisan ideologues and Naïve nut-cakes.
“Your attacks are all on the person – ad hominem, but I do not beleive your target is the person, but the ideas.”
My attacks are on the person undermining and disabusing the ideas. #DufusDonald has made it impossible for moderates to be moderate. His divisive unacceptable disgustingly unpresidential behavior has forced moderates away from the center, to align with the antiTrump left on issues they would have contested them.
#TweetyBirdTrump governing is like Clarabelle Clown conducting the Philharmonic – you love the music; you hate hearing it demeaned in performance..
Logic continues to elude you. False dilema fallacy.
All government is not inherently good.
Opposition to government that is failed or bad, is not anarchism
As a moderate with this tremendous value you place in compromise – presumably you grasp that some issues are not binary.
Minarchy is not anarchy.
We have had this argument many times before.
The fact that you continue to raise it leaves little room between stupidity and deceipt.
Absolutely I want government out of restricting our individual liberty save that of
Walking away from agreements
failing to make whole those we have actually harmed
initiating force or fraud against others.
In all else we have the natural right to freedom and the purpose of government is to protect not infringe that freedom.
In all else – I am throwing sand in the gears of government.
Trump is far more authoritarian than I would prefer.
But I can still be thankful for what he gets right.
Ignoring all the other reasons you are wrong.
You speak of unregulated and unintended consequences.
It is regulation that always has unintended consequences.
If you can find a regulation or law that has a good purpose, and accomplishes that purpose and as no other inintended consequences – I will support it.
But that is impossible The default, the baseline is not the regulated outcome.
It is the unregulated outcome.
Government may only regulate where is can out perform the unrequlated outcome.
That is only in those 3 areas I keep repeating.
You would think you I would not need to continue to drill them in and you would have gotten them by now.
So we should have made Nazi Germany work smoother and more efficient ?
Or the Khmer Rouge ? Or Stalin ?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with impeding or destroying the harmful aspects of government.
But lets address the moment.
Will the world go completely to hell tomorow if no new regulations are enacted in the next 4 years (we are continuing to regulate, but at obey about 1/3 the pace as under Obama).
Would the world go completely to hell if we went back to government of the scale at the time LBJ left office ?
What about when FDR died ?
Or when Wilson left office ?
Out country has done fine – it has raised standard of living far faster than at present, with far less government.
History is prima fascia proof that government of the current scale is not necescary.
It is actually YOUR obligation to prove that it is net beneficial over less liberty restricting government,
Again – words have meaning.
No one has held a gun to your head.
If you have shifted left – it is of your own volition.
Trump is not responsible.
What is “unpresidential” ? Has he acted unconstitutionally ? Obama did repeatedly.
Has he gotten blow jobs in the oval office ? Has he paid hush money to criminals ?
There is alot of DT’s conduct I am not happy with.
Maybe you can even describe it as “unpresidential”
But it has no bearing on the actual execution of the job of POTUS.
Trump never claimed to be our moral or spiritual leader.
He did not promise that to voters.
We all knew what we were getting when he was running, and we made our choice to vote at the time.
Unless you voted for him and were deceived, you have no voice – until 2020, in what is “presidential”. You told the nation Trump was unfit, unpresidential in Nov. 2016.
Millions agreed with you – but enough did not that Trump was elected.
I did not vote for Obama either. I opposed his policies where I disagreed – which was not always. I supported legitimate obstruction. I did not seek to deligitimize Obama as president, to alter the outcome of the election. I did support those who attempted to use the law to restrain him.
You have gone far beyond what those who opposed Obama have done.
You are going far beyond what is legitimate.
And BTW read your post – it is just ad hominem, and that is not valid argument.
There is no “unpresidential” disqualification in the constitution.
You do not talk of actual ideas. You talk of things that have nothing to do with government.
I would prefer a president with character.
Bill Clinton ended whatever vestigage that was an important criteria.
Governing is not like an orchestra. False analogy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450626/charlottesville-donald-trump-alt-right-blame-both-sides-wrong?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=59991f0d04d301438c0ba66e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Or you could just got to an antifa site and let them speak for themselves.
http://fox43.com/2017/06/12/demonstrator-attacks-police-horse-during-act-for-america-rally-in-harrisburg/
“If they only bashed in Nazi & KKK heads would you be less critical of them?
Although I suspect that your question was rhetorical, Jay, I’m going to answer it as if it were a genuine inquiry.
The answer to your question is no, I would be no less critical of the left for applauding violence by the alt-left, if they only bashed in Nazi and KKK heads. Violence leads to more violence ~ that is the lesson of history.
White supremacists are thrilled that they are all of a sudden being attacked as some potent political force, when , in truth, they have been holding marches and rallies all along…..they were holding them during Clinton’s admin, and Bush, and Obama…. It’s just that the establishment left media was paying them no mind, and their numbers were shrinking. But now that this tiny group of fringe extremists has attracted so much attention, they are likely to grow in number. And we can thank both the alt-left and the mainstream left for that, not Trump.
If you study European history, it becomes very clear that the Reds, Antifa, or whatever you want to call violent Marxist militants and thugs, were instrumental in the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Each of these fascist dictators used the violence that was occurring in their respective nations to seize control of the government and the military.
“Pie in the face is a form of critical political speech.”
Not remotely true. Whether or not it is political, smashing a pie in someone’s face is assault and battery.
If you get past the “left” “right” nonsense – there are very few differences between antifa and neonazi’s.
They both beleive in violence as the means to their ends.
In fact they tend to celebrate violence.
They want violence.
They seek out violence.
They are both looking to violently tear down what is.
They are both looking to replace it with an all powerful state.
There are a few who keep repeating that Nazi’s are SOCIALISTS.
Yet, that gets ignored.
Both are racist – they just pick different favored races.
Both seek anarchy as a route to a totalitarian future.
Both are destructive of the individual and religious towards the group.
Hitler hated communists – because they were very nearly the same and nazi’s.
Because they were competing for very nearly the same power base.
Because there was only room in the political space for one militant socialist group.
It is quite humorous because antifa is inherently fascist.
I agree with your descriptions of radical left and right as equally reprehensible.
Unlike you, I don’t smear the entire Right because of AltRight excesses-unlike you who smear the entire Left for Antifa excesses.
But Jay, you do.
You have already mischaracterized boston as a KKK/neonazi event.
Outside of Charlottesville most of these events have between zero and very little presence of white supremecists – yet both you and antifa call them all nazi/kkk events.
Antifa is atleast honest about it. Antifa has openly stated that supporting Trump, wearing a MAGA hat or a Trump hat or carrying an american flag makes you a racist and a white supremecist.
You buy the same claims without admitting to them.
I do not agree with Milo Yanopolis, Ann Coulter, or Ben Shapiro on everything.
But none are alt-right or white supremacists,
Further I have issues with much of the right.
I do not deprive them the right to free speech because of it.
I do not call everyone I disagree an Nazi or KKK member.
I do not try to silence – even actual nazi’s or KKK.
Antifa is a far greater danger to the country than the altr-right.
But honestly antifa is still a relatively small threat.
The real threat is that a large portion of the left is hard to distinguish from the extreme left.
Anyone who says hate speach is not free speach, is illiberal, is challenging the core of all legitimate society and government.
It is not accidental that antifa is ACTUAL anarchists,
It is not accidental that antifa and neonazi’s are nearly indistinguishable – all you have to do is substitute black for white.
But what is most disturbing is that the left and the media do think that some ideas are not free to be spoken.
There is a reason that the unite the right people at charlottesville brought guns.
When government will not protect the first amendment, what is left is the second.
The left has turned violent – not merely at the antifa extreme.
If the police do not protect peoples rights, what we have is lawless, and then the use of force to protect your rights is legitimate.
And that is where we are headed.
But no one has done that, Jay If you are referring to my saying that you have the alt-left and the mainstream left to thank for giving so much publicity and praise to violent militants, I don’t think it’s really debatable that they have done so. Comparing Antifa to WWII soldiers, claiming that neo-Nazis somehow have political power in this country, and calling for the removal of Confederate statues that have stood for 150 years because all of a sudden that’s important?
That puffs up the pathetic egos of asshole losers on both sides.
On the other hand, I’m pleasantly surprised to read that you consider both sides equally bad. We actually agree on something.
I’m not in favor of seeing any artwork destroyed – but I’m not adverse to seeing most of the Confederate statues on public display mothballed in museums or at other private locations for a couple of decades, until the anger over them subsides.
And the majority of Confederate statues on display in the South haven’t ‘stood for 150 years.’ Most of them put up after 1900.
https://www.google.com/search?q=confederate+statues+years+erected&safe=off&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS692US692&hl=en-US&prmd=sinv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi20MnqnefVAhUC2GMKHcVHBWoQ_AUIEigC&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=q-FX4GG6xKhYEM:
For the most part I do not think they are art.
For the most part I do not care what happens to them.
I am more concerned because the real issue is not statues.
It is about erasing or altering history – the history of the country – not that of the statues.
“And the majority of Confederate statues on display in the South haven’t ‘stood for 150 years.’ Most of them put up after 1900.”
Um, ok, Jay. 100 years. 50 years. Whatever…what’s important is that they have been around for a good long while and the country was not obsessed with them, as it is now. Why do you suppose?
Why do you suppose that Nancy Pelosi, who was Speaker of the House for 4-5 years, never gave a rat’s ass about Confederate monuments in Statuary Hall until last week?
I agree with you that there are a couple of legit arguments in favor of removing Confederate statues. And, as I’ve said a couple of times, I think that individual communities, whether they are small towns or cities , should make the decision, preferably after open debate. Allowing vandals to deface or tear them down is not the way to go.
We agree – allowing vandals to pull them down is wrong.
Other POV on the statues historical legitimacy:
“As all historians know, forgetting is as essential to public understandings of history as remembering. Confederate statues do not simply commemorate “our” history, as the president declared. They honor one part of our past. Where are the statues in the former slave states honoring the very large part of the Southern population (beginning with the four million slaves) that sided with the Union rather than the Confederacy? Where are the monuments to the victims of slavery or to the hundreds of black lawmakers who during Reconstruction served in positions ranging from United States senator to justice of the peace to school board official? Excluding blacks from historical recognition has been the other side of the coin of glorifying the Confederacy.”
Where are the statues to black law makers ?
We do not usually commemorate law makers. Unfortunately sometimes we do.
Regardless the black law makers of the reconstruction are not exceptional.
What is historically relevant is why they disappeared – and responsibility for that falls on the north not the south.
Regardless, as noted this is about more than statues.
I have zero problems with your trying to expand history to include significant aspects that have been overlooked.
I have major problem with your trying to obliterate history.
Most of history is not about the evil that we do, but the good that we accomplish.
We remember Jefferson, Washington, …. to learn the importance and effects of their ideas and actions.
Without the US revolution and the practical application of an entirely new concept of government the entire world would be quite different today.
Even the abolition of slavery would likely have taken longer.
How many statutes of Lincoln are there in those Deep South states, compared to other states? Would hardly any be a good estimate?
I would imagine that in all those deep south states there are lots of $1 and penny’s all of which contain an image of lincoln.
Regardless, why is antifa destroying lincoln statues ?
“I would imagine that in all those deep south states there are lots of $1 and penny’s all of which contain an image of lincoln.”
But if the Southern states issued their own currency, whose images do you think they’d have on them, you rationalizing idiot.
You really do not understand logic.
An argument of the form:
IF A then B
~A
Allows absolutley no conclusions about B.
As an example
If Elephants could fly then cars would have square wheels.
As elephants can not fly, the argument tells us nothing about the wheels of autmobiles.
Constitution Article 1: Section 10.
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
States may not coin money.
I would also note that they can not interfere with contracts.
What images southern states would put on the coins they can not mint is meaningless speculation.
What I noted – which you completely missed is that the south has representations of Lincoln all over the place.
No one has argued there was not a disparity.
If the barriers and police were not there and actually doing their job – you would have had another charlottesville.
Only those up in that rotunda, had no guns, no basebal bats, no helmets, no sticks.
Absent the barriers and police, they would be dead.
Those on the left celebrate the courage of those protesting.
Do you think it took much courage to join the tens of thousands ?
Or may more courage to go up to that rotunda.
BTW kudos to those among the counter protestors who protected the free speach participants from getting beaten by antifa as they made their way to the rotunda.
Many were attacked, but several counter protestors did come to their aide.
Hope for Humanity
I do not want to raise another issue, but you do know that there are many on the left who are violently opposed to cochlear implants.
Why?
Why don’t I want to raise another issue ?
If TNM wants to debate cochlear implants I guess that is fine.
Why would anyone oppose them ?
That information is on the web.
I am a libertarian. I support people being free to make their own choices – even bad choices. Generally I think technology like cochlear implants is a good thing.
Generally I think drugs like heroin are bad.
But if you wish to suffer from a correctable disability and/or obliterate yourself with drugs, that is your business.
I do not think the arguments against cochlear implants are good. I do not think they are rooted in reason. I think they are like myriads of things that defy common sense that the left sells. But so long as it is your life you are deciding about it is not my business.
“Why would anyone oppose them ?”
You sound like adrug company exec complaining about listing dangerous adverse side effects on medicine packages.
Jay;
I specifically noted I was not looking to open a debate on cochlear implants.
I am not looking to debate the reasons some choose to oppose them.
Those do not make alot of sense to me.
But their freedom to do so does matter to me.
No one’s freedom matters to you – not even your own.
You are under the delusion that if government makes choices for us they will all be made wisely. You presume that they will be made by people like you who share your interests.
You presume that they will be made “objectively” and dispassionately.
All those presumptions are false.
Priscilla raised the gard case – that is just one facet of this.
The probability of any consequential improvement in Charlie Gard was near zero.
but our future is rarely improved significantly by those who make the wise and obvious choices. It is improved when people take big risks in the hope of big rewards, Most of those fail. Those that do not change the world.
When we turn our choices over to others, they do not act in our best interests – they act in theirs.
“When we turn our choices over to others, they do not act in our best interests – they act in theirs.”
Another blanket statement from you that is patently, rigidly, nonsensically dumb.
Sometimes others work in our interest, sometimes not.
Are you too doctrinaire to understand that?
Of course we need to be vigilant and monitor those whose decisions effect our lives, and hope those choices turn out well. But in the modern world we occupy it is IMPOSSIBLE for societies to survive with minimal government oversight. And government agencies often operate to monitor those truly acting in their own self interest: like the FDA monitoring the drug industry; like the US International Trade Commission, protecting US business and individuals against trademark and patent infringement, like the FAA making sure US Pilots have to pass the same level of competence to receive licenses to fly commercial planes.
So “blanket statement” is your new meme ?
Most of what you are calling “blanket statements” are generalizations,
They are also true – meaning while there are exceptions they are the norm.
Turning over a choice to someone else, inherently means they do not chose in your interests – because only you know your interests. Even you do not often consciously know your interests.
Noting that others do not act in your interests is a tautology.
At best sometimes others work in what they perceive to be our interests – that is if we are lucky.
Regardless, if you are so sure of the purity of those looking out for your interests – you should try jail. You surrender nearly all choices regarding yourself to others who are supposed to look after you. Given that jail is not utopia,
You counter is inherently wrong.
BTW there is plenty of economic data that nearly always the best outcomes are when people choose for themselves.
Because value is subjective – and you can not precisely know my values.
By definition people are better off when they choose for themselves.
Because people choose what they want.
Unless you are claiming that individuals regularly and deliberately choose to harm themselves ?
Just to be clear, I know that people make decisions the rest of us deem poor.
That is not the standard. That is the point. Other people can not decide for you what you want, only you know.
No you do not get to “monitor” others. 1984 anyone ?
Do you read what you write ?
The standard is not “decisions effect our lives”. it is actually does harm or violence to you.
My breathing “effects your life”
Logic is not your forte.
the modern world works exactly the opposite as you claim.
The more complex and interconnected society becomes the bigger government must be to maintain the same degree of control.
That inherently means government slowly consumes and chokes society.
You seem to think that government is free. That you can make laws and magically people will obey them – without any enforcement.
Aside from the impracticality of ever growing enforcement, there is the separate problem of the impracticality of obedience.
You know at best a tiny fraction of the laws that govern your behavior.
Even if you wanted you could not obey them all because you can not know them all.
It is those acting in their own interests that we DON:T need to monitor.
So long as you are obligated to refrain from force or fraud, keep your agreements and make whole those you harm, your self interests is nearly always that of society as a whole, when you are not cognizant of that – the forces of the market will make that clear to you.
As another link notes, colleges and universities responding to the blackmail of left leaning students have been punished economically by the remainder of students, alumni and parents.
No laws necescary. Most certainly there were competing perspectives regarding the best values for the university. some students offered one set of values, and the universities accepted. Those who felt different voted by going elsewhere.
That is how the free market works. Universities like Mizzou can hold whatever values they want. They can create an environment that appeals to one group or another.
But whatever group they decide, they can expect the other to react.
The more complex the world becomes – the simpler government must become.
Government is inhernently less efficient.
Most of the world has no FDA – yet even in unregulated china with a standard of living that has risen to 1/3 of ours, life expectance has risen rapidly to within 2 years of ours.
There are bad things that happen in china as a result of the lack of drug regulations.
But those are rare, and have no noticable effect overall.
With the FDA all drugs cost atleast $1B to get to market. That means many issue will not even be addressed, because they are not worth $1B.
Further though on atleast 3 occasions congress has passed laws to make the FDA more able to approve orphan drugs, drugs for terminal care, …..
These produce no results. There is no penalty in government for saying no.
Intellectual property is an entirely different issue – and another area that govenrment has catastrophically failed.
Nearly all patenting in the US is defensive. Numerous studies, even those pushed by organizations that have been strongly pro-patent in the past have decided that US patent law is broken and we would be better off without patents.
No other country has the equivalent of the US FAA. We actually have worse airport and traffic regulation that most of europe as a result.
There are airlines all over the world, most airspace is nearly entirely unregulated,
yet amazingly air safety throughout the world is safer than any other form of transportation.
You credit the FAA with something that is inherent in the market.
People do not fly airlines that crash or mistreat them.
You do not need pilot certification.
“There are airlines all over the world, most airspace is nearly entirely unregulated,
yet amazingly air safety throughout the world is safer than any other form of transportation.”
Did you pull that up from your fevered imagination?
Explain why it is that NEARLY EVERY NATION ON EARTH has a national aviation authority (NAA) or civil aviation authority (CAA) -government statutory authorities in each country that oversees the approval and regulation of civil aviation.
WIKIPEDIA:
“Due to the inherent dangers in the use of flight vehicles, National Aviation Authorities typically regulate the following critical aspects of aircraft airworthiness and their operation:
* Design of aircraft, engines, airborne equipment and ground-based equipment affecting flight safety
* Conditions of manufacture and test of aircraft and equipment
* Maintenance of aircraft and equipment
* Operation of aircraft and equipment
* Licensing of pilots and maintenance engineers
* Licensing of airports and navigational aids
* Standards for air traffic control”
Does that sound unregulated to you? Almost every nation on the planet has an equivalent organization.
Here’s a list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
Or you can just look at EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency, it has legal regulatory authority within the European Union (EU) through the enactment of its regulations through the European Commission, Council of the European Union-(unless you don’t consider the EU part of the planet).
Jay;
Let it go. No nearly every nation on earth does not.
There are over 400 nations.
The vast majority of airports – even in the the US are private.
You continue to buy this nonsense that because something is some particular way in the US that it is exactly like that elsewhere.
Aircraft are so dangerous that from 1903 thru 1958 the US excercise no control over flight at all. TWA was formed in 1924.
Even today in the US so long as you stay out of actual flight paths, you can fly as you please.
You seem to know very little about aviation.
Only in a few portions of the US – generally arround major airports in areas called TCA’s are you actually required to follow the directions of air traffic controllers.
Everywhere else they are for your assistance – if you want to use them.
You can fly VFR and out of the flight paths and never have to talk to the FAA.
Outside of the US nearly all airports are not run by the equivalent of the FAA, they are un by the airlines themselves.
Yes, all of this – all over the world is getting worse and more US like all the time,
because regulating for government is like eating.
And because the US actually drives it.
BTW the EASA was created in 2002 and did not take full effect until 2008.
Prior to the EASA europe had the JAA which was ADVISORY, it did not regulate.
Even today the EASA regulates the manufacture and certification of aircraft and crew, not airports.
Eurocontrol is responsible for air traffic control in Europe – a different agency,
In general the FAA is considered to be an unwieldy bohemoth that functions miserably
The US ATC system is thoroughly obsolete – the last upgrade was obsolete before it was installed the most recent effort is not yet deployed and has already been demonstrated to be trivial to hack. It too will be obsolete before being deployed.
The TSA is just security theater performing no useful function, beyond making people feel safe, groping them unnecescarily and slowing down air travel dramatically.
You make the most bizarre fallacious arguments.
Do you actually live or work in the real world ?
Do you work in any industry that actually produces something ?
You are constantly stating that because in some countries something IS at this time a particular way – that it must be that way, that it always has been that way.
You think that because various government agencies say they are necescary – that they are.
You think that because they say they make us safer, that the actually do.
China has none of the food safety laws we do. Food handling in china is much as that in the US BEFORE the 20th century.
The results are that food in china is produced relatively close to where it is consumed.
That fruits and vegetables are picked and transported much as they are picked – until they are prepared by a cook. That animals are typically slaughter live at or near the restaurants.
This is how the overwhelming majority of people in the world are fed today.
There is little of no regulation in most of the world, little or no refridgeration, food is not process for the most part until just before consumption. That is when it is slaughtered, peel, washed and cooked.
This results in mostly very safe food – probably safer than what you eat. But it requires production to be close to consumption and it does nto permit the wide variety of food that those of us in the US enjoy.
That was also the US model in the 20th century.
The US pioneered the production of food at distance from consumption.
Our grain belt provides about 1/3 of the grains for the world today.
At the turn of the century we started to work out how to transport meats long distances.
Slightly later we worked out the same with respect to dairy.
All of these occurred because our standard of living rose, and having greater wealth one of the things we spent it on was better food – more meats, more variety.
The US also pioneered the removal of livestock and their attendant health problems from cities.
We developed the best freight system in the world initially to transport food great distances safely, and rapidly.
All new processes have speed bumps. Appliying mass production techniques to meat increased the risk of contamination at packing plants. Further slaughtering meat distant from where it was eaten required the development of methods of preserving the safety of that meat prior to consumption.
But we did not move from an unhealthy system to a regulated healthy one.
We moved from a relatively healthy system that was expensive and provided us with few choices to a cheaper one that ultimately was as safe and offered more choices.
Further that cycle has repeated over and over.
Refridgeration, preservatives, mass production both of agriculture and of prepared foods, and ever improving transportation have allowed modern americans to eat foods from all over the world – safely, at any time of year.
To the extent government has had much to do with this – it has been an impediment.
Regulations fixated on old ways of doing things, stalled newer ways.
For over 100 years – from about 1889 through 1998 the USDA test for meat consisted of poking it with a metal stick and sniffing the stick to see if it smelled bad.
Meat packers were complaining about that as MORE dangerous than not testing at all (it spreads contamination) in the 19th century. The practice did not end until the late 20th century. If you have ever eaten bad meat it is more likely the result of contamination from USDA meat inspectors than from bad meat actually getting into the market.
Regardless, the driving factor for most safety matters even in the highly regulated US is lawsuits and insurance not regulation.
Even most regulation itself is driven by the insurance industry.
BTW I have no problems with model codes and with insurance companies demanding your conformance to them in order to get insurance.
We have been doing that for 500 years – long before regulation.
The earliest building codes were requirements from insurance companies in order to get insurance.
Even today the development of building codes is driven by the insurance industry.
The codes themselves are private, they do not become public until some municipality incorporates them into their law.
UL is entirely private.
I have worked inside of manufacturing – OSHA inspectors show up once a decade.
Workplace safety is driven by several factors – employers concerns for the welfare of their employees, increasing skill levels make trained employees more valuable and harder to replace. lost production.
Further manufacturers talk about product liability – that means will they get sued.
The objective of the manufacturer is to produce the most reliable, and durable product for the lowest costs. Problem products are incredibly expensive.
I worked on one product where a sales rep sold 100 units for a task that was outside the specs for the product. I spent nearly two years working to make the product do something reliably that was not part of the original design because some sales rep sold the product for a purpose that the product was not able to do reliabily.
The cost of my time not only dwarfed the profits it ultimately dwarfed the gross revenue from the product. There were no regulations involved here at all.
i separately worked on a product whose job was to allow an axle in a farm vehicle to operate at 95% of maximum rated capacity.
When fields need harvested – time is money. When the crops are ready they need harvested and shipped as quickly as possible. Delays mean weather changes and losses, or spoilage from sitting arround. But a broken part means a tremendously expensive fedex bill or farms stocking lots of spare parts. Prior to the product I developed, farmers would run the machinery at about 50% of capacity. That completely eliminated expensive breakdowns. But it also meant longer harvest times.
Regulation had nothing to do with this. One of the side effects – was product safety improved.
Product failures that do not cause direct harm are incredibly expensive for producers.
They result in angry customers, lost future sales, the costs of handling returns.
The standard that most manufacturers target today is 6 sigma, That means less than 4 defects per million items produced.
Those are industry standards – no govenrment involved.
Further you just plane can not meet 6 sigma standards in an inefficient or unsafe workplace.
By far the largest dangerous workplace in the US is the farm. Farm work is almost entirely unregulated.
Blah blah blah.
Which form of argument would that be ?
This one…
Ah, the antifa argument that you can silence by force any argument you do not wish to hear.
Don’t you mean that Trump is against them. Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Administration and other public health care plans cover cochlear implants, which can cost up to $100,000 for medical and technology expenses. Trump is in process of reducing financing to all those resources – which will make it impossible for many American families to afford them.
But you’re in favor of those reductions, right… as a consequence of your sand throwing in the machinisims of government preference.
No what I mean is that many people on the left are against them.
Yes, I am opposed to public financing of almost everything.
If you want something to cost less, the worst things you can do are subsidize it and/or separate it from the free market.
2016 cost of lasik is below 1000/eye, that is difficult medical technology.
I support ending government subsidies – because that is a good idea.
Not because it is throwing sand in the gears.
Throwing sand in the gears would be making it more difficult o enact more stupid draining regulations.
Jay, I want to understand you better and why you think the way you do. What is your personal thinking on individuals living above their means, living on credit cards and leaving massive debts for a family to settle upon the death of the debt holder?
I ask that because you comment many different ways about the right trying to cut expenses and find fault in this undertaking whenever this happens.
So your comment about Trump wanting to reduce Medicare, medicaid and other government spending on health care. At what point can we no longer spend more than we take in. Every time someone complains about spending and lack of revenues, the left proposes to tax the rich more to fix the problem. So I asked, which program is the extra tax going to pay for? At some point once you take everything over $100,000 from them in taxes, you still run out of money. Then how do we pay for all the spending?
As for healthcare in this country, there is no fix for the problems we have today. We have opposing forces driving up cost and no one can control those forces. Drug companies making profits for investors. Medical suppliers making profits for their investors. Doctors making income for current year level of living plus retirement. Hospital charging patients to turn a profit so they can provide new technology for new procedures. Insurance companies reducing reimbursement to increase profits for investors. Nurses, techs and other healthcare employees demanding higher wages to stay in that profession. ALL OF THIS increases cost for the private pay patients and that is why cocklear implants cost over $100K when they probably should not be more than $10K if even then. They don’t have much more electronics in them than the current smart phones kids carry around in their pockets other than special frequency tuning.
The only way to solve the problem is to have a UK form of healthcare. Most people would not like it. But when everyone is employed by the healthcare government agency, nurses now making on average of $60K will make the average that is paid in the UK. Thats $38K to $40K. Doctors will make anywhere from 50% to 70% of what they make today. All other healthcare workers will make around 60% of current wages. That includes anyone involved with healthcare delivery from the local pharmacy, General Practicioner, hospital , etc. The government will negotiate prices and if companies are not willing to sell at that level, people will not get that service, drug or supply. Insurance companies will be out of the picture completely as the government will pay all services. There will be some services not covered and patients will pay for that out of pocket. But everyone will be aligned with lower healthcare costs. And when you walk in today for a cardiac cath and you have blockage that requires treatment, you now get it in a couple days if not tomorrow. Under the new system, you will be scheduled for the service and will wait until there is an opening. Much like the current government program provided to the veterans.
Whatever happens, I doubt anyone is going to be happy with the outcome. I will not be around in 25 years unless I have extremely good genes, but I would love to hear what the online debates on websites like The New Moderate will be when the current generations spending comes home and they have to pay for our spending. At some point in time, other countries will have economic issues and will not be able to buy our debt. China faces the same problem as japan. The aging demographics due to the one child policy for years. The older populations do not spend like the younger generations.Some one has to buy our debt so we can keep spending like drunken whores.
Dave, my question was why are some on the left opposed to cochlear implants ~ I wasn’t chiding you for bringing it up 😉 I was just curious.
Ron, my experience with liberals who believe that we should have Medicare for all, despite overwhelming evidence that Medicare for over-65 is going bankrupt , is 1) that they simply don’t believe that it is, and 2) they are economically illiterate and truly believe that anything that the government provides is “free.”
The idea that the US could find itself in total economic collapse strikes them as impossible. Why, the government would simply print more money! Nothing like the socialist disaster of Venezuela could happen here…or so they believe. Talking about government spending, or the crushing debt that we will not be able to sustain, just seems like conservative “scary talk” to them. Not real.
Even the case of that little baby, Charlie Gard, in the UK, whose parents were not permitted to take him to the US for treatment that could have saved his life, doesn’t resonate, largely because the media doesn’t focus on the reason why that happened (if they cover the story at all).
And the reason is simple. Once you are dependent upon the government for all of your healthcare, the government decides who lives and dies. Even if it’s your baby.
I did not think you were baiting me.
There are so many problems with government delivering any service.
I Government can actually provide heathcare – then why not food, shelter ?
And why provide medicare for all, when government can just provide healthcare for all ?
The only means in existance that works to give us ever more for ever less is free markets.
Prior to the modern rise of free market capitalism the rate of increase in standard of living was very near zero.
Those on the suffer constantly from delusions related to history.
First though they know better they think that the present moment is all there ever was.
Healthcare and many other things are somehow a right – despite the fact that for nearly all of human existance we were too poor to afford nearly all the benefits of modern life.
It is our increase in standard of living that made all these improvements possible, not the other way arround.
Less free markets means a future the same as the present – or worse. ‘
The weak growth of the past 16 years is not accidental.
It is the natural consequence of growing government.
“In the end, if ours were a society that criminalized toxic ideas, racist ideas would be excellent candidates for suppression. But the American theory has always held that no government, no majority, can be trusted with the power to outlaw beliefs and imprison thoughts — that such a power is more dangerous than political theories can ever be.
We can and must, however, suppress political violence “of any kind” and on “many sides.” To do so, we need to keep the difference between violence and ideas straight.”
This should give you some context as to why we need to be careful about erasing history and symbols.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-statues-democrats-kass-0820-20170818-column.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/19/boston_police_commissioner_bottles_filled_with_urine_thrown_at_officers_during_protest.html
Excellent article written by someone with the credentials and genetic makeup to write about a confederate officer. This was written in 1999 and things have only gotten worse.
http://vaudc.org/lee-defense.html
From that excellent article:
“But it is important to remember that the 13 colonies that became 13 states reserved for themselves a tremendous amount of political autonomy. In pre-Civil War America, most citizens’ first loyalty went to their state and the local community in which they lived. Referring to the United States of America in the singular is a purely post-Civil War phenomenon.”
This is why those who do not study our history ~ and I mean our actual history ~ do not understand the concept of state’s rights, as it existed at the time of the Civil War, so they insist that slavery must have been the primary cause.
I think that many people are upset by the attempt to erase our history ~ particularly as it relates to the Civil War. Just yesterday, on Facebook, one of my FB friends lamented that we’re fighting a civil war over the Civil War….
Before viewing the eclipse in any way, if you do not support racism, boycott the eclipse! The author of this article is a professor of law and ” knows what she is talking about”. If your a professor you have to know the truth, fight?
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19956/atlantic-claims-mondays-solar-eclipse-racist-emily-zanotti
I would never pay thousands of dollars to send my kids to college today, to be taught by these idiots.
Ron, come on: the Daily Wire is like Onion for right wing Conservatives, mostly good for a preposterous laugh or two.
The DW story is just regurgitating a story in the atlantic.
Are you saying that the atlantic is “just the onion for conservatives” ?
Get a clue Jay, you do not discredit facts and arguments by maligning the person speaking. If something is true – it is true even if adolf hitler says it.
Here is the atlantic story.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/american-totality-eclipse-race/537318/
“Oregon, where this begins, is almost entirely white. The 10 percent or so of state residents who do not identify as white are predominantly Latino, American Indian, Alaskan, or Asian. There are very few black Oregonians, and this is not an accident. The land that is now Oregon was not, of course, always inhabited by white people, but as a U.S. territory and then a state, Oregon sought to get and stay white. Among several formal efforts at racial exclusion was a provision in the original state constitution of 1857 that prohibited any “free Negro or Mulatto” from entering and residing in the state.”
Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro’s web site. He’s not only an impressive political analyst, he can be very critical of conservatives and and/or Trump when they deserve it. I honestly wonder if you ever read or pay attention to anything other than the echo chamber of your left-wing Twitter feed.
The article DW was refering to was an Atlantic article.
While I find Ben interesting, it would not have mattered if the article Ron linked to was on Der Sturmer – so long as it correctly represented the article in the atlantic.
Jay aparently thinks that if Brietbart reported the eclipse that would have prevented it from occuring.
Those on the left keep spouting that absent government change does not happen, that people do not have the power to change things on their own.
The changes occuring at colleges and universities are being driven by students and protestors.
Further those changes are provoking a backlash by alumni, donors and the parents of future college students.
This is how the free market regulates.
I have consistently opposed government discrimination while allowing private discrimination for whatever reason.
Government is different, it is force, it can not be permitted to discriminate.
Private discrimination is just another word for choice – sometimes bad choice.
Bad choices are self correcting.
There are odd issues when we deal with things like public colleges.
One of the reasons we should not have public colleges,
because public institutions are functionally no different from private ones, but because they are government must follow the rules for government, creating a mess.
Just another reason that government should stay out of the market.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mizzou-pays-a-price-for-appeasing-the-left-1503258538
More unintended consequences of ObamaCare – aparently it is driving heroin overdoes in several ways.
Markets work because producers are relentlessly driven to more efficiently and cheaply deliver services.
In a free market that is always balanced against consumers demand for ever more value.
Regulation elimintates the wishes of consumers as a factor, and presumes that rigid rules will forestall change by producers.
But the latter does not occur, laws and regulations are just a speed bump to producers.
The left likes to paint producers as evil – because they are not static. Because regardless of how you craft law or regulation producers will seek the best ways to profit from them.
In a free market that is a positive attribute and mostly works towards the public good.
In a regulated market that nearly always works against the public good.
In the instance of PPACA, producers who are obligated to provide insurance at near fixed costs, then seek to restrict coverage – so opiates are removed from pain managment – a move encouraged by government, further addiction treatment and mitigation are also removed.
It should not then surprise that patients with chronic pain turn to black markets, for illegal drugs.
Black markets exist, only where government fails.
http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/08/21/is_obamacare_fueling_the_opioid_overdose_death_rate_110708.html
Dave, I am going to agree somewhat with this post, but I also disagree to some extent. In many cases, opiate addition is a result of over prescribing of these drugs. There have been many articles in many years past about veterans with chronic pain that went to VA centers and the doctors prescribed opiates whenever they were requested by the patient. My son-in-law was discharged from the air force about 10 years ago due to a severe back injury and ever since he is in considerable pain, even with multiple operations. He has a medicine cabinet full of opiates because each visit to the doctor they gave him another prescription at the VA center even though he had not finished the previous fill. He could have provided many people in Salt Lake city with black market drugs and increased his income considerably had he sold them and not just stuck them in his medicine cabinet and once the expiration date arrived, flushed them down the toilet or got rid of them somehow.
Whats my point? Over prescribing by incompetent doctors leads to addition. Addition leads to further government control. Further government control leads to patients needing opiates not being able to get them legally. Not being able to get them legally leads to black market drugs. Black market drugs lead to stronger drug cartels and gangs selling illegal drugs.
So in any free market, it has to be free to a certain point and that point is where self regulation take place. The AMA, American Pharmaceutical Society or some other healthcare professional organization should have issued regulations and checks and balances on this and other medical issues and controlled it themselves. When there is no regulation at all by the private market, there are many incompetent individuals that will jump though the hoops left open resulting in harm to others. What needs to occur is something like the Joint commission on Accreditation of Hospitals where the government pays for Medicare and Medicaid claims as long as the facility meets minimum standards set by this group. If the AMA had guidelines and checked on doctors as does the JCAHO for hospitals as a joint venture with the government, maybe the opiate problem would not exist like it does today.
Both, as well as many other possibilities can be true.
Opiates are both over and under perscribed .
There are numerous instances where doctors and nurses have argued with legitimate grounds for more use of opiates for pain control that they have been targeted by government, lost licenses and more rarely imprisoned.
While he was dying we changed doctors to get my father morphine.
He had severe but not life threatening chronic pain, but he had two other life threatening conditions, atleast one of which was agrevated by the available non-opiate pain killers.
Further he did not like and would not take the other narcotics that we were able to get him.
My point is that perfection is not acheiveable – not be regulation, not by free markets.
But regulation tends to be demand side static, while the supply side circumvents the law or regulation to usually bad overall effects.
Given the possibilities, the best choice is to leave these decisions to individuals to make for themselves – consulting with doctors if they wish.
It is just about the confederacy ??
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/18/chicago-vandals-burn-century-old-bust-abraham-lincoln/
When you call everyone to the right of Sanders a Nazi, then Nazi looses its meaning.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reminder-the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-a-fraud-and-nobody-should-treat-them-as-responsible-actors/article/2631852
When people criticize CNN for its extremely biased news coverage, people like Jay get upset.
But this past week we saw a terrorist attack in Barcelona that has so far resulted in 15 innocent deaths, including the death of one American. CNN spent about one day covering the attack, before getting back to what it considered really important ~ Trump’s statement that bigotry and hatred on both sides had contributed to the riot in Charlottesville. Wolf Blitzer claimed that the Barcelona attack was likely a copycat of Charlottesville, which was easily one of the dumber things he has said in his career. He apparently never heard of the truck attack in Paris or the Christmas market attack in Berlin, or the multiple car and truck attacks by Muslim extremists in Israel? Anything to keep ISIS and Islamic terror out of the news.
Also, there was a horrific attack this past weekend, in which 63 people were shot, 8 of them killed.
Oh wait, that was a just typical weekend in Chicago…..
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-weekend-violence20170821-story.html
A quick Google of Fox News Today:
FOX NEWS HEADLINE STORIES TODAY:
More Troops To Afghanistan.
Dad Of Convicted HS Stubinville Rapist Shot Judge.
Chuck Todd Under Fire For “Softball” Interview With Antifa Ally.
Jefferson Memorial Exhibit To Feature Update Addressing Slavery.
Cops Say Bio Teacher, 45, Had Tryst With Teen Student.
Oh right- one small blurb about the Spain terrorist suspects.
Yed, Barcelona was a copycat of Charlottesville – well except for the added bomb, automatic weapons, suicide vests, and the two car attacks, and that it was islamic terrorism.
But other than that they were the same.
While looking for Charlottesville Video I found video of Obama several days after the military shrink killed people spraying jihadi rhetoric where Obama told the media that he would have to wait for all the facts – it could just be some family issues.
I’m distraught over CNN’s shift to an “all liberal narrative, all the time” news network. I used to depend on them for a neutral account of the news, 24/7, but ever since the rise of BLM they’ve gone out of their way to cherry-pick stories that boost and perpetuate the mythology favored by the left. They’ve been attacking Trump nonstop since November. Granted, Trump doesn’t need CNN to look bad, but they have a talent for twisting everything he says until he looks like the Antichrist.
They’ve become the Anti-Fox.
The angle CNN has shifted leftward still doesn’t match the rightward veer for Trump at Fox News – though two of their news commentators (Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace) have recently been objective about Trump’s utterances and behaviors.
Both CNN and MSNBC learned from Fox the way to build ratings (and profits) is by appealing to hyperpartisanpolitical demographics. Both have been increasing ratings in the Trump era. They compete with each other for NonTrump viewership, and their combined ‘liberal tilt’ outdraws Fox. But all three networks have seen viewership increases since Trump entered the race last year, the combined viewing up about 30%.
Objective news has become unintended collateral damage in the cultural divide- on cable certainly; and as long as Divisive Donald continues to attack and undermine the press, I’m betting it gets worse.
Do you actually watch any of this stuff ?
Even Harvard’s media study found Fox critical of Trump more than 50% of the time.
Absolutely there are Trump Cheerleaders on Fox, just as those elsewhere who would find a way to criticise Trump is he turned water into wine.
Absolutely the media is appealing to their demographic base.
That is how markets work.
But it is also true that we have more alternative sources than ever before.
Regardless we have never had objective news.
What we have today is an improvement – biases are out in the open.
The media has not shifted, it has just unmasked itself.
Trump’s disruptive nature tends to drive this.
Trump makes it exceptionally hard for people to remain objective.
When they fail their biases – biases that always were present show through.
This is true of the right and the left and all over in between.
On the right – some are fawning over Trump, trying hard to justify everything he does.
Others on the right try hard to find fault in him – to prove they are somehow objective, when they are not.
Trump is not the cause, he is just the revelation.
I think that we are in the midst of a radical media transformation.
Do you pay much attention to major media outlets today ?
I certainly do not.
I become informed from many many sources. Some gain credibility with me – I place a great deal of weight in Glenn Greeenwald as an example, because he does not bend his principles to suit politics.
Regardless, I rely far more on often completely independent or small sources.
I think that the media has somewhat bifurcated and left the pretence of objectivity driven by the market. Fox viewers are getting what they want from Fox – just and CNN viewers are getting what they want.
Regardless, aside from the shift to more smaller voices, the media is increasingly irrelevant as the issues resolve themselves.
Alot of the Trump/Republican future rests on their ability to improve the economy.
The shrill screetches of the media or the left will not matter.
Absent something more consequential, the upcoming elections will be decided by the economy.
I also think that we are approaching the end of things like the whitehouse press corp.
They serve no purpose. The president can get his message out without them.
And pundits can attack and criticise. And the rest of us can weigh it as we choose.
This should even appeal to Jay.
A bit more tongue in cheek
You’re right, I loved it.
More eclipse humour
Maybe this will give you some idea how libertarians see rights.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/18/protect-the-freedom-of-internet-companie
Government is not free to censor you.
But each of us is free within our own private space to make whatever choices we want for whatever reasons we want.
The last issue is what is a private space ?
And that is any space that is not explicitly a government space.
Your home is private. The fact that you invite your neighbor over – does not make it public.
You can ask him to leave at any time.
If you give your neighbor a key – that does not make it public.
If you make brownies and sell them at the school bake sale – still private.
If you go for a vaction and rent your home on airbnb – still private, though the person you rent to has purchased some of your rights for the duration of the rental – so it is temporarily HIS private space, not yours.
If you open a business in your garage selling wedding flowers – stil private space.
If you put a factory in your basement and hire people to make things that you sell – still private space.
Correct distinctions between private and public make it clear what rights we have at any given time.
A Moderates should read David Brooks’ column in today’s NYT:
Excerpt: “Moderates do not see politics as warfare. Instead, national politics is a voyage with a fractious fleet. Wisdom is finding the right formation of ships for each specific circumstance so the whole assembly can ride the waves forward for another day. Moderation is not an ideology; it’s a way of coping with the complexity of the world. Moderates tend to embrace certain ideas:
The truth is plural. There is no one and correct answer to the big political questions. Instead, politics is usually a tension between two or more views, each of which possesses a piece of the truth. Sometimes immigration restrictions should be loosened to bring in new people and new dynamism; sometimes they should be tightened to ensure national cohesion. Leadership is about determining which viewpoint is more needed at that moment. Politics is a dynamic unfolding, not a debate that can ever be settled once and for all.”
I find David Brooks to be generally smug and annoying, but he often is right on what it means to be a moderate.
This ~ “Moderation is not an ideology; it’s a way of coping with the complexity of the world.” ~ is an excellent quotation, and I think that, in general, most people who consider themselves moderate are guided by their ideological and moral beliefs, but open to the possibility of compromise on those things which are not core to those beliefs.
Honestly, Jay, I have not found you to be a moderate. Perhaps it’s just that you have been driven to extremes by Trump’s election, but, I have not observed that you see any complexity on issues…you appear adamantly anti-Second Amendment, pro-abortion at any point in pregnancy, anti-balanced budget, anti-everything Trump, etc. Plus, you are often inflammatory in your language and use ad hominem as a debate technique. When asked a fair question, as, for example, Ron did just the other day, you often refuse to answer and just move on to posting your latest anti-Trump link.
So, I suppose I am curious as to why you think that the rest of us need to understand what a moderate is? There are certainly instances in which any one of us commenting here are less than completely moderate, but that is to be expected in a heated political debate. But I think that, in general, we attempt to disagree without demeaning and insulting each other.
I think that complex issues require civil disagreement and lively debate. In reality, and as Brooks writes here, “politics is usually a tension between two or more views, each of which possesses a piece of the truth.”
Political debate is rarely settled, and I respect that you have strong emotions and opinions against all things Trump. But, I don’t think that personally disparaging those who don’t share those opinions makes sense in a debate that attempts to avoid warfare.
We can not cope with a complex world by trying to impose by force top down central planning, Government is inherently forced top down central planning.
Which is why government must be limited.
The way we deal with a complex world is to NOT try to force it into some predefined pattern. To trust that with a few restrictions humans will manage things fine on their own.
Inevitably we are going to have to trust other humans – it is not avoidable.
The key ideological question is how do we organize society to maximize the extent to which that trust is rewarded.
The ideology of the left is that we should trust a few elites who are put in charge of as much as possible,
the ideology of classical liberals is that we should thoroughly scrutinize and limit the trust we place in those empowered to legitimately use force, and in all other things understand that free individuals will work out on their own who and when to trust.
Settling political debate often takes a great deal of time and often blood but we do settle somethings.
We have settled or nearly settled the issue of slavery.
Thought the left has still not figured out that liberty means more than not being owned by another.
We have settled or nearly settled the issue of genocide.
The extremination of others because of their race is impermissible.
We should have settled the issue of top down central planning.
Every effort – whether nationalist, or socialist has failed.
We can not make large top down central planned systems work.
These all should be resolved issues of politics.
Alone they are sufficient to answer many modern political questions.
Jay, can’t argue with this. One of the more interesting issues about moderates is the lack of interest in politics. Many more moderate individuals will say they are”independent” when asked what their party affiliation is. In recent surveys, 24% of those polled say the are republican, 33% say they are democrat and 38% independent. (Not sure what the other 5% said they were). Of these individuals 18% of those saying they were republican said they did not vote, 29% of the democrats and 45% of the independents.
So without doing any further intensive study, my thoughts are we had the choice between voting for two crappy candidates because moderates don’t really give a damn and will not get off their lazy ass and vote and then piss and moan about the terrible do nothing congress and mentally unstable president.
Maybe if more of those identifying as independents went to the polls and reduced that non voting percent from 45% to the midpoint between non voting democrats and republicans (23%) then we might get democrat candidates and republican candidates that would be qualified to sit in positions of leadership and not be ones picked either because they had more TV exposure (Your Fired) or they were entitled due to a relative being president (Clinton)
Not until the moderates decide they have a voice and exercise that right by voting will we get candidates that make decisions that are good for all the country, not just 1/4 to 1/3 that identify with one party or the other.
Why is the truth plural ? Why are there no true and correct answer to big political questions ?
This is an unbeleivably stupid false over generalization.
Why are you suckered in by this total crap ?
This is trivial to refute.
Slavery is a big political question – do both views on that issue possess some peice of the truth ?
Various acts of genocide from the holocaust through the Killing Fields and Rwanda big political questions – is there a peice of the truth on each side of those issues ?
Brook’s entire premise is that because an issue is the subject of some big political disagreement that inherently neither side is correct.
Brooks is just making a more eloquent argument that compromise is a principle rather than a tool. Rhetorical flourish does not make a false argument true.
Compromise is a sometimes useful tool it is not inherently good or a principle no matter how many pundits you get to say otherwise.
It does not survive reductio ad absurdem – which is one of the more blunt and simple tests of any arguments validity.
Brook’s first paragraph is equally bad. It contains the implict presumption that all problems are problems for the state.
We travel and transport by water all the time. We do so by rowboat and container ship.
We do not for the most part do so in ordered convoys. We do not do so in formation.
In the real world most of that transport/travel process is organized via “spontaneous order”, rather than centrally planned.
Brookes’ metaphor litterally proves him wrong.
Further Brookes implicit presumes that government is the means to all ends,
yet again his own metaphor proves the opposite. Water transport and travel is not a question of organizing fleets to ride forward another day.
Jay;
My guess would be that Brookes’ remarks appeal to you because implicit in them is the presumption that life should be organized from the top down.
That may be appealing, but it is not how things are and not possible.
Governing is inherently about top down central planning.
Government is inherently about force.
Those are both excellent reasons for limited scope for government.
Force is not necescary and not useful most of the time.
Top down organization is incapable of managing anything as complex as 18th century life,
That problem is far worse in the 21st century.
Damn — I wish I had written this piece. Unlike the partisans, Brooks obviously understands the essence of moderate politics. More than that, he understands the soul of the moderate. We’re temperate in our politics because we want to understand different viewpoints — and because we value the very things that hyperpartisanship suppresses: intellectual curiosity, a nuanced approach to issues, appreciation of people as individuals (as opposed to representatives of a class), and probably a deep need for living in a harmonious environment (so we can all get down to the serious business of enjoying life instead of going at each other’s throats).
And had you written it you would be as wrong as Brooks.
The middle way is not inherently correct – it is more likely to be harmful than either extreme.
The middle way is premised on the ludicrously stupid presumption that there is no truth of anykind – not absolute not relative.
We have free speach and even actively choose to listen to different perspectives – even Nazi’s because we wish to discover the truth – wherever that falls on the political spectrum.
Compromise is the opposite of intellectually curious. Seeking the truth risks discovering that it might lie near one extreme or the other.
Excoriating hyperpartisanship is just a hyperbolic way of saying that if the truth is to be found at one extreme you are not interested in knowing.
I expect arguments to be made in the strongest form possible.
Nuance like compromise is a tool. Many things are just not all that nuanced.
Words are not violence. They do not make you bleed. Actual violence is rarely justified, and never as a response to words. These are not nuanced.
Principles are not nuanced. Attempting to nuance the importance of individuality results in the class nonsense you decry.
The objective is NOT harmony, the world is inherently chaotic.
We cooperate – we seek harmony, ONLY when it is to our individual benefit.
Humans are not ants.
My libertarianism is constantly falsely attacked as anarchy.
There is a small element of truth in that attack.
Libertarism is the understanding that the realistic best arrangement of humanity it closer to chaos than absolute order.
Dave, “The middle way is not inherently correct – it is more likely to be harmful than either extreme.”
You have a negative outlook concerning moderates. You seem to think moderates are centrist on everything and have no backbone when it comes to important issues. This can not be further from the truth.
Moderates will stand firm on some issues where they know the alternative is unacceptable. And then, moderates, unlike left and right extreme political divisionist , will accept getting part of what they desire when they cant get it all when getting part is of benefit to the country and the negatives are inconsequential.
If you are extreme right and want 15% corporate tax rate and the democrats are able to block that legislation, but through negotiation, a more moderate rate of 22% is worked out, is accepting the cut of 10% to 15% acceptable or would you vote against it based on principle and leave the corporate tax rate in the mid to high 30% range?
No Ron
I do not have a negative view of “moderates”.
I have a negative view of people who transform tools into ideology.
I think as an example that when can be “moderate” and hold almost entirely extreme views. Just not the same extreme views as progressives and conservatives.
Regardless, I think that wisdom is the quest for the answer, not for the middle.
There are myriads here – nearly all consider themselves moderates.
They do not share the same views.
I think blanket statements about what a moderate is or will do are false.
I can accept that Brooks as an example is “moderate”
What I am fighting is that he is the definition of moderate.
I like brooks and often agree with him.
I also think he is often wrong.
I further think that he is more concerned with not offending than with being right.
With respect to your example – compromise is a tool rather than a principle.
There are times to use it, and times not.
In the vaccuum of your example I would likely take as much tax decrease as I could get.
Though I would note that more important by far than tax rates are spending rates.
One of the reason I would shift entirely to consumption taxation is that it is flat and it is simple.
If we chose to spend more – we must fund it.
We should almost never borrow for current expenses.
Everyone should understand that our programs – which it is aircraft carriers or medicare are going to be paid for BY US.
That is more important than the tax rate.
I have no problem with govenrment borrowing to acquire assets.
Such as to buy alaska or a building or an aircraft carrier.
But we do not borrow to fuel that carrier – except in times of national emergency such as war.
More important to me than the current tax rates, is that government borrowing is limited.
That we are paying for expenses from revenue.
I would seek a flat consumption tax with a rate that was tied to spending.
I do not want politicians reducing taxes and increasing spending.
As a rule we find voters do not support programs like PPACA when they have to pay for them.
To me a “moderate”, I agree not the most feel good word, is an amalgamated person, and if it were an animal, it would be a chamarmoctporc, a chameleon able to show many colors and patterns, an armadillo able to roll into ball to protect itself, an octopus able to jet away or spray black ink to obscure itself. All defensive, since a lot of the world is offensive, whether telling us what to do and not to do and sometimes trying to steal our bananas by bashing us over the head.
I also admire the bonobos society (matriarchal, BTW), they don’t fight as much and don’t kill their neighbors as far as I know.
dd12, I agree ~ the world is very offensive, reality is offensive, and that’s one of the reasons why we should reject the idea that we need to shut down unpopular arguments.
And we all, even if we’re not ideologues, have certain ideological leanings, but what makes us moderate is the realization that, if we can’t discuss our differences, we can never even hope to resolve them.
Dave often says that compromise is merely a tool, and he’s right. Violence is a tool as well. Seems to me that anyone who champions violence and force as “tools” are not moderates. But there are an awful lot of people who do these days, and that is possibly the reason why moderates are feeling defensive.
Ron, to your point, I think that one of the things that happened in the 2016 election is that there were many people who voted for the first time in a very long time, if not for the very first time. I know that, in my own family, my youngest son chose to vote for Trump and it was the first time that he had ever voted. He’s not lazy or unengaged by any means, but he has become, at a young age, quite cynical about politicians and, in the past believed that there was no point in voting…..sort of the “Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown” syndrome. He doesn’t believe that anyone in the Democrat or Republican Party really represents his views. If Trump is driven from office, I doubt that he will ever vote for a candidate from the 2 major parties again.
In 2008, there were many people, young people and black voters in particular, who voted for the first time for Obama. They saw in him a politician that represented their values and embodied their hopes. The Obama coalition has not been one that has been able to be replicated by any other Democratic politicians. Maybe it’s because the emphasis on identity politics has made it difficult for one single candidate to represent so many diverse minorities, maybe it’s that Obama was a more skilled politician, maybe some other reasons. But there were certainly millions of Obama voters who have faded back into the woodwork.
I guess my point is that these voters had not been too lazy to vote in the past, but that our political system has not been producing candidates that make a connection with moderates. Or with conservatives, for that matter.
I think that Brooks is right about the complexity of political issues, and the need to debate them openly and calmly, but I don’t think that Donald Trump is at fault for the current state of polarization and lack of debate in the country, If anything, he won, because he was willing to confront some of the issues that the major parties have refused to address. I think that it’s a fair argument that he may not be doing a good job of uniting the country, but I wonder how that is even possible in the current climate. Brooks himself has not given Trump the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that much of what Trump has sought to do is to roll back some of the overtly progressive ~ i.e. not moderate ~ orders and regulations from the Obama administration.
So, I suppose that my problem with Brooks is that he talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.
Priscilla, I agree with you that there were many individuals that came out to vote for Trump, and for Obama for that matter, for the first time. The problem was there were not enough “moderates” to vote for someone other than Extreme Right Cruz or ? Trump. And I don’t have problems with any of the ways Trump is handling foreign affairs because he is doing what is needed. He is using a strong arm approach on one hand and then using a carrot on the other to try and change what is happening. For instance his new Afghanistan policy along with the broader gulf region policy where India, Pakistan, China are all invited to secure the area. May work, may not, but it is more moderate than “get the hell out” or “take over the whole region” philosophies that have prevailed for so many years.
But his domestic policies are going down the sewer because of his diarrhea mouth. Where a president has much free reign in foreign affairs, this one has no influence on domestic affairs other than negatives that are driving congress away from him. A Bush, Rubio, Kasich or Walker would have had a much easier time twisting a few democrats arms to support their cause. They see Trump coming and they do not want to be in the same town with him, let alone the same room. And that goes for some republicans now after this past week.
Had the moderates come out in higher percentages and voted during the primaries, Rubio, Bush or Kasich may have attracted enough voters to lower Trumps early vote percentage totals. There may have been a good possibility that finishing 3rd or 4th in the early primaries causing his ego reject losing and he would have dropped out to avoid any more personal defeats. He can not stand personal defeats and his ego would not have allowed him to come in anywhere other than 1st going into Super Tuesday.
As for your son, I have no idea what his politics are. But I do have a good idea that most Trump primary voters were much more right wing in a couple of areas than any of the others other than Cruz or Huckaby and they were attracting the social conservatives, not the far right conservatives that cam out to vote for Trump in the primaries. And remember, there were many democrats that voted in the GOP primaries and voted for Truimp. Still have not figured that one out.
As for the turnout for Obama, that was due to a Black man running and the blacks turning out to vote in large numbers that never voted before because the white men running before were not liberal enough for their taste.
Well, it’s interesting, Ron ~my son’s support for Trump doesn’t really seem ideological . And, I think that’s typical of Trump supporters. He certainly doesn’t fit the stereotype of a far right wing guy . He’s a filmmaker, owns his own small production company. He lives in the hippest of hipster worlds ~ Brooklyn, NY. He lives in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section, which is undergoing rapid gentrification, but is still a predominantly black neighborhood, with 3 other twentysomething guys, none of whom are white, and all of whom get along famously, despite having very different politics. I would say his political views are “conservatarian,” but his support for Trump, as far as I can tell, has more to do with Trump’s role as a change agent, and someone who is willing to stand up to the establishment.
I understand your opposition to Trump~ you don’t totally hate him, and you’re supportive of his foreign policy positions. But, he drives you (and often me) crazy with his seeming inability to keep his damn mouth shut. Just when I think he’s finally going to have a good week, he says or tweets something that drives people insane…or there’s some new drama with his staff. For me, it’s exhausting and frustrating.
But, for now, I think he is still the best alternative. Despite constant incoming, from all sides, since the day he was elected, he keeps pushing forward. He seems results-driven, and I like that. I don’t like that he seems to be alienating his own party most of the time, although I’m starting to wonder what the hell the GOP even stands for these days. And the Democrats have gone full-out socialist. Is it any wonder that we’re in this situation?
Priscilla, “But, for now, I think he is still the best alternative. ” There is no alternative unless he is removed from office or dies before the next election.
I understand that there were voters the were not extreme that supported Trump during the primaries. I wonder if there was a differences in various parts of the country. For example, in NC, those that I come in contact with or overhear talking that never voted before seem to be in the “good ‘ol boy” category or in the red neck category. As you point out, in NY,the demographics is much different.
Whatever the support, I would be very surprised if he is not targeted by a ” stable minded” republican in the primaries that will be reading for his ” small hands scorched skin” attacks and will have almost unified support from the republican party. I hope his future is like Johnsons in the 1968 primaries.
Ron,
Trumps political future is inseparable from the economy in 2018 and 2020.
The politics does not matter.
A weak economy means he will be primaried, and he will either lose the primary or the general election.
A strong economy means he will not be primaried and he will win the general.
It is really that simple. Short of a video recording of him with Putin conspiring to steal the election, almost all the rest of the politics is meaningless.
I am not personally the slightest enamoured of the so called moderate republicans – the Kaisich’s and Bushes.
We have a very serious govenrment spending problem that needs addressed.
Republican moderates are no more likely to make progress on that than a democrat.
Which is about zero.
We have a shrinking window to deal with our government spending problem before we threaten the entire world economy.
I do not think Trump is the answer. But I think he is more likely to take the right steps than anyone else.
Dave “We have a very serious govenrment spending problem that needs addressed.
Republican moderates are no more likely to make progress on that than a democrat.
Which is about zero.”
Well I can almost guarantee for you that the extreme right of the republican party’s ability to cut expenses is at ZERO, not about zero. If congress can not get Simpson Bowles passed, there is about zero chance any wing of the any party will get it done until it is forced upon them.
Ignoring quiblles such as the difference between zero and near zero we are in agreement.
I am not sure there is a constitutional and effective means to control spending short of a constitutional amendment.
That is why that would be top of my list.
One way or another we must tie taxation and spending together.
I tend to strongly support taxe decreases and flat taxes.
I also think we need dynamic scoring because all tax increases do not increase revenue and all decreases do not lower revenue.
Regardless, we should have the lowest taxes possible AND pay for our spending.
Neither party really wants that.
One of the explanations offered for why Trump won and why despite high negatives he remains politically competitive is that he was not elected for what he stood for, but what he stood against.
He remains the political outsider,. He is fighting the swamp creatures.
We do not care that he may be corrupt – new corruption is better than old entrenched corruption. We do not care that he lies and is often wrong – we are used to lying and we wrong is the defaults state of government.
What we care most about is what he is NOT.
He is not the political status quo of the past.
He is not the traditional republican or democrat.
We are revelling that he is giving the finger to the “establishment” – right left, media, whatever.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens in 2018.
I do not think that Trump has much in the way of coattails.
I do think Republicans can do well in democratic districts where Trump did well.
But I do not think Trump’s endorsement or his opposition are important – or atleast not so important as “why”.
I think Flake may be in trouble – but not because Trump opposes him.
At the same time I think those in the Freedom Caucus that Trump has targetted may do well.
I think Democrats are in serious trouble.
They have no message besides Trump. That has failed repeatedly under the best of circumstances for them so far.
2018 is unlikely to have a more energized democratic base than the special elections.
I think the democratic party is on the verge of imploding.
In response tot he election it has shifted left when it needed to shift to the center.
Ron, I agree with much of what you say, but would note that Trump’s domestic failures primarily have to do with passing legislation. I do not see that as Trump’s failure, but as a republican failure, nor do I see it as a large on.
It remains to be seen if it has legs, but the evidence that Trump’s executive actions have been economically beneficial appears strong.
I want to see 4 and 5% growth and beleive that more than that is possible,
but sustained growth above 2% is sufficient to demonstrate that the policies of the prior administration were the millstone arround the economy.
Trump did not run as the moral leader of the world – there were no corinthian columns at his victory celebration.
I am of two minds over the Trump turmoil.
Much of the “Argh Trump!” stuff that dominates the media is meaningless nonsense.
Nothing changes as a consequence of Trump’s specific words on Charlottesville.
Nor are the myriads of spitball fights that occur daily truly over anything of substance.
It is increasingly obvious that there is (nor can there be) a there there, regarding Trump/Russia. If there actually was – Trump would be impeached.
No amount of rhetoric or breathlessness over the latest revelation will elevated to significance. No Whitehouse rhetoric will mitigate something of real substance.
It is all “sound and fury signifying nothing.”
But Trump’s war with the media and the left is incredibly destructive to them.
I keep repeating if you strike the king, you must kill the king.
The expectation is that if you smite someone with great power without killing them – they will return to kill you. But it is also true that if you smite someone and do little of no damage to them – that you diminish yourself.
We knew who trump was when we elected him. His faults were no secret, there is no bigger spotlight to point at them. The left and media keep shouting what everyone knew on election day. You can say that Trump is “unfit” to be president 10,000 more times.
to those who voted against him – you are preaching to the choir, those who elected him do not see someone different today than in 2016. If anything he has more stature today.
He has been president for 6 month’s. The world has not come to an end. There are many accomplishments he can claim.
There is much for the left to be angry about – but neither Trump nor any republican can expect the vote of the left most 25% of the country. It does not matter how thick a lather those who will never vote right of Sanders are worked up to.
I think Trump is absolutely at “fault” for the current polarization.
Though the polarization predates Trump.
Trump was the victor in an election that was specifically about casting out the entrenched power.
He has striven imperfectly to do just that, and those efforts inherently put him at odds with that entrenched power and its protectors.
He did not get elected to be our moral leader. There were no Greek Pillars at his acceptance. He was elected to chase the money lenders out of the temple – or in his parlance to “drain the swamp” to Make America Great Again.
I do not think that those who elected him thought the battle would continue so bitterly past the election, but the conflict and polarization, and volatility is because the election did not end the conflict. One side has not accepted that the election is over.
When Trump said there is violence on all sides – that is what most of us wanted to here.
Actual Nazi’s, KKK members and real white supremecists are an almost non-existant part of the US. But 50% of the country has been treated as racist homophobic, white supremecists nazi’s. As little sympathy as we might have for Richard Spensor, we are well aware that not only Antifa – but much of the left thinks we are little better than Nazi’s.
This is the failure of identity politics. When you call half the country hateful hating haters – no one notices when the target is actual nazis.
One side of the country has called the other scum, and is now surprised that resulted in an electoral loss and a backlash.
I beleive I read a poll recently that 68% of republicans would support Trump even if it was proven he colluded with Russians.
There are people who support Trump – specifically because of his policies.
But a great deal of Trump’s support is because his enemies are our enemies.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Trump need not be perfect, he need not be presidential,
he just needs to do something we can not effectively do for ourselves – and take the fight to our enemies.
I did not vote for Trump. I try hard to be objective. I am very disappointed in his decision regarding afghanistan.
But I find myself supporting him way more than I want – because he is taking it to his enemies, and for the most part his enemies are mine. They are the people who have wreaked havoc on our country.
Trump is not right – but they are wrong.
Trump remains the lessor evil.
Hooray For Freedom Of Speech!
Absolutely
This is unbelievable, but apparently true. I thought it must be something from The Onion, but it’s not. ESPN pulled an announcer from the UVA football game, who’s name was Robert Lee, because his name was the same as you-know-who……
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/msespn-pulls-asian-announcer-named-robert-lee-off-uva-game-avoid-offending-idiots/
Priscilla I shared this last night, it showed as posted and when I went back in an hour later, it was gone. This happens often and I repost things. Word Press leaves much to desire better!
I thought Jay and I were having a humorous debate of sarcasm when I commented about removing “Lee” and others from landmarks and Peggy Lee Blvd was discussed. I guess my sarcasm was more fact than fiction.
Maybe I need to open a fortune telling office!
Everyone, left and right, from Fox to CNN & MSNBC is snidely criticizing ESPN for their dopey move, removing the Asian commentator.
And I don’t know what questions you asked me to answer (per Priscilla’s complaint) because my WordPress feed is temperamental and doesn’t forward everything posted to me, as it should.
The criticism does not matter.
The critics on the left do not understand WHY this was a mistake.
If Lee had been a white southerner most of the left would not be criticising,
I doubt you can articulate why getting rid of Lee is a mistake.
Atleast not without making arguments that are going to come back to bite you later on other issues.
I’m not arguing to get rid of the statues.
I posted some of the opinions/arguments against it.
For many they have negative symbolism; for others positive.
Both positions hardened when they took on new political significance: NeoNazis, Racists, and Trumpanzees on one side; Antifa and anyone else identifiable as Anti-Trumpanzees on the other.
I’m neutral: I don’t care if they stay or if they go – meaning out of public display, except in specific historical context, museums, tombs, etc. but the agument that removing them from public display is disintegrating our shared history is bullshit. History is perpetuated now online, and in film and books. Seeing a statute of President Lee on horseback in Charlottesville resonates about as significiently as seeing Grant on Horseback in Crown Heights, Brooklyn.
Moderates are for compromise – perhaps we should slice all statues in half – keeping only the left side.
You do not seem to accept that one can oppose Nazi’s, and Antifa, and even Nazi’s Antifa and sometimes Trump.
I also find it off that the in real life descriptions of most of antifa and neo-nazis is essentially the same 20-30 something males still living in their mothers basement with a cat and unable to relate to anyone in the real world who have loosely bought into a totalitarian scheme that does not require them to think.
Your about as neutral as sulfuric acid.
Further you are clueless. These statues are ok privately ? Or in the right context ?
What of Robert Lee the sports annnounce – is he only accpetable in context ?
Should we drape him with cloth ?
Pharaoh own slaves – should we bar egyptian artifacts from public display or require a trigger warning ?
I do not care much about the statues – but this entire debate is not about statues, it is about ideas and tolerance, and the reality that we live in a world that is hostile to our existance. We are not entitled to a safe space.
Further it is the expression of ideas that enlightens us – even bad ideas.
If those ideas we hold as true can not stand up to those that offend us – it is what we believe to be true that is flawed.
http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/450700/espn-marvel-missouri-university-they-all-turned-left-and-hit-rocks
The problem is not one of extremism.
It is of public support.
Missou made itself a place parents would not send their kids.
This was strongly predicted at the time.
I Think you are or will see much the same from other institutions that have managed to get themselves featured.
decisions that supress alumni donations and reduce parents desire to send their kids to a school are a threat to the survival of that school.
Even Pat Buchanan has come to realize Trump’s promises are not to be trusted
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/08/22/is_trumps_agenda_being_eclipsed_134801.html
Trump’s decision on Afghanistan may prove to be the most politically harmful of his presidency thus far.
Those of you on the left and many “moderate” republicans have pushed to enhance the power and influence of “the generals”.
No one doubts their sincerity. But many of us think they are Sincerely wrong.
No one doubts that Bannon was a bomb thrower. But many of us think that on afghanistan he was right.
Some in the media on the left are claiming that Trump now owns afghanistan.
While not the disaster of the prior 16 years – from this moment they are right.
Trump has promised something in Afghanistan that I do not think he can possibly deliver.
worse I think he knows that. There is much made of the fact that he was very angry about what the generals offered and was much inclined to say no – but eventually said yes.
This is a typical trap of govenrment – and one Trump should have been wise enough to avoid. Even when govenrment fails it as incredible inertia.
Every alternative choice in afghanistan had risk.
Leaving risked a rapid taliban takeover, the return of a repressive state – as well as the further exporting of terrorism.
We are staying – possibly no one is actually happy with that. The cost is about $50B/year – that is significant.
The likelyhood of accomplishing anything that can be called victory is tiny.
The likelyhood of leaving under conditions better than today is non existant.
I think it would have required great courage to leave.
Nor am I pretending that did not have serious risks.
But that was the better choice.
If no miracle is pulled of in afghanistan – Trump owns it.
Worse still, all the other things that Trump has done or not done that the press has wigged out over do not constitute a betrayal of his voters.
This potentially does.
I think most will trust him for a while – but absent results – his choice on afghanistan could be the worst of his presidency. Pissing off the left or the republican estabilishment does him no harm. This combined with the ouster of Bannon will look to many as a sellout.
Trump appears to be going from an administration of chaotic rivals. to a more stable one at odds with his base. That is not good for him.
The harmony that the left thumps for (but does not really want), is not inherently good for him.
Jay, This is the second time I tried posting this comment today after you asked. I know what you mean about Word Press. How it ever got to be a way for communication is curious given the problems that are inherent in the program. Go figure.
You made this comment on August 18 to one of Daves communications.
“Don’t you mean that Trump is against them. Medicare, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Administration and other public health care plans cover cochlear implants, which can cost up to $100,000 for medical and technology expenses. Trump is in process of reducing financing to all those resources – which will make it impossible for many American families to afford them.
But you’re in favor of those reductions, right… as a consequence of your sand throwing in the machinisims of government preference.”
I asked you “What is your personal thinking on individuals living above their means, living on credit cards and leaving massive debts for a family to settle upon the death of the debt holder?
I ask that because you comment many different ways about the right trying to cut expenses and find fault in this undertaking whenever this happens.”
This was just after the Donald Duck link if you want to go back and see everything posted. The reason for the question is the fact that continuous overspending by government ends in bankruptcy just like families. Future generations will be paying the price for our excessive spending. Whenever a GOP member proposes a reduction in spending growth, the left says to raise taxes, so since the election, many different programs have been mentioned by the left to be supported by raising taxes on the rich. Even taking everything over $100,000 from them would not fund everything the liberals want to fund.
So do you support spending now on things like cocklear implants and letting the kids today suffer when this country can no longer sell debt to foreign countries because they dont have enough money to buy it all? Remember, the left has already proposed taking more than is available from the rich for their proposed programs.
And I also commented about why our healthcare system can not reduce cost like other countries in the same communication as the question to you.
I’m not a full fledged economist, Ron, but I don’t believe household (private) debt is the same as government (national) debt.
Yes, it’s foolish and almost always crippling financially for individuals to hock their future by running up large credit card debts, etc (though sometimes it’s unavoidable- like with school loans).
But national debt doesn’t seem as clear cut: sometimes advantageous for a nation and its economy; sometimes the opposite.
I know there’s warring economic sides to the issue, each with its own slanted reasoning. I’m sure it would be better (less nerve wracking) to have a lot less national debt; but national debt may be a kind of lubricant necessary at times to grease the rails of the economy, and to soothe social ailments that need quick attention.
Here’s a sample of that reasoning:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/
Jay, I know that family debt is nothing like government debt. But I also know at some point in time, running up debt will have to stop. Is that at 25 trillion, 35 trillion, 50 trillion ….??Trillion. I know it is also a function of the gross domestic product. So looking out to 2038, or 20 year from now when the kids entering Kindergarten this year will be entering the work force, very conservative estimates that may not be far off in comparison to historical data over long periods of time, the current debt will climb from just under 20 trillion to 50 trillion. The GDP will increase from just under 20 trillion to around 32 trillion (about 2.5% growth rate). The Debt to GDP will increase from about 105% to 160%. And the staggering number is the interest on the debt will increase from around $450 billion per year to $2.5 trillion. At some point in time, that interest becomes a real number and the drain on the economy becomes an albatross around the neck of the living in 2038. How many people could be fed, given medical care or educated on wasted money totally $2.5 trillion a year?
So maybe you think we can afford cochlear implants, Medicare for all, Medicaid for undocumented aliens and all the other programs being proposed by the democrats. I, on the other hand, have grandkids that I want to have at least a 75% standard of living that I have today. That is not going to happen as long as we have idiot asses in Washington that can’t understand they are spending money that is not ours. We already spent ours!!!!!!! We can not tax the top 10% of wage earners 100% of their incomes and have enough to pay for future expenses!!!! We can not make the argument that a cut in the growth rate of government spending from a project 5% to 4% (example numbers only) is a 1% cut in spending. Any moron knows it is still a 4% increase in spending!!!!
The problem is we have way to many people in congress with an IQ less than a moron that actually thinks that is a cut and they make millions in that IQ category believe that BS.
For those that are religious:
Dueteronomy 15:6
“For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you.”
So as I interpret this passage, those that lend will rule and those that borrow will be ruled!!! How long will it take before China rules over us in more ways than just trade?At what point will it become advantageous for china to refuse to buy our debt when they do not agree with us on some issue. (For example if they own most of the USA debt in 2038, would they support NK sanctions as they have now or would they have us by the gonads because refusing to buy debt would put us in an economic depression?)
Sorry, Ron.
Debt is debt.
It is neither inherently good or evil.
Individuals borrow all the time. That can be wise, and it can be stupid.
Government debt most strongly resembles financing out current expenses on our credit cards it is unwise and unsustainable.
I thought that is what I said when you have nothing to show for the debt incurred. Sorry.
I think we are mostly in agreement.
You and I seem to share a great deal of common ground on fiscal issues such as debt.
We have differences – but they are small compared to the breadth of opinions on the issue that are out there.
I would require a balanced budget – with a difficult supermajority override.
How taxes should be levied and how congress should count the anticipated revenue of tax changes is independent of the fact that taxes should cover spending.
I do not have a problem with a government accounting scheme that borrows money now to pay over time for assets that have a long life. I do not consider borrowing for planes or buildings or roads, or ships to be a breach of a balanced budget.
With very few exceptions I do not think the basic rules for macro economics are actually different from micro economics. What does not work long in a home, or business, will do not better in government.
Dave, you and I agree on a balanced budget and when you can get past it. As for taxes, I could care less how they are collected, but I would want a couple things. 1, they need to be visible so everyone knows exactly what they are paying and congress can not raise them without people seeing that happen. 2, they are applied equally across the board with little exceptions like a minimum income where the tax is not applied. And finally, charitable giving would be the only deduction.
Basically a flat tax, not a VAT since that is highly regressive.
I have only two quibbles, otherwise I entirely agree.
1). How taxes are levied does matter. Some taxes are far more economically destructive than others. We want to fund govenrment with the minimum of impact on economic growth. All taxes cause economic harm but some are as much as twice as harmful as others.
2). There is really no such thing as a non-gressive tax.
If you collect all funds through corporate taxes – consumers pay.
If you collect everything from the wealthy – it will still be actually paid by the poor.
Today the most effective form of taxation is the Sales tax – paid only at final sale, and only on new goods, It is a flat tax, it does the least possible economic harm it is completely transparent to people.
It can be made less regressive by rebating some portion – roughly the same as a small UBI.
The wisdom of debt is not a function of GDP, a bad investment is a bad investment.
financing operating expenses with debt more than temporarily is bad,.
GDP is relevant the same way income is relevant.
The higher your income is the greater your ability to afford high debt.
But the affordability of debt has nothing to do with its wisdom.
The fundimentals of debt do not vary whether the debt is public or private.
I have borrowed money to buy a car, a home, an investment property.
That borrowing has risk, but it also has reward.
Debt can allow us to have a better present and acheive a better future.
It can also destroy us.
Exactly the same is true of public debt.
Our current public debt is for the most part equivalent to paying the rent on our credit card.
A disasterously stupid idea.
We are approaching $20T in federal debt. What home, what car what investment, what asset do we have against that ?
No debt is NOT a lubcricant to grease the economy.
All govenrment spending – including debt financed spending, and debt itself is competition against the rest of the economy.
Whatever govenrment spends – can not be spent by the rest of us.
Whatever government borrows – the rest of us can not.
This is not the best text on economics in existance, but it is a pretty solid refulation of this economic grease argument you are offering.
Besides it is free, an easy read, and relatively good.
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf?file=1&type=document
With respect to your reuters article.
It is ITS arguments that are bogus.
Even Keynes ultimately accepted that govenrment spending as stimulus was ineffective.
Because government can not act quickly enough and can not target the spending properly – partly because it can not know where to target it, and partly because political pressures are too great to target spending properly.
Harvard’s Robert Barro – the #4 Ideas Respec ranked economist in the world and the repository of the greatest public database of govenrment spending information has concluded that govenrment spending efficiency never reaches unity.
i.e. it is ALWAYS anti-stimulative.
That the norm is that it is .25-.35 efficient – i.e. for every dollar govenrment spending the economy loses 60 cents.
The govenrment stimulus argument runs afoul of the laws of supply and demand.
It is rooted in the demand side economics that has proven to be a total fraud.
It is another example of left leaning intellectuals ability to self delude into believing total balderdash that has no real support.
There are no successful socialist regimes anywhere ever.
The closer a govenrment gets to socialism the more it fails.
We have that over and over and over. There is no counterfactual.
Yet, myriads of very smart people continue to argue for socialism.
This is just an example of the “intellectual yet Idiot” phenomena.
Jay, I know that there are alot of very smart people that beleive quite differently than I do.
That is the point – they beleive. It is a religion. It is not based in fact.
One rare occasions these disputes move into the realm of science.
And again the attribute of those I am at odds with is faith, not actual science.
There is no magical distincion to government spending.
If it was miraculously stimulative – then credit card debt would actually be even more stimulative.
Government debt is WORSE than credit card debt.
Atleast the effects of credit card spending reflect the real preferences and values of individuals in the economy.
$1T borrowed and spent is not different because it was spent by govenrment or private individuals. The only relevant diffences are how it was spent.
Government spending choices are by definition WORSE, than free market choices.
Dave, you make some good points. i will just add one additional to them. When you or I go in debt, it can be for various reasons. Some emergency repair. Eating out or attending some social gathering. Buying a home or other asset. Starting a business.
What government spending today is aligned to on our spending (in my thinking) is putting dinners and social gathering on credit. We had a good time spending the money, but have absolutely nothing to show for the spending the next day. That is what government is doing and especially with the growing debt and interest payments, it will only get worse. I have much less problem with government spending 1/2 a trillion on ships, planes or roads than I do on interest going to China!
I think we are in agreement:
All borrowing is not inherently bad.
Even borrowing for expenses is occasionally justified.
But we should not do so blindly.
Borrowing outside of times of emergency or to acquire and asset should be rare and limited.
Public debt is not inherently different from private debt.
I would have no problems with govenrment revising its rules of accounting to correspond to those used by the rest of us.
I would not oppose govenrment dividing spending into current expenses and asset purchases and financing the purchase of assets.
I beleive that congress needs to approve borrowing for the purchase of assets.
Separately from the purchase of the asset.
We are unlikely to see such as change because it would make purchasing roads and aircraft carriers easier than paying for social security and medicare.
People Will Die !
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450711/health-care-myths-hurt-poor
From the link:
“Consider what daily life is like in this country today compared to just just 100 years ago. By every measure we are better off. Even the poor today have access to goods and services that were undreamed of by the rich not so long ago. ”
Consider daily life today compared to just 100 years ago, when government was much smaller, and there were no laws protecting the right to unionize or working hours or conditions or minimum wage, no Social Security or Medicare/Medicare protection, no Clean Air Act – and US life expectancy was 47 years of age: Givernment action has helped increase that by decades. Yay for flexible government actions!
It is the freedom of the past that is responsible for the benefits of the present.
Economic growth slows directly proportionate to the scale of govenrment.
Much of what you state is nonsense.
Individual liberty and free association guarantee the right to unionize.
Outside of narrow circumstances uniionization tends to be a poor choice,
but actual free markets resolve that.
Regardless, we have never needed laws regarding unions and we should discard those we have. Government has no role in unionization beyond barring parties from using force, and obligating them to honor contracts.
As a separate matter, the history of unions and their purported benefits are horrendous.
They are and have been corrupt, racist, and economically destructive.
You continue to make this stupid argument that because laws exist that the thing those laws mandate would not have occurred otherwise.
I have pointed out myriads of examples to the contrary. both in the past and present.
Little of the world has the regulatory and legal burdens of the US, and yet the ills you fear progress the same there as hear.
Poor working conditions, low wages, and long hours are the consequence of lower standard of living.
No amount of laws will improve working conditions, hours, or wages – if the economy does not produce the wealth to be able to afford them.
The laws you celebrate were not possible until productivity and standard of living rose enough that those changes were inevitable – law or not.
Social Security has been a disaster. Even the poor could have far more wisely and easily invested for their own future.
That you would celebrate as a success something that provides a zero return over a lifetime is ludicrous.
Medicare has had no impact on the life expectance of the elderly. The same trend continued as before – albeit slower, but demand for medical services by the elederly trippled. All medicare has done is driven up medical costs.
Air quality issues are almost exclusively a city issue and have been a problem for all of human existance.
Air quality in 16th century london reduced life expectance to under 30,
You were more likely to live longer as an indentured servant in the new world – very harsh conditions.
Are you saying that the clean air act is what improved conditions in the 16th century ?
Regardless Airquality has improved since then.
We do not burn dung and peat for heat.
We shifted to cleaner coal and then abandoned that for cleaner oil and gas,
and are shifting from that to electric.
We made all those shifts – absent government, and absent laws, and all when the cleaner form of energy was more expensive. We did so when our standard of living allowed us to do so.
Whenever we raise our standard of living we will use the excess to improve that facet of out lives that we care most about at the moment.
When we act through law – we improve – at the expensive of us all, what some of us want.
The rate of improvement in air quality DECLINED after the passage of the clean air act.
Government action has had nothing to do with our increase in life expectance.
Not only should that be obvious – they have no relationship to each other,
but we have plenty of counter examples.
China;’s life expectance is very near that of the US – without all the laws you think are esential.
Life expectance most strongly tracks standard of living.
Increases in standard of living correlate strongly to economic freedom.
Big government NEGATIVELY impacts the rate of improvement of standard of living.
IYI.
Long winded reiteration of the same blah blah.
Snore.
Not an argument.
No sane person wants the flexible use of force.
This is a wonderful paper demonstrating the cognative dissonace of large portions of the population. I only wish the authors would have correlated the views with ideology.
I hypothesize – that as is true with myriads of other things. Those on the left – correlating strongly with the strength of their left lean, are increasingly more likely to perceive profits as inherently evil despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I do not think this left ideiological disonance is unique to economics.
I think that those on the left routinely beleive things that are not so.
They do so despite evidence. They do so despite their own high levels of education and intelligence.
Elsewhere I linked the NRO “People will die” article – with cites to Bastiat and McCloskey.
For much of what the article claims all of us who are in our 50’s should just know from our own personal experience.
Yet, those on the left – even very intelligent people on the left, beleive absolute nonsense.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/the_psychology_1.html
Mentally Disturbed Donald Needs Urgent Psychiatric Care
And The Nutso Beat Goes On
And The Sociopath Serenade Continues
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/347712-msnbcs-donny-deutsch-trump-possesses-symptoms-of-a-sociopath
Having had to deal with real sociopaths up close and personal. I find idiots diagnosing people as sociopaths annoying.
I would further note that real sociopaths are found commonly in numerous professions – law enforcement, teaching, ministry, govenrment, and business.
Very few are actual criminals and they are often among the most productive members of society.
Real Sociopaths have several specific dangers.
They are prone to violate laws that are not rigorously enforced
Most sociopaths are not violent. But once they cross that line they will never return.
Sociopaths are the most effective at using the machinery of a system against their enemies.
Sociopaths are an argument for limited government – for few laws, rigorously enforced.
This is a generally accepted definition:
“A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one’s goals.”
And if you’re suggesting somone like that – Trump for example – Is acceptable as president of the US – a divisive Sociopathic Smuck who lacks remorse, guilt or shame – you are a ditzy rationalizer, intellectually tone deaf to the numbing discordant blare his ‘leadership’ has generated.
You’ve rationalized his lying as an acceptable tool for achieving political goals.
You’ve rationalized your own accepting abysmal lowering of moral standards at the highest level of government for political expediency.
You’ve rationalized Libertarian rigidity to sabotage Moderate consensus deal making.
Worst of all, you’ve rationalized your own long windedness as logical discourse when it is for the most part narcissistic babbling of the same rigid singleminded ideology ad neauseum.
Other than that, you’re doing great.
I wonder why I am debating this with you.
You can not grasp the difference between the fantasy world in your head and reality.
However you describe a sociopath, it is still true that it is a disorder common among a disproportionate number of successful people in certain professions – including politics.
I have no problems beleiving Trump is a sociopath, I beleive that Obama and Clinton were too. Your idea of a sociopath appears to come from Friday the 13th movies.
The do not drip blood from their teeth and the overwhelming majority never resort to violence.
Absolutely there are dangerous people to encounter.
As the same time they can absolutely be expected to conform to whatever constraints they can reasonable expect will be enforced against them.
I am not looking to defend sociopaths.
I am just not blind as you are to the reality that they are extremely common in positions of power. The attraction of sociopaths to positions of power is another excellent reason for limited government. Because we can absolutely be assured that power is a tremndous lure to sociopaths.
No – I would not choose to put a sociopath in any position with even inconsequential power. But I did not choose to make Trump (or Clinton) president.
Unlike you I grasp that our government needs to be structured not merely to work if we as lucky enough to elect the best possible people, but also if as is more likely we are unfortunate enough to elect the worst.
With respect to some of your other nonsense.
The role of president is defined by the constitution.
Moral leader, Uniter, and most of the rest of your criticism of Trump are not among the job requirements.
Given my experience dealing with sociopaths I would personally do as the eskimo’s purportedly did and set they adrift on some ice for the good of all.
But that is not how we operate.
I am not “rationalizing” anything – another word that you use without reference for what it actually means.
Trump is president – I did not elect him. I can accept what is.
I will hold him to account, for his accomplishments and failures as president as I measure them.
I can not hold him to account for failing to keep promises – I did not vote for him.
The most he can expect of me is that he might earn my vote by 2020.
What am I suposed to do if he is lying – say I will not vote for you twice ?
I have no more ability to hold Trump accountable for his lies than Obama – that is pretty much none.
I have asked those who voted for Obama why they beleived his lies.
But as I did not, I have nothing to ask myself.
I have noted that I am mildly surprised at the extent to which Trump has tried to keep his campaign promises in some form.
Past that though I have very high standards for integrity, unlike you I do not conclude someone else is lying, just because I do not agree with them.
I also consider the context. Do I care much of Trump is lying about the size of his “hands” ?
I do not consider lying an acceptable tool for accomplishing any goals.
That would be one reason I am not a politician – I am pretty sure the local fog catcher would lie to get elected. I am not surprised that presidential candidates are lying whenever their lips are moving.
Government is concerned with a very small aspect of out moral conduct.
I expect government to act only inside that scope, and I expect government to behave morally by the appropriate standards inside that scope.
The entire remaining domain of morally it purely personal – as it should be.
“You’ve rationalized Libertarian rigidity to sabotage Moderate consensus deal making.”
Wow what an obtuse sentence.
While I have no idea what it means, I have no problems trying to sabotage any group trying to make an immoral deal.
Whatever moderate consensus deal making is, it is not a right. If the deal being made is bad, it is the obligation of any who can to sabotage it.
Long windedness and logic are not contradictory.
I am not a narcissist, but even if I were, that is not at odds with logic. \
Rigid singleminded ideology is not inhernetly error.
Should my approach to the holocaust flexible ?
Fit those who want to immortalize President Looney in Crayon:
https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Nuts-Illustrated-Guide-Coloring/dp/0692738037
So can we let go for good the stupid meme that republics somehow treated Obama more hostilely because he was black ?
Had anyone sprayed the crap you are spraying at Trump at Obama, they would likely have been jailed.
Or at the very least identified as a neo nazi.
Given the unbeleivable record of failure of the US intelligence community – why am I to trust the former DNI ?
I suspect Clapper is upset because Trump’s election returned him to private employment and without Hillary in the whitehouse that likely reduced his private income prospects by 2/3.
Blah blah.
More boiler plate BS from you.
You haven’t a clue what the success rates of those agencies has been.
You’re a trump talking-point Parrot.
You and Trump – club footed stompers on American traditions, you’ll be responsible for dancing on our graves.
More ad hominem as a substitute for argument.
Of course I have a clue what the success rate of govenrment is.
We spend $4T on the federal government each year – do you honestly think you get $4T in value ?
As I noter Barro from the efficiency multiplier for govenrment spending is on average .25-.35 with a peak for military spending in time of war at .80.
That sounds about right to me – we spend about $4T and get abotu $1T in actual value.
BTW that is fairly close to what polls say that people beleive about government spending.
Revently I am reading Radley Balko on the rise of the warrior cop.
In the 90’s through the present community policing is a really big thing.
Clinton allocated 1.5B in federal funds to put cops in the streets in their communities.
BTW community policing actually works. A few cities with 500,000 people have implimented it and reduced their crime rate by half. It breaks down the us vs them perspective of both the police and the communities they serve.
Great idea – Clinton spends 1.5B on it – should be great right ?
Well the community policing dollars are allocated based on your drug prosecution rates.
The result is community policing dollars almost never went to actually increase community policing. They went to fund SWAT teams and increase drug raids and drug prosecutions, and to by military equipment for police forces. But every politician since Clinton has been selling community policing and increasing funding for it.
I will make this really easy for you Jay
Pick 10 government programs you think actually work well.
You get to choose which ten.
Then I will look into them and come up with the evidence to demonstrate how they fail.
I need have no idea what programs you are going to pick.
It does not matter – the failures of government programs are predictable.
The incentives are screwed up.
The left whigs out about capitalism – rightly understanding that people entirely unsupervised can not be trusted, that things ill break down and go to hell.
But free markets are not unsupervised – we are barred from using violence to get our way, we are obligated to honor our agreements, we are bound to make whole those we harm.
I would think all of us left, right, moderate, whatever accept those 3 constraints.
We can debate whether more is necescary – though Jay you have as of yet never offered me any other constraint that was necescary.
Regardless – men are not angels and human nature requires some governance.
Exactly the same is true of government – except on steroids. Whatever evil you might think men do for money – power is the ultimate aphrodesiac. If people in the free market can not be trusted – then how can people with power be trusted – and government is power.
Madison asserted that the control of the electorate was necescary but not sufficient to restrain those in government from acting evil.
So what other real constraint is there – the left has dismanteled all the constraints the constitution imposed.
There is no sane reason to expect good conduct from govenrment.
So pick the government programs that you think efficiently deliver value equal to what they cost, and we can confront this openly and honestly.
In my lifetime I have never found a single government program of any kind that on inspection did not prove to what quite differently than intended, inefficiently and often at total cross purposes to its stated goal.
Nor did I get there from some position of inherent initial skepticism.
Long ago, I had much the same faith as you did that government was atleast sometimes a force for good. Programs I supported and hoped were good, proved to be evil.
And I have been making these observations and arguments longer than Trump,
And others have been doing so long before me
Thomas Sowell started as a left leaning government economist in the 60’s and the data he was working with converted him to libertarian.
Milton Friedman had the same experience during the new deal.
The data I cited from Barro alone should tell you you are fighting an uphill battle.
If the effectiveness of government programs distributes along a bell curve which is likely and the apogee is between .25 and .35, that means half of all programs are WORSE.
IF Barro’s peak was set by Military spending in wartime at .8 – what is the likelyhood you are going to find the one program that manages to actually deliver the same value it wastes.
I read alot, and government crops up in what I read – often tangentially, without my expecting it to, or not in the way I expect ti too.
As an example my reading on community policing surprised me.
I wanted to beleive in community policing and much of the data I have read previously was equivocal about it. My presumption was it just did not work as well as I had hoped.
I was shocked to discover that no – the money we are spending on community policing is littlerally funding the exact opposite of community policing.
But on further thought I should not have been surprised.
Separately I am about 2/3 through it and I will highly recomend Radley Balko’s book
“Rise of the warrior cop”
It is well researched, it is a good history of policing in the US, particularly since the 60’s
It is also another damning story of government taking programs that are failing and responding to failure by pumping ever more money into them,
Even today. Trump ran against asset forfiture, and the drug war.
He put a big drug warrior in the DOJ,
and we are again doubling down on the things that failed in the past.
We had a brief moment during the obama administration where public attitudes – both of conservatives and the left would have permitted some improvement to our law enforcement. that has ended. Despite the fact that we have eviscerated most of the civil right was had int he 60’s. despite the fact that actual crime and violence is way down, public attitudes towards crime are WORSE than in the 60’s. We are more affraid, and more willing to grant police ever greater powers.
Jay.
I have never met someone who did not have atleast one facet of government they were sure was completely screwed up. Whether that is racial profiling, civil rights, regulation, the environment, the rich, ……
Does nto matter. Nor does it matter whether you think government has failed there in the same way I have.
I would be entirely shocked if you did not think that government had seriously failed at something.
Why do you beleive that is the only place government has failed ?
What is differetn about the incentives in that area from those you believe succeed ?
The impetus towards corruption and failure in govenrment is NOT narrowly tailored.
There is no overarching reason why govenrment should fail at somethings and succeed at others.
I have long criticized the government, just as I had a long list of Obama criticisms which I loudly and frequently voiced.
Like Roby, I’m against extremism both left and right. I want centrist ( more centered) politicians and judges in office; not combative lefties and righties perennially at war.
Unlike you, I see government as generally a useful machine, but one that needs frequent refining, repair, monitoring.
Unlike you, I can see that the benefits of democratic governments outweighs the damages.
Unlike you I can make myself understood in 5 short paragraphs.
And again we are at odds because you conflate centrist and moderate.
The middle is rarely the correct answer to anything.
It is not even often a good compromise.
There is a great deal of difference between the extreme left is wrong on many issues, and the extreme right is wrong on many issues, and the idiotic proposition that the answer lies in the middle.
The extreme right is also right on many issues, and the extreme left is right on many issues – or atleast once was right.
The truth is not any more to be found in the extreme right, left or center.
It is found wherever it is without respect for left, right, or middle.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”
There is a huge difference between your idea of moderate – taking whatever positions the left and right offer and splitting the difference, and mine – taking those positions of the left that are true, and those of the right that are true and incorporating the best of each.
SOMETIMES the truth is in the middle – or atleast not at one extreme or the other.
But quite often the truth is to be found at one extreme or the other.
But all of the truth is not to be find with either extreme.
I would further note – I am libertarian, classical liberal. Most of my positions predate those of both the modern left and the modern right. Each socalled extreme has borrowed peice meal from classical liberalism and then added nonsense of their own.
“Unlike you I can make myself understood in 5 short paragraphs.”
Absolutely correct – in 5 short paragraphs you make it clear that you are blind to the real world, ignorant of history, and incapable of logic or reason, and see things that are not there.
we are at great odds regarding government
Government serves a necessary purpose – not whatever we desire.
It historically does badly everything that it does – even those that only government can do.
Government is force – that is indisputable.
IF force is not necessary – govenrment is not necessary.
Government is only necessary for those tasks that require force.
Everything else we can manage fine without government.
While the history of the 20th century is a damning indictment of the failure of socialism,
more accurately it is the story of the failure of broad government. Socialism is merely the most common incarnation of big government.
Socialism fails primarily because government failure is a greater burden the larger government is and socialism results int he largest possible government.
There are some specific ideological reasons for the failure of socialism, but those are all either small, or inherent to all big government.
Government does need constant monitoring – because the nature of the humans that make govenrment is to expand their power.
But there is no compelling reason that govenrment today needs to have more power or more laws or be findimentally different than government 100 or 200 years ago.
Murder is still wrong.
Government is still obligated to protect us from foriegn invaders.
Government is still obligated to secure our natural rights.
Government is still obligated to enforce our agreements.
There is nothing that has changed in 250 years that requires change in our law or the general operation of govenrment.
Further government is not there to be “useful”. We do not need government to do “useful” things,
We need government because as Madison said –
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Government is necescary to prevent us from using force against each other.
“Unlike you, I can see that the benefits of democratic governments outweighs the damages.”
Unlike you I do not see things that are not there and I do see things that are there.
Unlike you I can add.
One paragraph
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Humphrey is a pilot doing psychologicial assessment remotely.
Why am I to trust him ?
Free markets primarily benefit ordinary people.
Can Teachers get paid like celebrities
I highly doubt that you can get elected to public office without strong elements of sociopathy in your psychology.
I have little doubt that Trump is a sociopath – or that Clinton(both) are, or that Obama is.
To the extent those on the left might have won anything regarding Trump’s statement’s regarding Charlottesville, as is typical, overreach has resulted in their loss.
The more this becomes about statues and history and the less about Heather Heyer and Tiki torch parades, the better Trump looks and the worse the left does.
All Trump errors fade in the overeach of the left.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/espn-robert-lee-moment-proves-trump-won-monument-debate-article-1.3435388
tRump is ruining this country.
And people like you are his enablers.
How am I enabling Trump ?
He did not get my vote.
All he has from me, is that I accept the outcome of the election.
Trump is not running the country.
He does nto command the markets.
He does nto command the courts.
He does not command the states.
He does not command congress.
He is president – with the legitimate powers of president and no more.
He has no more or less power than Hillary would had she won.
He is enabled by the constitution, and constrained by it as well.
So long as he confines his actions to the bounds of the constitution,
it is unlikely he will be removed before 2020.
Wishing otherwise will not make it so.
I’m actually starting to wonder if there isn’t some sort of mass hysteria going on, that has driven Trump-haters over the edge.
Wikipedia defines “mass hysteria” as ” a phenomenon that transmits collective illusions of threats, whether real or imaginary, through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear.”
Jay hysterically calls Dave a Trump “enabler”. Dave rationally answers that he didn’t even vote for Trump. I’m pretty sure that, of the regular and semi-regular commenters here, the only actual Trump voters were Pat and me. And, I live in a state that went for Hillary, so my vote didn’t even help him. So,what the hell are we even talking about? Enabling what? The man won the freakin’ election.
There is zero evidence of this Russia collusion, so the anti-Trump hysteria is now focusing on calling him a Nazi and a racist ~ accusations for which there is also zero evidence.
After his rally in Arizona, I turned on CNN, to hear Don Lemon and his hysterical panel discuss how “mentally ill” the president is. Meanwhile, leftist protesters were outside the area, rioting over nothing, forcing the police to disperse them with tear gas, so that the happy MAGA folks could leave the rally safely, and go home. I’m thinking that Trump and his supporters are behaving pretty rationally, in comparison to the anti-Trump crowd.
Now, it is possible to make some rational criticisms of every president, and I’m certainly willing to criticize Trump when he deserves it, which he frequently does. But, what’s been going on this week is so far from rational discussion that it’s impossible to parody, because it transcends parody. It’s just unhinged hatred, based on fury that Hillary lost, desperate attempts to grab on to some strategy that will succeed in driving Trump from office, and fear that, despite controlling the media, academia, and Hollywood, all of the left’s attempts to destroy him have so far failed.
Priscilla, like the socialist concept on money, soon you run out of other peoples money, here too the socialistic media will run out of collective ideas to trash Trump. Russia, Nazi loving racist, mentally ill. Wait a couple days for their next trick out of their bag of tricks against Trump.
But please remember there were a few of us that called him egotistical and a few other mental terms to question his qualifications for president. My dislike for Trump came from years of working with the “chosen few” elite that sat on our board of directors at the health system. To say the least, most all of them thought their poop didn’t stink and you made employees happy by using insignificant tricks so the employees thought you cared, when in reality it was screwing the employees whenever possible. That is why I chose never to take a senior management position as I could not socialize with these asses and I put Trump in that category of managers. He showed that during the primaries and he is showing it in the way he is handling his relationship with congress.
So for me, as I said earlier, i approve of his handling of foreign affairs because he has people around him very qualified and in a status he looks at as being equal to his high and mighty status. In all other positions, I think he finds them insignificant annoyances far below his stature and will make sure people understand how he finds himself so much better than they are.
So he is still, or more so, an egotistical ass and I doubt I will ever change my opinion of him in this regard. And the voters will have a chance to make a change in 2020 if they so choose. Until then, individuals like Jay will have to stay on their meds to get through the next 3 1/2 years.
Exactly, Ron. The way we ~ and by “we,” I mean Americans ~ express our strong disapproval of a president’s performance is at the ballot box.
I was extremely dismayed when Obama won election in 2008, and even more concerned when he was re-elected. I thought he was incompetent and narcissistic. His domestic policies have left us with a stagnant economy, largely masked by the dangerous monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. Under his administration, federal bureaucracies and intelligence agencies were weaponized against his political enemies. His healthcare plan continues to wreak havoc, assisted by weak and dishonest Republicans. Obama never strongly denounced violence by Occupy Wall St or Black Lives Matter. He refused to claim that Islamic terrorism was ideological, and often claimed that we “didn’t know” what motivated these people.
During Obama’a administration, although the media treated him like a king, even a god, sometimes, the Democratic Party lost elections over and over again. The House, the Senate, state gubernatorial and legislative elections, and, finally, the Presidency. Hillary was seen, rightly, as the heir to Obama, but she lacked his political skill, and the media could prop her up quite enough. And Donald Trump. a loud, often offensive and buffoonish, candidate, beat her, fair and square. The Russians didn’t do it, and the 1,000 Klansmen and even fewer Nazis in the US didn’t either. The voters rejected Hillary.
But, unlike the many people who suffered and disapproved of Obama, those who expected Hillary to win cannot accept Trump’s victory, and are having a collective meltdown. And they are apparently afraid that they still cannot win elections, so they are trying other, more dangerous, methods. Things that have not helped them in the past, and are not likely to help them now.
I would love to see the Democratic Party of old….there were more than a few moderates and even some fiscally responsible types. And Republicans have certainly not distinguished themselves as leaders. 7 years of “repeal and replace!!” and it was all hot air.
I may not like Donald Trump’s style, but he is trying to get things done. 3 1/2 years from now, we can decide if he deserves to stay in the White House.
Priscilla, one of the things I find so interesting is the fact that many naturalized citizens have a much better understanding than one with birthright citizenship of our government makeup and responsibilities.
Our constitution today, after 240+ years still grants limited powers to the president. Everyone thinks the president of the United States is all powerful. They are not. They can not spend money. Only the House can originate spending. The president can not enter into treaties alone. Congress has to ratify treaties. They can not put laws into effect without those coming from congress. And congress has to approve of appointments that the president may make to the judiciary and administrative posts. The presidents powers are basically limited to foreign affairs as long as it does not involve “war” or treaties.
Naturalized citizens know this much better than birthright citizens. Our schools do a terrible job of teaching this in school. This should be a required subject in the senior year of high school so the students are old enough to remember most of it. Teaching this is elementary school and middle school and even the first couple years of high school has the information going in one ear and out the other.
I would like to see high school students be required to pass the citizenship test to graduate that naturalized citizens were required to pass and then maybe people would begin to understand the president is impotent in legislative and spending issues if congress does not act. They can run around the country making speeches and calling out congress for doing nothing, but that is about the limit of their powers.
Oh yeah, they also have limited powers of executive orders in interpreting existing laws and implementing enforcement of those laws. But that ends when their administration ends if the next president sees fit in reversing those orders. And the courts can put controls on those orders to keep them from expanding controls beyond the intent of the law.
Naturalized citizens often understand something better than birth right ones.
It is also true that immigrant minorties frequently do much better in the US than natives of the same race.
The actual constitutional powers of the president are limited.
However we have spent 200+ years shifting power from the legislature to the executive.
Constitutionally the executive has ZERO regulatory powers.
All regulation is a delegation of the legislative power of congress to the executive.
Personally I think executive regulation is unconstitutional – but the courts have not agreed.
I do not think that any branch of government can delegate its powers constitutionally.
Dave, they have not delegated responsibility (power), they have delegated authority. They write broadly worded legislation because they are not smart enough to write legislation that pin points control or they do not want to vote for something that the opposing party can hang on them the next election. Broadly worded legislation gives them the ability to aviod being accused of voting for specific actions. The specific actions are then delegated to the president to “interpret” what congress meant and then issue E.O.’s to regulate whatever the legislation was directed towards.
Just like the ACA, broad powers were given to the secretary of health in instituting that program.
Authority: Power assigned to another,
Sorry Ron distinction without a difference.
If congress does not have sufficient knowledge, it can acquire it.
It controls the purse. Rather than create executive departments it can create its own bureacracies that can research gather data, construct rules,
that ultimately are passed by congress.
The delegation of legislative power to the executive is unconstitutional.
Whether the courts were smart enough to grasp that or not.
Executive orders are directions from the president to the rest of the executive regarding the administration of the law and the operation of government.
And executive order can not create law. It is not supposed to be able to directly impact a citizen – otherwise congress would have to act.
Atleast that is supposed to be how things are.
The constitutionality of Trumps immigration EO rested on its impacts on US Persons (Citizens or people legally residing in the US) because foreign persons have no rights.
Any impact of an EO on US Persons much conform to existing laws.
I never said an E.O. created law. I said ” they (presidents) also have limited powers of executive orders in interpreting existing laws and implementing enforcement of those laws”
Again, broadly worded legislation allows for broad interpretations and regulations in regard to said legislation.
The courts do not – or should not “put controls on”.
The courts are first bound by the constitution.
Is a law or action constitutionally permitted.
It not it dies – it is the constitution that is the control, not the court.
They are second bound by the law.
Is a govenrment action permitted by law.
If not it dies. The law is the control not the court.
There are some complexities that arrise when laws are in conflict.
Regardless, courts have no power beyond imposing the constraints of the constitution and law as they are written.
Dave, i am confused. I just read the comment you linked your comment to about courts putting on controls. I did not say anything about courts. i was addressing the presidential powers.
?????????????????
You wanted controls,. They must come from somewhere.
I have tried to get a handle on monetary policy and the more I know the less I think anyone knows.
I am virtually certain the Fed was the primary cause of the housing bubble and hence the great recession. They are also credited by real economists as the primary cause of the great depression – not whatever nonsense you have been told in school.
It is probably impossible to have a recession – atleast a serious one without a monetary bubble.
We also know that monetary policy is the cause of all inflation.
There are lots of other stupid things we beleive about money.
Since the great recession we have fixated on bank reserves – both left and right.
This is absolute nonsense. Bank finances are difficult to get a handle on because in many ways they work the opposite of ordinary finances.
Regardless Bank reserves are a LIABILITY – i.e. they are something that we wants banks to minimise. They serve only two purposes – to smooth over day to day variations in cashflow, and to protect against bank runs. That is it. They have nothing to do with the actual solvency of the bank. High reserves do NOT make a bank healthy, low ones do not make a bank weak.
Nearly a century ago we created the FDIC to insure bank deposits.
There was a far simpler means of addressing bank runs – simply have the Fed loan banks cash when they need it. There is no need for a bank to maintain reserves. Reserves are dead money. We want banks loaning money – not stuffing it in mattresses.
If a bank is actually insolvent – i.e. it has real liabilities greater than its assets – it should and will fail, and the Fed should not be loaning it cash – nor should anyone else.
If a bank is not insolvent then providing cash to mitigate cashflow problems should be the legitimate role of the Fed – presuming that we are going to have government issue money.
Bank runs are meaningless if a bank is solvent, and the bank should fail if it is not.
I have been dubious about the Fed expansionary policy.
I do not beleive the Fed can actually stimulate the economy.
Monetary stimulus is like fiscal stimulus demand side stimulus and it will create inflation not growth.
But we have not had consequential inflation since 2008, and we appear to be teetering on the edge of mild deflation.
That inherently means that whatever I may beleive about the Feds expansions, the absence of inflation strongly if not absolutely suggests they were not wrong.
Central banks target low but real inflation – because we do not know how to conduct monetary policy during deflation.
We paint deflation as bad – and high deflation, like high inflation is bad.
But mild deflation has been the norm during the strongest economic periods in our history.
Regardless, if any inflation is acceptable – low inflation should be the target.
As we have had low or no inflation – that is prima facia proof that regardless of why the current fed policy has been close to correct.
Further there is another growing monetary factor.
That is what constitutes money.
Money is magic tokens that we beleive have value that we are willing to bidirectionally exchange for labor, goods, and services.
Anything that meets that criteria is money,. Drug dealers have been known to use laundry detergent.
For most of us money is coins and bills, or electronic bits moving back and forth in our bank accounts.
But for much of the economy beyond ordinary people, stocks, bonds, and an assortment of “securities” function as money. These are part of the so called shadow banking system.
Today non-government money – and I do not mean bitcoin, dwarfs government money by orders of magnitude.
That means that central banks are increasingly only able to manage that part of the economy that is using government money.
I am therefore not sure whether the fed policies are right or wrong, because central banks appear to be becoming increasingly impotent with respect to the economy.
Some last remarks. Money is useful – but it is just another market good. It is not “special” it is not magical. Its value is solely that it is useful.
Some things that are used as money – gold, silver, sometimes bottled os laundry detergent, stocks, bonds, have intrinsic value. Some such as most government money have value rooted in the beleif that government will use force to confiscate assets from citizens to redeem the “value” of that money – that is what the “full faith and credit of the US government ultimately means”
Regardless, money is not wealth – it is a proxy for wealth. Wealth is what we need and want, what we produce and consume. More or less money MIGHT alter how well the economy works. More money does not make us wealthier.
This is a simple but fundimental peice of economic knowledge.
We can not create wealthier society without producing more wealth.
Whether it is minimum wages of taxes or inflation or …. all monetary and government fiscal issues are about the distribution of wealth not its creation.
We can debate the distribution of wealth. But we must never lose sight of the fact that changing the distribution of wealth does not create any wealth, and probably destroys some.
Ron and Jay are constantly talking about regulation.
Generally speaking the purpose of regulations is to “create wealth”.
Wealth is anything that we want or need.
A cleaner environment is a value – acheiving it creates wealth.
At the same time cleaning the environment comes at a cost – other wealth is consumed to clean the environment.
and this is why government regulation always fails. because if we wanted the wealth that regulation creates – such as a cleaner environment, more than what we gave up to have it, we would not need government or regulation.
Government action is always less efficient than private action – because government action requires force – it is always getting us to do what we did not choose to do.
It is always forcing us to value something more highly than we actually do.
Dave “Ron and Jay are constantly talking about regulation.
Generally speaking the purpose of regulations is to “create wealth”.
Wealth is anything that we want or need.
A cleaner environment is a value – acheiving it creates wealth.
At the same time cleaning the environment comes at a cost – other wealth is consumed to clean the environment. And this is why government regulation always fails. because if we wanted the wealth that regulation creates – such as a cleaner environment, more than what we gave up to have it, we would not need government or regulation.Government action is always less efficient than private action – because government action requires force – it is always getting us to do what we did not choose to do.”
Sometimes I think you are well informed and other times I think you are living in another universe than the one I live in. I am one that favors minimal government interference, but I also know that once people reach a certain economic status, many of them will screw over people to continue to increase that economic status. How many people have to die in plane crashes before you would say government regulation of the airline business is good? How many people have to die from tainted drugs before government regulation of the drug industry is good (And I don’t mean patents to drive up the cost of drugs), How many people have to die from tainted meat because of incorrect meat processing? How many people have to die from unsanitary food handling in restaurants before sanitation standards are a good thing?
I don’t care that these companies might go out of business after a few hundred people die because “government regulation always fails.” It does not always fail. There are government regulations that are in place to protect you and I and there are many of them that work. I can not imagine the cost cutting measures that airlines, restaurants, drug companies and other industries would put into place that would lead to hundreds of deaths because the dollar is more important than a life to many who run these businesses. Eventually they would go out of business like you say they would just like they do in countries where there is little regulation. But how often do we say “how can that happen?” when we hear of things in foreign countries because they do not have the regulations we have.
Now on the other hand, there are thousands of regulations that we need to get rid of that do nothing to protect us. The EPA and their wetland regulations is a good example of over reach. Farmers not able to plow parts of their land and plant it because when a rain comes every 5-10 years that drops more than average and causes a puddle in the middle of their field, the EPA considers this wetland and it can not be disturbed.
I am libertarian in thinking, but also a realist that knows we have people that only think of the dollar and nothing else. Unlike you, I am unwilling to eliminate government regulations just to say we have complete freedom to do whatever our hearts desire and if we kill someone exercising that freedom, the courts will take care of it. What I want will never happen. What you want will never happen. you want all regulations removed. I want a complete review of all regulations and if that regulation does not protect lives or property, I want it removed.
“but I also know that once people reach a certain economic status, many of them will screw over people to continue to increase that economic status.”
Quite commonly beleived, and absolutely false.
First – we are all equally barred from using actual force. Are you saying that at some as ones wealth rises the prohibition against the use of force goes away ?
Or are you saying that if you are rich enough government Ceases to enforce prohibitions ?
If so why are you blaming the market for a GOVERNMENT failure ?
Regardless, the actual evidence is that the wealthier one becomes the less likely one is to use force.
Sure some rich people do, but it is rare.
I do not think that is what you are saying.
My guess is you are saying something else.
My guess is that you are saying that it is OK for some small business man with 3 employees to fire somebody but that the bigger your business is the more obligated you are to treat it as a charity not a business.
That somehow big business owes employees etc. more than smaller ones.
No one, not your neighbor, not a small employer, not a big one, owes you a living.
You are responsible for yourself.
Your employer – large or small is obligated to honor whatever agreement they might have with you – no more no less.
I am not a big proponent of big business. I have serious problems with big business – but all those problems are really with the special treatment that govenrment gives to big business that government never should have had the power to give.
I have been in small to medium businesses almost all my life.
I aspire to become bigger. I beleive I can do better. But I do not envy those who are bigger, nor do I presume that they got their by “cheating”.
Nor do I worry alot about big business. Staying in the top – in a real free market is hard.
I respect those who can do it. And take secret pleasure in those who can not – because that creates opportunities for me.
Regardless, your commonly beleived assertion is a myth.
Dave, either you are oblivious to the news around you or you will say black is white just to get into a debate about color.
The small businessman is not big enough to screw anyone other than a few customers and once the news gets around, he won’t be in business. But his business usually is not big enough to cause someones death.
So without government regulations, how long would it have taken for asbestos to be removed from building supplies? How long would it have taken for DDT to be removed from insecticides?
Or are you naive enough to think these products would have magically disappeared from the shelves when they did out of the goodness of the CEO’s hearts running the companies that manufactured these profitable products?
How long would it have taken to remove DDT ?
Probably forever, millions of people would be alive who are now dead and malaria and several other mosquito or fly born diseses would have been eradicated.
We banned DDT I would say based on bad science – but actually non-science.
The US ban occured AFTER studies stating DDT was not a problem were released.
DDT was a victim of Bad press – Rachel Carlson’s silent spring never came – and never would have.
There are three fundimental issues with DDT – it is environmentally perisitant – therefore if it is harmful it will take a good deal of time to work out of the environment.
It concentrates as it climbs the food chain.
Finally it MIGHT cause the eggshells of raptors to thin.
Of these: – Humans can eat DDT without harm, There is no evidence beyond raptors of actual harm, and the raptor claim is dubious – eggshells started thinning before DDT was introduced, and the correlation between thin eggshells and raptor decline is dubious.
It appears that broken shells are about as common with thin as thick shells.
The hazards of asbestos were known long before regulation.
Asbestos is still used in many products.
We have probably harmed more people by removing asbestos than retaining it.
Asbestos is not the only dangerous mineral fiber – BTW Asbestos is a naturally occuring material.
At one point in my life I was a certified asbostos managment planner, designer and inspector. Designer means I was certifed to design asbestos management projects,
Asbestos is far less dangerous than it is typically credited.
There are two fundimental forms – long strand and short.
The long strand form is pretty much harmless. Probably less dangerous than fiberglass insulation. Only the short form it dangerous.
The danger is that you can breath it in. The fibers are nearly the same size as you aveoli, and once you inhale a fiber into an aveoli it will be trapped there forever. Asbestos will not degrade in the human body and a portion of it will become permanently trapped in your lungs.
It typically takes decades from exposure to symptoms, and it typically takes long exposure for serious symptoms.
We particularly worry about exposing kids – because a decade after age 9 is age 19.
And the effects once they are present are for the rest of your life.
But unless you put a kid into a school where asbestos was being removed badly, so that it was released into the air in significant quantity, the kid is just not going to get the exposure to create a lifetime problem.
People with the greatest risk have worked with asbestos for decades.
But even those – the risk is actually mostly low.
There is one other major factor int he development of asbestos related health issues – smoking. If you work with asbestos long term and smoke your risk goes up by an order of magnitude. Basically it is a death sentence.
Smoking shuts down the lungs system for removing debris – including asbestos fibers.
Anyway asbestos is little different from black lung, brown lung and a wide variety of inhalation disorders.
Further, your likelyhood of developing pulmonary problems if you worked in a coal mine, asbestos work, or some other industrial era enterprise with lots of particulates in the air, is LESS that in 16th century (pre industrial) london, or as a cave man.
Air quality has been a major problem for humans since the first fire in a cave.
It remains a problem in undeveloped countries.
One of the most positive things you can do for life expectance is vent the homes of people who still burn things for heat and cooking properly.
Once again – you really do not understand.
Improved air quality and the reduction of pulmonary disorders is not the result of regulation, but the result of improved standard of living,.
Even discovering the effects of particulates in the workplace required our standard of living to rise enough that we could eliminate them from our homes.
This BTW is true of myriads of problems, Cancer and heart disease have been arround forever. But they were rare in the past – because few people lived long enough to develop them.
This issue is bidirectional. As standard of living rises, the skill level of workers rise, and the extent to which they are valued by themselves, owners, and coworkers.
Often brutal conditions of 400 years ago, were broadly toloerated – not because employers were cruel. But because life overall was harsh. People died, alot, often young. If you lived to an old age you had watched most everyone you know die before you of illness, accident, or whatever.
No employer is going to place a high value on the life of a worker – when their own lives were brutish by todays standards.
Government has little if anything to do with improving condictions – our improving standard of living drives everything.
People who can not afford food do not pay for masks or health insurance.
Horses have virtually disappeared from cities – not because of regulations – but because cars – which are cleaner and safer replaced them.
We have transitioned from wood, and peat and dung for heat to coal, and then oil, and then gas and electric – not because of regulation, and not because of cost, but because we have become more affluent and we can afford cleaner enegry.
Absent government regulation (or even with it) we will transform our lives to make them ever cleaner and safer – because we value that, so long as our standard of living rises so that we can afford to do so.
You can make whatever regulations you want.
They will be ignored if standard of living is not high enough,
and the outcome desire will be acheived – regulation or no – if standard of living is high enough.
More simply – no improvement will occur until we can afford it to occur, and once we can afford it, it will happen regardless of regulation – because we want it.
We can eliminate all transportation related deaths.
Bar train and air travel and set the speed limit to 5mph.
Of course the net effect will be we will WASTE far more lives, destroy our standard of living and deaths from non transportation related causes will increase.
Air travel deaths in the US are 1/20th that of auto deaths per passenger mile.
But the same relationship holds throughout the world – even countries with no airline regulation.
As a rule of thumb – when death and injury rates go up – people choose differently.
That is true of planes and cars. It is also true of jobs.
Regardless, Why does government get to decide this for you ?
As an example, why don’t we eliminate the TSA.
Let airlines handle security as they wish.
Airline A – security air can promise to analy probe you, require 2 hours to get through bagage searches and tout whatever amazing record it can build,
Airline B – liberty air can promise no security checks, get you through the airport and to your destination without delay.
And you can pick ?
You say people will die is some critical argument for regulation.
That is BUNK. We make risk choices in our own lives every single day.
Ordinary people are perfectly capable of deciding how safe they are prepared to be.
Because safety is a value – just like every other value. It does not have some magical properties.
Government should not be making choices about our values.
It should not be deciding whether I can smoke weed, shoot heroin, or fly a less safe airline.
Freedom means getting to make your own choices.
You are not free unless you are able to make choices others think are bad.
Should we get rid of 64oz or 32 oz drinks in movie theaters ? Because someone might die ?
I can immagine the measure that businesses would put into place.
Because I have been their in the real world.
After the tylenol poisonings a couple of decades ago J&J completely on their own spent a fortune making tylenol as tamperproof as possible.
Note that J&J did not produce a harmful product, and in the end this turned out to be a deliberate murder and the tampered containers were just to throw people off the track.
Regardless J&J did this on its own – without regulation.
It did it to save an important and valueable product.
And the rest of the industry followed – without regulation.
I have had to deal with workplace safety issues in manufacturing and construction industries.
By far the largest cause of workplace death or injury is employee’s not following the rules. Rarely not following government rules – but mostly not following their employers rules.
The vast majority of the time a big business gets sued or fined – it is because of misconduct on the part of lower tier people that violates the companies polices.
Wells Fargo has gotten nailed on that twice.
If an airline is unsafe – are you going to fly it ?
If a car is unsafe – are you going to buy it ?
The Corvair actually had a safety record as good as comparable cars in its class.
Nader’s book “unsafe at any speed” killed the car – no one would buy it.
The pinto which was otherwise an excellent car, died as a result of tanking sales, from the law suits and a small manufacturing defect that was corrected.
Of course the Mustang II was the same basic design with the defect fixed and sold incredibly well.
Dead people do not provide repeat business.
Killing customers tends to drive live customers away.
We here all the stories from China – which purportedly has this horrible record and pretty much no safety regulation.
Yet, regardless of the aberational rare stories – the fact is china’s life expectance adjusted for standard of living is higher than that of the US.
There is no major problem with businesses killing their customers.
This is why we have statistics and why anecdotes are reasons to look into things, not reasons to make decisions and write laws.
Things get reported on the news because they are highly unusual – not because they are the norm.
The FDA is demonstrably responsible for far more deaths than an unregulated drug market.
It costs $1B to get a drug onto the market today. That means that everyone that has a problem that could be aleviated by a drug that can not make $1B in profits will not see that drug – even if we know how to make it. Worse still – we will not try to find a drug for a problem that can not produce a $1B profit.
You can not see those deaths – no bureaucrat can be found to blame. But they are very real.
Dave “If an airline is unsafe – are you going to fly it ?”
You don’t know they are unsafe until they crash. I’ll let you be the one on that plane not knowing it is unsafe.
“You don’t know they are unsafe until they crash.”
Not true and not relevant.
When you buy an electrical cord how do you know if it is safe ?
Most of us know that UL sealed electrical products are safe.
UL is private – they are like good housekeeping – or angies list or myriads of other reputation based systems.
Regardless, as noted – the corvair and pinto had a reputation for being unsafe – and as products they died.
There is no such thing as absolute safety.
Saefty is relative – relative to the portion of our standard of living we are willing to pay for it.
Absent regulations it will take very little for consumers to decide how safe each airline is
and ticket prices will reflect that safety – as well as many other factors.
Safety is a commodity just like everything else.
We buy it. We buy as much or little as we want/can afford.
A higher standard of living makes us more able to afford it AND drives the cost of safety down.
China’s life expectance is about 3 years less than ours.
It is higher than ours was two decades ago.
It should be self evident that whatever the problems of lack of regulation in china – they are not producing massive numbers of deaths.
Regardless, you are making exactly the mistake I warned you about.
You have decided that either your judgement – or your judgement imposed by government should apply to everyone.
You and I likely value drug safety. But I doubt we value it equally.
Would you trade 1000 additional deaths from drug problems that the FDA prevents each year, for 10,000 people who do not die from problems that we would be able to fix if drug development cost less ?
Would you trade 1000 additional drug related deaths for drugs costing half their current prices ? That alone could save myriads of people who could then afford treatment they can not now ?
Today with have brand name drugs and generics.
We know the brand names have less side effects.
If safety is our goal – why not ban generics ?
A recent economic paper I read conservatively estimated that if no new regulations had been passed since Reagan left office that Standard of living would be DOUBLE what it is today.
Other common estimates are the one year cost of federal regulation in the US is about 1.6T.
Just to be clear – that is not JUST 1.6T/year we lose to regulation – but 1.6T PLUS the growth we would get if the economy was 1.6T larger.
That means the actual cost of regulation compounds every single year.
Sorry Ron – it is not just some regulation it is all regulation that is harmfull.
Getting rid of every single government regulation, would not mean that people would decide to buy from producers with poor safety records,
It would not mean that consumers would not boycott products with bad records.
It would not mean that people harmed from defective products would be unable to sue.
government regulation is not the only means by which free markets are compelled to provide for consumers what they want.
They are just the most expensive and least efficient means.
I beleive it is HHS that currently uses a value of $225K for a human life.
That means a 1.6T decline in GDP is the equivalent of a loss of 1M lives.
There is not a single regulation that would ever survive a properly done cost benefit analysis that actually factored in ALL costs.
The left fawns over europe – particularly the nordic countries.
Yet for the most part they have lighter regulatory burdens than the US.
They have high taxes, and deep and wide social safety nets, but they do not have the breadth or depth of regulation that we do.
Because they are smart enough to grasp who stupid that is.
I want people to think of the dollar and nothing else.
Unless you are government – or you can leverage government or you are a bank robber, other criminal, you can not make dollars unless you can persuade people to voluntarily give them to you for something they value more than their dollars.
If you actually use force – then government may punish you.
If you commit fraud or you fail to keep and agreement – then govenrment may punish you.
If you cause actual harm – people can demand to be made whole and govenrment can force you to do so.
Additionally if you just fail to continue to make your customers happy – to deliver to them something they value MORE than the dollars you get, they will stop giving you their dollars.
Every single free market transaction REQUIRES the buyer and the seller to each beleive the will be better off AFTER the exchange than before. If that is not the case – the transaction does not occur.
And people are not stupid. If they are not actually better off, they will not exchange again.
The requirements for free trade to occur at all, require that the very problems you fear MUST be extremely rare. If they were not the market would cease.
I am sure there are a few regulations that do not protect lives or property.
But that is not the fundimental problem.
The problem is two fold:
We are individuals – we do not value any form of protection equally.
Protection is a value – it is not a principle, it is not binary. There is no safe/not safe.
There is only more and less safe. That means there is no possibility that any law that “protects” accurately reflects the degree of protection that each person wants.
That is something we must decide for ourselves.
If we can not, then we are in atleast a small way a slave.
All protection has a cost, and all costs do harm.
I told you I am reading Radley Balko’s rise of the warrior cop.
One of the interesting things is some of the government statistics he cites.
In the 70’s Nixon’s drug task force estimated the number of burglaries that occured in the US as a result of drug abuse. Their first estimate was about 10 times the number of reported burglaries in the US, their final estimate was 100 times their first estimate.
This number has been reported by the govenrment each year – and it has been increased each year it is reported, it is part of nearly every annual report on drug law enforcement.
And it is 1000 times the actual burglaries in the US.
The faith people have in government is beyond beleif.
Has the cost estimate for ANY government program EVER been correct ?
FDR said Social Security taxes would NEVER have to go about 2.2%.
They are near 14% now.
What Aircraft has cost what it was budgeted at ? What warship ?
Government never ever gets the projected cost of anything right.
They do not even get it close.
When the GOP first attempted to repeal PPACA – the cost estimate for doing so was that it would COST the government 1.6T/decade. Now the same people are estimating it will save the govenrment about 1.3T/decade.
Government is absolutely clueless about future projections.
I only want to emphasize that a little – projections are HARD.
That is why lots of businesses go bankrupt.
But government does nto have even the market discipline necescary to get them right.
What I do not understand is that government gets so much wrong so much of the time, why do we still beelive it ?
As I noted before – we are spending something like 2B/year on federal subsidies for community policing – which actually works. Except that the money is being doled out based on drug arrests and being used to fund SWAT teams – all of which demonstrably INCREASE crime. So each year we spend $2B purportedly doing something that works, but actually doing something that does not.
These things are not the exception. They are the norm.
Sorry jay, get a sense of humor.
The Trump eclipsing obama image is funny.
I saw it long before Trump tweeted it.
It did nto come from trump.
BTW Narcisisctic personality disorder is:
Another cluster B disorder – like sociopathy.
You can have one or the other but not both.
Sociopathy is often expressed as malignant narcisictic personality disorder.
And again it is a personaility disorder.
You contradicted yourself.
Reread what you said: it can’t be: but it is.
Get It?
Jay,
I am practically quoting from the DSM.
If you think there is an issue – take it up with them.
NPD – Narcissistic Personality disorder
MNPD – Malignant Narcissistic Personality disorder
are diagnotically distinct – if malignance is present – you are not a narcisist you are a sociopath.
There are other Cluster B disorders. You can only have one Cluster B disorder.
Regardless, read the DSM, do not fight about it with me.
I am not the one playing amateur shrink and trying to diagnose people over the internet via double and tripple hearsay.
The emotionally twisted insecure lump of crap tRump can’t stop knocking his predecessor.
That is UNAMERICAN.
This kind of obnoxious behavior DEMEANS the nation.
Why am I the only one here speaking out against this kind of behavior!
Oh, right – none of you represents main stream America:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/24/trump-approval-rating-division-poll?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Obama was a failed president – much like Bush.
Further unlike every prior american president – including Bush he has violated the don not criticize your successor – even privately rule.
Further Obama did criticise his predecessor,
I do not see anything the slightest “unamerican” in it.
Is LBJ a saint ? Nixon ?
It is quite american to criticise our former leaders.
No it does not demain the nation.
One of the things that sets Trump and Obama appart is exactly that.
Obama litterally demeaned the nation as president,
He had no clue why this nation is great.
Trump understands that in a way that Obama never did.
i do not doubt that Obama was born here. But he never really understood the american character. Trump does.
Why are you the only one ?
Because you are clueless.
Because you are speaking out against the wrong things.
Because no one actually beleives that you care about the nation or the dignity of the president. Because what we beleive is that you are angry that Trump defeated Clinton and your dream of a continued slow drift into socialism has died, and you will do anything to prevent that.
I suspect that Trump angers you more than say if Cruz had won – because the plausibility of Trump beating clinton is lower.
But there is not a republican who could have won that you would not be railing about – just as you are Trump.
The grenades you are lobbing are different, that is all.
BTW I do not think Trump ran promising to untie the nation – though Obama did and failed.
Trump ran promising to fix specific problems.
Even his innaguration speach promised changes for washington that washington would not like.
Trump is a divisive president.
We have a choice between all getting alone as we drift further into failure,
or some of us working to fix things – even if others are fighting that, with some hope we will not capsize.
I do nto think Trump ran to be president congeniality.
Reading your opinions in this comment of yours made me think of this guy:
(Think of it as ad hominem humor )
We elected someone famous for “your fired!”.
I do not think we have heard that enough.
Did he spell it like that too?
And you do know (or do you remain uninformed as usual) that Trump didn’t make the ‘firing’ decisions – for the large majority of contestants, the show producers decided who was going or staying depending on viewer surveys of who they wanted to remain on the show.
Kinda the way tRump operated his campaign- find out what voters wanted to hear and tell them that.
And your response if meaningful in what way ?
I have had to fire people. Sometimes I decided, Sometimes I was told to do it.
I have also been fired.
Have you ever fired anyone ?
I do not have much respect for the opinions of people who have never managed a lemonade stand as to how to manage a business – or anything else.
Regardless, Trump needs to fire more people.
As to the campaign. He ran a campaign that cost 1/2 of Clinton’s – and less than the latest powerball winner. He won. He still has the support of most of his voters, He still wins head to head contests against Clinton.
NBER weighs in on the minimum wage.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23667
Put enough wolves in a theater and someone will yell fire!
Spend enough time at your owned golf courses, and you will flush taxpayer money down toilets… And help raise the Natl Debt… And raise your profits…
http://nypost.com/2017/08/25/broke-secret-service-spending-big-on-portable-toilets-golf-carts/
If you are unhappy with the cost to provide security for the president – change the law.
Trump does not get to decide how the Secret Service does their job.
“punching Nazi’s is not a crime” as a defence to assault charges in berkeley.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yvette-felarca-neo-nazi-fascism_us_59949dece4b0d0d2cc83d266?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
https://www.booking.com/hotel/pt/paodeacucarhotelporto.en-gb.html?aid=304142;label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggJCAlhYSDNiBW5vcmVmcgV1c19ueYgBAZgBMcIBCndpbmRvd3MgMTDIAQ_YAQHoAQH4AQKSAgF5qAID;sid=b047b2e69991098d1e8c8b614cc2ddbc#tab-reviews
Sorry, this is the correct one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeUobYnIHdY
Your youtube clip is wrong on the constitution and wrong on madison.
The right to free speach is near absolute and only binds the government.
You have no right to free speach in someone else’s home as an example.
Government may impose content neutral restrictions on speach that are necescary or reasonable.
As an example it can say that you can not hold a rally in the park at 3am.
It can say you can not speak at 130db.
With respect to content, it can criminalize speach that constitutes an immediate call to violence. It can criminalize speach that constitutes a specific credible threat of violence.
The shouting fire in a crowded theater constriant is derived from an oliver wendell holmes case that is generally not good law any more.
In this case the court upheld law barring the distribution of flyers opposing the draft.
Civily individuals have the right to damages from speach that is false and causes harm.
The standard is even higher when the target is a public figure – where it must also be malicious.
In broad terms that is the state of the first amendment.
With respect to the 2nd. There are two independent clauses. The 2nd does not rely on the first.
The meaning is no different from “The orderly progression of the sun across the sky
being necessary for human life, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The first clause is a rationale, it need not even be true. The 2nd clause is independent.
The recent court decisions affirming a constitutional right rest on 3 “changes” that have occured more recently.
Until the 20th century constitutional and statutory interpretation were not formalized.
Concepts such as the living constitution or original intent were not part of conscious constitutional interpretation in the past.
As a result inquiry into that actual intentions of authors of law is more common today than in the past.
As a result of such inquiry we have learned that the original meaning of the constitution was ambiguous with respect to the 2nd amendment.
Northern states in particular recognized a clear individual right, and it was intended to apply specifically to military weapons. The so called “kentucky rifle” was the “assault weapon” of its day.
In the south there was significant fear of slaves getting firearms, and a long tradition of community militia with communal arms. Still the right to arms with intended to be vested in the community and not the government.
But the big factor affecting the “2nd amendment” understanding was the 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause.
The history of the 14th amendment makes it crystal clear that its authors intended that privildges of citizenship included the right to arms. Even more importantly the 14th amendment extended those 2nd amendment rights against the states.
Prior to the 14th amendment our constitutional rights bound only the federal govenrment.
More clearly Post civil war reconstructionist deliberately intended that blacks in the south have the right to arms to be able to defend themselves against their former masters.
So there are two issues:
Your cartoon Madison is wrong – he is not accurately representing the views of our founders.
And he is doubly wrong, because the basis of an individual right to arms protected from ALL government not just the federal govenrment comes from the 14th amendment not the 2nd and comes after madison’s death.
Dave is right about the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, which is usually incorrectly quoted anyway. The case from which Holmes wrote the “falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater” line, was overturned decades ago.
The standard now is that speech cannot incite or produce imminent violence or illegal action. You can advocate violence, as long as you are not inciting imminent violence.
Think about it…. the Washington Post (or the NYT, can’t remember which) advocated violence against white supremacists last week. And BLM advocates violence against cops all the time (“What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!!”) If you used the “fire in the theater” standard, they would all be in violation of the First Amendment. But the legal standard is that the words have to produce imminent violence.
Many people think that the “Dead Cops” and the “Fry ’em like bacon” chants of BLM meet that standard. But, to my knowledge, no one has murdered a cop directly upon hearing those chance.
**chants
And Jay, you can advocate punching neo Nazis, but if you actually punch one, assuming that he hasn’t hit you first or otherwise provoked you to defend yourself, you could be charged with assault and battery, no matter how patriotic you thought you were being.
The link froze my screen, had to close to restore.
Just for perspective: today a long time Conservative on Twitter remarked that a year or two ago he was sure both liberals&conservatives would have agreed it was patriotic to slug Neo-Nazis
I have no idea who your unidentified purported conservative is.
Nor do I care.
The bar against the initiation of violence is the most fundimental premise of the social contract and government.
Individuals may not initiate violence so long as legitimate government exists.
There is no exception. Not for Nazi’s, not for anyone.
There are even serious restrictions on our right to respond to violence with violence.
Further the left asserts far more rigorous limits to even self defense than the right does.
There is not an exception for tiny ineffectual asian women.
This also points out a fundimental misunderstanding of govenrment and law that you have.
Government is limited to those functions that require the use of force.
Government may only act as narrowly defined by law.
Law must be clear.
This is what the rule of law means. Lack of clarity or broad law is the rule of man not law.
To the greatest extent possible the boundaries of govenrment must be bright lines.
what exceptions exist should be rare and clear.
To the greatest extent possible the law should correspond to what nearly all people would intuitively understand as correct.
We do not walk arround with a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations in our pocket, nor our local criminal code. We must be able to go about our daily lives without fear that we have run afoul of the law so long as we are guided by our internal understanding of right and wrong.
If you understand and agree with that then you have already ceded that government must be limited.
If you do not – you need to explain how you are going to make a society work when people do not intuitively know the rules.
“Individuals may not initiate violence so long as legitimate government exists.”
You really are a doctrinaire Dufus.
I didn’t suggest it was LEGAL to punch a Nazi; Only that MOST Americans would have thought it socially justified and patriotic to do it. It was ILLEGAL to buy, sell, drink whisky during Prohibition; most Americans applauded those who did. It was illegal to open stores on Sunday in many areas of The US not that long ago; but majorities of Americans sneered at those legal restrictions.
Spitting on another person is considered physical assault.
If the American consensus becomes that spouting Neo-Nazi rhetoric to others who are directly offended by it is a form of mental assault, then it will become legal to defend with a punch in the face. Juries will decide.
The only things that are “socially justified” are also legal.
The actions of individuals – legal or otherwise are individually justified.
We do not (most of us) jump off bridges because others tell us so.
When the discussion is about the use of force – aka government, or course I am doctrinaire and litteral. Humor, discretion, emotions, are all for our lives outside of government.
We do not use force “figuratively”.
We do not make societal decisions founded on emotions.
The rule of law means govenrment can not act with discretion,
that is a violation of the rule of law and of equal protection.
This school teacher is charged with assault.
We do not make exceptions to the law, for weak people or asians, or because a crime was committed badly or ineffectually.
We do not make exceptions because it was committed humerously.
We do not make everything in creation into a crime, because what we do make crimes we are supposed to enforce blindly.
The only use of “social” that does not mean government would be as part of some voluntary group.
So would that mean your church thinks it is justified ?
Or would that be your union ?
Justice is individual.
You keep thinking that putting an adjective in front of something expands it.
It does not, it narrows it.
There is no such think as “mental assault”
Assault is a physical act.
This is important because government judges our ACTS, Not our thoughts, not our words.
Mental assault would be a baseball bat to the cranium,
Misusing words distorts communications and thought.
The only thing necessary to make everyone here into a libertarian would be to get you to use words literally – as they mean.
We save the abstract and figurative for our lives outside of government.
We do not decide laws by concensus.
Another of those idiocies of the left.
Though the left has severely weakened it the law making process is super majoritarian
That is deliberate – even a small portion of people routinely disobeying a law makes the law unsustainable.
We also do not create magical exceptions to laws.
There is not as an example an “I am a good person” exception to any law.
I have no problem with jury nullification.
But try arguing for it in a court room and you will be found in contempt, and lobby for it outside and you will be jailed for jury tampering.
Andrew Hamilton famously got Zenger aquitted in 1735 in new york before a British court by arguing for jury nullification, but you can not argue for it in a US court today.
“If the American consensus becomes that spouting Neo-Nazi rhetoric to others who are directly offended by it is a form of mental assault, then it will become legal to defend with a punch in the face. Juries will decide.”
If the “American consensus” becomes that someone saying “Jay is a stupid poopy-head”, and you are directly offended by it, will it become legal for you to punch that someone in the face? Uh, no.
“American consensus” is not the standard by which fighting words are judged. And, while “fighting words” are unprotected speech, they are NOT considered justification for violence.
I
I have another way to get more Neo-Nazis and KKKers and others of their ilk punched in the face without legal penalty – we’ll elect a president who promises to pardon all Americans who do it.
That’s a populist platform plank sure to attract support, and now that tRump has legitimized political pardons, an uncontroversial mainstream proposal.
VOTE FOR PRESIDENT PUNCH A PUNK – a catchy motto!
The president can not pardon violations of local or state laws.
Assault is a local or state crime everywhere in the US.
I know that, Dave, it was a facetious remark, in light of Trump’s pardon of Arpaio.
I respect his views, and even more, this opinion:
http://deadline.com/2017/08/real-time-bill-maher-penn-jillette-donald-trump-1202151984/
A 10min clip of Al Franken ? Is there 10s of Penn in there ?
I do not have any major disagreement with Penn’s comments.
How many times here have I said government doing nothing is good ?
Hopeful safe wishes for all those in the path of Hurricane Harvey…
I beleive it has been 4300+ days since a hurricane this large struck the mainland US.
@dhlli: This clip reminds me of you debating you; that would be a hoot. 🙂
Well this has to be “Fake News”. This make too much sense for moderate, centrists and independent voters. Is it April 1st?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/report-govs-john-kasich-john-hickenlooper-consider-2020-unity-ticket
Hickenlooper says no…
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/348034-hickenlooper-says-theres-no-unity-ticket-with-kasich?amp
Jay, like I said, Fake News. Anything that makes sense and would be a good thing for the country can not happen.
@ RonP: Thanks, that made my day. Two boring but intelligent guys didn’t stand a a chance in the last election, but wow, sanity will be at a premium in the next election.
BUT, can they raise BIG money, the rich guys like the traditional Rep and Dem parties.
Priscilla, here’s the next one for the left to go hog wild on.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-arpaio-idUSKCN1B600O
At some point people are going to tune out the liberal left media. I think he is working on overloading them with actions that they can’t finish one thought before he gives them another to have a stroke over.
I think the opposite, Ron – the longer tRump continues to prance like an idiot in Office, the bigger the audiences for anti-Donny media will grow.
In fact, that’s what’s been happening the last year: MSNBC & CNN are seeing upward rating spikes.
“Driven by surges for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” MSNBC is up a whopping 86% in total viewers in primetime compared to second-quarter 2016. CNN saw a 39% leap in adults 25-54 in total day.”
FOX still leads in overall viewers; but the combined viewership of CNN & MSNBC has recently surpassed them, and if the trend continues they will pull away further next year.
Jay, two things. 1. Those that watch CNN & MSNBC most likely would have voted for the democrat regardless and Fox viewers for the republican regardless. 2. I suspect the decline in Fox viewship has as much to do with Greta Susteron, Megan kelly and Bill O’Reilly leaving as it does with who is president. The nighttime Fox lineup sucks now and the liberals need someone to cry in their beer with.
No decline in Fox viewership, Ron- a rise actually, but small compared to the increases at the other networks.
The left 25% of the country is frothing at the mouth energized in a way we have never seen before.
Most of us get that.
It is also very dangerous. They do not accept that they might not get their way.
They do not accept that voters as a whole have actually rejected them.
This past election was a backlash AGAINST THEM.
That has not changed. They are not more palettable today than a year ago.
They are less.
Neither they nor you seem to understand that while the attacks on Trump are working to an extent, they are also doing more harm to the left than to Trump.
The left as an example is trying to tar and feather half of the country as neonazi racist.
That is alienating the country from the left, at the same time as it is energizing the left.
At the same time we may not see Antifa as the same as Nazi’s – but we do see them as dangerous an violent. And we see the majority of the left defending them.
The left is loosing the battle of painting the right as nazi’s sympathizers,
At the same time it is painting itself as finding violence acceptable.
I am not personally a big fan of policing.
There is a vast disconnect between reality and perception regarding policing – much the same as those disconnects I have identified on the left. Except that the policing misperceptions tilt right not left and are shared by large portions of the population.
We are safer today than ever before. That increase in safety has nothing to do with the near police state we have created. At the very same time our fear of violence is higher than it was – even during the late 60’s.
Violence in the streets – no matter who you attribute it to – results in voters shifting right.
Democrats have been trying to get the law and order vote since atleast Nixon.
Most of our worst crime bills and anti-drug laws have originated with democrats trying to out law and order republicans.
But that has not altered the public perception that democrats are more anarchistic.
And republicans are pro law and order.
And the lefts too close relationship with Antifa does not help,
just as Trump’s failure to mouth the right words about Nazi’s does not hurt him or republicans nearly as much as the hysteria would suggest.
We are going to get even more draconian in our policing.
Despite the fact that is actually a big mistake.
We are likely to do so with bipartisan support.
And all the political benefits are going to accrue to the right regardless.
This is how disconnects between perception and reality work.
Though this particular one works against the left.
It is no different than say the stupid misperception that free markets need government regulation.
Both are examples of people beleiving what is quite obviously false.
The media has a reliable audience for this rot.
And so long as they do they will run with it.
At the same time much of the media is driving away most of those not in the left 25% of the country, and/or persuading the rest of us to take them with huge grains of salt.
I watch Bill Mahr on occasion, as well as John Stewart, SNL, Colbert, Oliver….
I greatly enjoy their humor.
I do not give a fig about their politics.
I agree with Ron that Fox’s hit in ratings is a more a result of the loss of much of their prime time line-up than it is of Trump being elected.
I do make a point of watching all 3 cable news networks, and I find CNN to be, as the president calls them, largely “fake news.” Fox has a pro-Trump bias for the most part, particularly Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, and MSNBC is rabidly anti-Trump, especially Maddow and O’Donnell, and makes no bones about it. CNN puts on a line-up of incredibly biased and bitter anti-Trumpers, who whine abut how “serious” and fair they are. News flash: they’re not serious or fair.
Of course you see CNN like that: through the filter of your own Confirmation Bias.
And why wouldn’t CNN and the MSM at large, point out and exaggerate Trump’s obvious lies, distortions, deficiencies when he’s constantly attacking them, both individually and collectively.
Dufus Donald is a cancer on the body politic. The media is an antibody- naturally responding to attack it and protect the system.
Jay;
Whatever Trump’s credibility – that of the press as a whole and CNN in particular is worse.
You can portray Trump’s integrity however you wish, by relative and absolute standards – CNN and much of the media fares worse.
Truth is the product of the media – if they can not deliver on that, ultimately they are dead.
Truth is important with respect to the President – but it is neither the sole nor primary means by which he is measured.
Further maybe to you Trump’s lies are more obvious than say Hillary’s or Obama’s.
But not to me, and clearly not to many others.
Trump tends to tell more stupid and meaningless lies.
Who cares about the size of his “hands” or the crowd size at the innauguration ?
I do care that a major new program has failed at every single promise made for it.
I do care that hillary lied about the death of americans in Benghazi to save her own skin.
I watched 13hours recently. It purportedly is accurate, Though the movies have a horrible reputation for accuracy. I do not think Hillary is mentioned at all.
But one thing the movie gets through clearly, is that this attack lasted more than 1/2 a day.
That from the begining to the end those in Bengazi were on their own. That no help of any kind came from anywhere despite repeated pleas.
That 4 people died and that possibly a hundred others could have – but for the unbeleivable efforts of a handful of former military private contractors, and that though the much vaunted delta force eventually prevented this from becoming a slaughter, that even they – should have been there hours earlier and only arrived in the nick of time because the Delta forces disobeyed orders.
Hillary is not mentioned once. And yet Washington, State and the rest of the military are silently condemned from begining to end.
It is practically part of our dogma – we do not leave our dead and wounded behind. We do not leave our own. We do not follow that code perfectly. But when we fail – we view it as a failure.
13hrs tells the story of washington failing to act honorably.
That is a part of what damned Hillary – we do not think she is honorable.
Sorry Jay, but when the media has lots its credibility – it is not an antibody.
It is an autoimune disease.
You can make up all the cute trump names you want.
They do not restore the intergrity of the media.
I think Fox is doing extremely well considering the shakeups they have had more recently.
They have also shifted significantly more libertarian.
Carlson is doing quite well(ratings wise) given the shoes he has stepped into.
I am disappointed that he is more partisan than I would have hoped from him.
That is despite his repeated claims to be be a Trump critic.
There are several other Fox hosts that are openly libertarian.
Fox appears to be shifting from the O’Reilly quasi establisment republicanism that is intellectual bunk, to a stronger emphasis on libertarian conservatism.
I think the myriads of scandals – ailes and OReilly have hurt them.
I think the shift in the focus of their content, though long term wise, has them trying to hold an old audience that this does not fit well with, while seducing a new audience that finds the new direction more appealing.
While outlets such as WaPo, NYT, CNN, and MSNBC have abandoned any pretense of actual journalism and have become the propganda channels of the left 25% of the country.
I think they too have benefitted from that shift. I think more people on the left are watching than ever, and I think their loses of center viewers are more than made up by gains in new viewers.
But Fox’s shift – has a better long term. Fox’s shift like it or not, is towards the center.
WaPo, CNN, etc. will be in serious trouble when the left burns out.
The level of current hysteria is unsustainable.
When you strike the king you must kill the king.
Not merely because otherwise the king will strike back,
But also because your followers demand blood, and if you can not deliver, they will eventually back away.
Well, of course I have a confirmation bias. But, it’s not on the level of yours, which is more of a confirmation obsession. If I were truly as biased as you seem to think, I would not watch MSNBC or CNN, the same way that you won’t watch Fox. You prefer to live in a bubble and disregard the opinions of those with whom you don’t agree. I get it, but I think that your mentality, which is shared by millions, is the reason why consensus and compromise have become impossible. In order to debate and discuss, you have to use the same set of facts, and you have to have respect for the opinions on the other side. You have no respect for Trump voters or for anyone in the media who defends Trump or his policies.
So, of course, you would not see that CNN has become a propaganda organization. At least MSNBC and Fox admit to their bias ~ opinion journalism is fine, if labeled as such.
CNN has not become a propoganda organization.
They have just shifted from covert to overt.
I will be happy to join the left on this.
While it is inside Trump’s power sheriff Joe Arpaio is a crook and a thug and what is wrong with law enforcement in this country.
He deserves the same justice he meeted out to others.
One of the things I find moth loathesome about Hillary is not only did she lie about Ben Ghazi, but she used her power within government to force the prosecution and conviction of her scape goat.
When the secretary of state decides you are a criminal, you or F’d.
Matt 18:21-35
The same mercy or justice should be delivered on you as you did on others.
Arpaio is not someone deserving of mercy.
Watta you know…
We agree on something!
Wonders never cease.
Dave, I have read the complaints of those who do not think that Arpaio should have been pardoned, but I think that it was an appropriate pardon. Arpaio was convicted of not following a court order to stop detaining people based on the suspicion that they lacked legal status and turning them over to the border patrol. Arpaio refused to do so, based on the fact that he was enforcing federal law. Ironically, the Obama administration, which was not exactly a champion of federalism, cheered this particular conviction.
Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, who had made lucrative oil deals with Iran, while it held our hostages, sold oil to the Apartheid regime in South Africa during the UN embargo, and made billions on many other illegal international deals with dictators, failed to pay taxes, and fled the country when Rudy Guiliani was about to prosecute him. But he did give a ton of money to The Clinton Foundation.
Obama pardoned a traitor, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, because he was a transgender, and was very confused, when he committed treason. Awww…..
And Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, an act which essentially doomed his presidency.
The POTUS has a plenary power to pardon. There are always going to be those who disagree.
There you go again, ENABLING tRump to continue to undermine the legal system.
Read this – but take off your rosy trump filtered glasses first.
https://lawfareblog.com/arpaio-pardon
God forbid that you should not be able to take a bat shit crazy position on something with otherwise agree with.
Trump’s pardon was constitutional. It was not moral.
All this crap about not jumping though non-existant hoops – is just that, crap.
There are no constitutional limits on the presidents pardon power.
there is no – you must go through DOJ constraint.
The entire constitution works exactly the OPPOSITE way.
All executive powers – absolutely every single one, are vested in the person elected president.
Every other member of the executive branch excercises the presidents powers at the discretion of the president. PERIOD.
If you do not like that – change the constitution.
This applies to myriads of other matters.
Such as Can Trump unilaterally fire Mueller – and the answer is yes.
It would kick up a fire storm. Trump might well get impeached,
but it is inside his constitutional powers.
It might be nice of some existing process was followed.
But that is one of the distinctions between Trump and politicians like Clinton.
Trump grasps that the final decision is his and the responsibility and blame are his.
Clinton “followed procedure” with respect to the Uranium One deal.
Though State had to sign off – as well as other agencies, and no sane person beleives that this deal was not approved because Clinton wanted it to occur.
We saw this with the Mark Rich pardon – it was pushed through – following procedures.
No it wasn’t really a pay back to the Rich’s for donations to Clinton.
All the procedures you are fixated on is a way of escaping blame and responsibility.
Trump is a business person – and by all accounts a successful business person.
The best businesses have the thinest management possible.
People are put into positions of power. Expected to make decisions and excercise that power and to take responsibility for those choices.
That is the model for efficient profitable business.
The model of government – and of actual crooks is to put in place as many layers as possible, to have many layers of surrogates. IF you have enough layers of management and people from the bottom to the top, you can make clear throughout the only choice that is acceptable while at the same time creating the appearance that a decision just happened that no one was actually responsible.
Fixation on policies and procedures typically means an attempt to hide responsibility for decisions.
Trump has no ability here to say he was just approving what was recomended by others.
We bumped into a version of this with Comey’s firing.
Rosenstein produced a memo to justify the firing.
The whitehouse said that was why Comey was fired,
and Trump shortly after said Comey was fired for a different reason of Trump’s
The left is certian of malfeasance. – unable to grasp that there were many reasons to fire comey.
Though I find the malfeasance claim ludicrous.
Malfeasance would have been if Rosenstein cooked up a fake reason, and Trump stuck with it.
Saying I am the president and this is why I did something – not what someone else says, is actually integrity not malfeasance.
By speaking directly, Trump took personal ownership of the action and the explanation.
But the left does not understand ownership and responsibility.
Trump made no process error in this pardon.
He did not violate the constitution.
He did nothing illegal.
What he did wrong was pardoned a person who did not deserve to be pardoned.
That is all. The rest of this is garbage.
Unlikely you I am capable of understanding that Trump has done something morally wrong, Without trying to pretzel myself into beleiving it was illegal or unconstitutional
This is just some of what is wrong with Arpaio and his band of crooks
It is this kind of stuff that is why he should NOT have been pardoned.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/dog-day-afternoon-6438729
I had already read that, Jay. I think that my point was that there are serious and intelligent people who are going to disagree with this pardon, just as there are serious and intelligent people who have disagreed with other controversial pardons.
Without excusing this,
The mark rich pardon is worse,
and the FLNA terrorist who refused to renounce violence is worse,.
But Arpaio is pretty bad.
Priscila;
Arpaio is a criminal. The least of his evil is failing to abide by a court order.
There is a long long list of problems with Arpaio,
He is the penultimate example of what is wrong with policing today.
Federalism BTW, means that local government does NOT enforce federal law and visa versa. Arpaio has no authority to enforce federal law and doing so is lawless, just as the feds have no authority enforcing AZ law.
Yes, there have been myriads of other bad pardons. No Arpaio is not the worst pardon ever. Certianly Obama’s Pardon of the FALN terrorist is worse than Arpaio even though it got little media coverage.
Though I did not call out the pardon of Arpaio specifically for that reason, I am objective regarding Trump.
Arpaio is a mistake. One that bothers me alot.
The warrant for 3million records of a website used to organize the inauguration protests is also a mistake. We absolutely should catch and prosecute those who were violent at the inauguration and other events. We should not violate the rights of the innocent to do so.
Not even the innocent whose politics we disagree with.
I am not prepared to call Afghanistan a big mistake – yet.
But I have very little hope it is going to prove a wise decision.
But I will wait and see. Regardless, Trump now owns afghanistan.
Just as Obama owned it before him.
I am mildly pleased with the soft coup of “the generals” that has cleared the whitehouse of those actively seeking conflict with the left and the press.
But I could be extremely unhappy if the shift away from confrontation with the press also means a shift away from the commitment to “drain the swamp” that got Trump elected.
Afghanistan is a signal that not only is the Trump administration taking a less confrontational posture, but it is backing away from the platform it ran on.
Trump did not get elected to govern as Rubio or Kaisich – and those who keep trying to sell some “moderate” GOP dream team should understand – Trump was elected, not those candidates. Just a Romney was NOT elected and McCain was NOT elected.
Voters did not choose Obama Lite.
There is a political war going on in this country at the moment.
Trump did not create that war – the left did. But Trump recognized the existance of that war, and chose a specific side, and that choice got him elected.
That war is over the difference between perception and reality.
And identity politics is a major aspect of that.
The left has a perception of current society as egregiously and systemically racist.
The reality is there is no such thing as “post racial” but race is far less significant than it has ever been in US history. It is a small problem not justified by the hysteria.
In fact it is so small a problem that our efforts to diminish racism are excerbating it.
That has always been true – but because actual racism has diminished reverse racism looks larger.
And that ties to this alt-right nazi nonsense. I have been trying to get a sense of these alt-right people. Sorry, but these are not “Nazis” or white supremecists in comparison to those I experience 40 years ago. Like nearly all 20-30 year olds today they say provocative and stupid things. They are the “south park” generation.
To the extent they actually have an ideology it is wrong. But for the most part this purported huge vanguard of resurgent nazi’s, is a bunch of not that well educated young mostly white males who are agreived because everyone else can claim victim status and jump to the head of the line.
Several places describe them as unproductive young adults living in their parents basements. A description that is also used to describe those in Antifa.
The deeper problem in the country is not antifa or the altright.
The deeper problem is that about 1/4 of the country is at war with another 1/4.
Antifa and the alt-right are just the extreme edges.
The right 1/4 is not latent racists in any sense – except they are tired of being called racist, and tired of being EXPECTED to go to the back of the bus for everything.
The right 1/4 is not yet violent, but if this keeps up they are going to be.
The left 1/4 has been driving the country for a decade. They have NOT gotten everything they wanted, but they have be able to assure that we are traveling in the direction they wanted. Trumps election is an absolute U turn and the left quarter of the country is mad as hell over that. They were prepared to accept moving their direction – slowly. They are not willing to accept any reversal on anything. They beleive they are our leaders, and our betters, and they are pissed as hell that we have said NO!
And they are willing to reverse that “by any means necescary”. They are very dangerous.
For far too much of the left right now, the ends justifies the means.
Hopefully Jay is joking about “pinching nazis” – but even if he is an awful lot of the left is not. Nor is this about Nazi’s.
There are myriads of areas this manifests itself.
Rape is an issue I may have more intimate familiarity than anyone posting here.
Atleast as much as anyone who has not directly been a victim themselves.
But I have also seen many disturbed people noticing that an allegation gains you attention and sympathy and making false claims that often destroy other peoples lives.
We address this differently in our private and public relations and through government.
We can beleive or disbeleive whoever we please using whatever standards we wish in contexts outside of govenrment. But when we inflict actual punishments on people, then we are obligated to conform to the imperfect system of criminal law that we have.
DeVos is trying to get higher education out of the sexual assault prosecution business and return that responsibility to law enforcement – where no matter how badly they do, it is atleast actually their job.
We see this in the Paris nonsense. The left has whigged out because Trump has backed out of a fake climate treaty that was pointless and stupid even if you actually beleive in the nonsense of CAGW. Yet, even a symbolic reversal is seen as the end of the world.
We have elected a president to castrate the administrative state – and everywhere the left is fighting this tooth and nail. It is not acceptable to have Donald Trump as president, but far worse it is not acceptable to having him actually attempt to do what he promised to do.
I disagree with Trump on some issues. My fight with Trump is over those issues.
He is not more or less a vile human – because I do not agree. He is not more or less competent as president because I disagree.
I disagreed with Obama on many things. Those disagreements meant I though Obama was wrong, not Obama was evil.
For the left the fact that Trump is wrong is entirely secondary to the fact that he is evil.
Prof. Haidt wrote an article that Trump erred for failing to condemn Nazi’s – because it broke a modern Taboo. While he had a point, there was a far bigger one.
Trump’s existance, the platform he ran on, and the policies he is fighting or implimenting.
Are not merely wrong as seen by much of the left, they are Taboo, they are deficating on the alter in church.
I am not challenging Trump’s power to pardon Arpaio.
He undoubtedly has that power.
I am saying that it was a mistake.
Politically and morally.
And that it is an issue where Trump unequivocally does not have my support.
Dave, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the Arpaio pardon.
He is an 85 year old man, with a long history of serving in the military and in law enforcement. The guy’s not a hero, but he was prosecuted for political reasons, specifically for continuing to turn illegal immigrants over to border agents after a court order demanding that he stop. Federal law protects the right of state law enforcement to notify Immigration and Nationalization about the immigration status of anyone. So, it seems to me that a sheriff had the right to do what he was doing. The issue is whether he was racially profiling people in the course of enforcing the law. And there is disagreement on that.
But my understanding is that he was going to be jailed, not for violating anyone’s rights, but for contempt of court~ a misdemeanor~ so that pro-illegal immigration advocates could claim a scalp. He never would have been convicted by a jury. All things considered, the pardon seems appropriate to me.
Maybe the guy is a dirtbag, I don’t know. I’m just going by the facts of the case that I’m aware of…..
I have been following Arpaio long before Trump had any presidential ambitions.
Sheriff Joe is the epitomy of the worst possible kind of police officer.
I know little of his military service – but Charles Wrangel was a real hero in Korea, and Ace Cunningham was a real hero in vietnam. Both ruined their reputations as congressmen.
Even McCain’s conduct during the S&L scandal – while not egregious by say Maxine Waters standards, is not the conduct of someone who swore “not to lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do”. I was rejected by Annapolis in 1976 because my uncorrected eyesight was just outside of their waiverable limits. I spent part of a summer at Annapolis and have tired to live that honor code.
I beleive Arpaio was also a DEA agent for many years.
Regardless, he came out of retirement to become Sherriff and for decades has run the most vile police force in the country.
His problems go far beyond “illegal aliens”.
The phoenix news story is just ONE story, there are myriads of equally egregious stories about Sherriff Joe. He purportedly hired someone to fake an assassination of himself, and then arrested them to cover it up – and lost a lawsuit about it costing his community $8M dollars. He used his band of deputies/thugs to persecute any – including other elected officials that got in his way.
Specifically with respect to immigration, Immigration is a federal matter.
The enforcement of federal laws is SOLELY a federal responsibility, and that of state laws SOLELY a state responsibility. Our constitution does not grant the federal government a general police power, and likely most federal criminal laws should be unconstitutional.
I have zero problems with a local law enforcement officer legitimately engaged in the enforcement of state laws – which Arpaio never was, notifying the feds when they find someone violating federal law.
But they may only legally detain that person pursuant to STATE law. If they have no state law violation sufficient to hold the person they must release them.
Arpaio was detaining people he beleived violated federal law for over a year without violations of state laws. Often he was doing so because the Feds refused to deal with these people. If we do not like that – that is a federal problem. I have alot of problems with the way Obama enforced immigration law. I beleive he did so unconstitutionally.
And the courts or the electorate should have dealt with that.
Not the states, not county sheriffs.
I do not BTW have a problem with “racial profiling”.
I do not think the TSA needs to do diaper searches on swedish grandmothers looking for terrorists.
I think that the police often get racial profiling wrong.
But that is not where the real problem is.
Either you have a legitimate basis for a search or seizure (a traffic stop IS a form of seizure of your person), or you may not do it.
I do not have a problem with ICE agents focusing on mexican’s in arrizona.
Illegal immigrants are probably not blacks.
But legitimate racial profiling does not allow a county sheriff to stop hispanics.
There is no legitimate basis to suspect that a hispanic has violated state law. and enforcement of federal law is not the Sherriffs job.
Lawlessness often includes doing things some of us think are right – when they are illegal.
A state law enforcemnet officer acting to enforce federal law is just a vigilante.
His contempt of court misdemeanor was for violating a court order as I understand it to quit detaining people illegally.
Personally I think he should be prosecuted for kidnapping.
The court order was issued by a bush appointee.
BTW protection from abuse orders are civil court orders.
When a significant other swears that their partner did or threatened them with violence, the court issues a protection order until there is a hearing.
That order usually requires the partner to avoid contact completely until the hearing.
Violating that order will land you in jail.
Further I keep saying OVER AND OVER, government is force.
Civil, Criminal, Torts, regulation, it does not matter, refuse to obey government – you will lose your property, your freedom, and possibly your life.
Does not matter whether the underlying matter is a traffic ticket.
For every single law we pass we should always remember several things.
Someone somewhere sometime will likely take sufficient offense that government will have to back down or kill them – and government does not back down.
If you are not willing to kill over some law or regulation – then do not pass it.
That is what occurred with Eric Garner selling loose cigarettes.
Every law must be enforced. That is not free. The more laws we have the more resources we must devote to law enforcement – more police, more jails, more courts, more lawyers.
That has a cost.
Finally Arpaio is held to a very high standard – he is law enforcement.
Law enforcement that is lawless is tyranny.
Maybe Arpaio was a good soldier in Korea. I do not know. It is certainly possible.
Maybe he was even a good DEA agent.
As a sherriff he was a criminal.
OMG she didn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.yahoo.com/style/m/a17ce09d-9fe5-3dfe-8404-c9d52cb29a2e/ss_first-lady-melania-trump.html
Hopefully this comes through. Take a look at the Yahoo title of the article and then if you can link to the complete article, look at how they title the piece written. Liberals at work once again.
Yep, the headline implies that, because Melania is wearing expensive clothes and shoes ~ HORRORS! ~ she must not care about the potential victims of the hurricane.
Do we know what Michelle Obama wore before Sandy? Rags, I suppose, in deference to the looming destruction of the Jersey shore…..
Melania has a lot more class than DumboDon; as shown by her thankful tweet for Chelsea Clinton’s defense of her son, and her unequivocal condemnation of neoNazis, etc. I’m betting that within a year of the time he’s out of office she Dumps Chump Trump.
But as to the Yahoo headline, you’re reading too much into it. It was generated by Yahoo Style staff. A google search of past Melania posts shows they generally attach the headline to current events or locations, none of the other stories indicating any bias toward her any different than their finicky coverage of other celebs, in which they always note outlandish costs of clothes and apparel.
Jay, so tell me why they would take “Melania Trump Heads to Camp David in Missoni” from Vogue Magazine and turn it into “First Lady Melania Trump Wears Missoni and Manolo Blahnik to Camp David ahead of Hurricane Harvey”.
There is only one reason. To add to her wardrobe choice indifference to the people in Texas. If you can’t see that, your as blind to liberal crap as Dave is to total Libertarian crap.
Humm. Odd, but this Yahoo! Headline for the same story is briefer:
“Melania Trump wears Missoni and Manolo Blahnik for trip to Camp David”
https://www.yahoo.com/style/melania-trump-wears-missoni-manolo-blahnik-trip-camp-david-151513711.html
The copy does go on to state this:
“While Hurricane Harvey barreled down on Texas and her husband’s approval ratings suffered an all-time low, Melania Trump donned a formfitting Missoni dress and sky-high orange lizard Manolo Blahnik heels for a trip to Camp David.”
Are they insinuating she’s dressing up so extravagantly to rub his historically low approval ratings in Donald’s face?
And I guarantee if she Dumps the Lump, she’ll get nothing but LOVE from the media. And nothing but hate from Trumpanzees.
Jay, if you access the link I provided it sya what I cut and pasted in my question. Guess they may have heard enkugh negative feedback they updated their story.
I am also extremely unhappy about this.
No fishing expeditions. Not for Trump, not against him.
This crap is unconstitutional and more importantly WRONG, and EVIL.
But the left seems incapable of grasping that the expansive readings of the law they want to use against their enemies, will be used against them too.
I am for civil liberties. Those of Nazi’s, Those of Trump, those of Trump protestors.
If 100 people out of 1,000,000 are violent, you can not search the records of the entire 1,000,0000 to find the 100.
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/24/court-trump-protester-data-inauguration-disruptj20/
This is an interesting piece by the editor of the National Review, which asserts that the media has become a foil for Trump, in the same way that the Soviet Union was a foil for Reagan.
Every hero must have a villain. The media are apparently too stupid and biased to realize that they have become a corrupt empire, more unpopular in the eyes of most Americans than Trump.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/23/trump-media-enemy-republicans-215526
Reagan focused anger and hatred at Russians, not at fellow Americans.
As usual, you miss the whole point of the opinion piece, Jay.
The left is actively seeking to destroy america’s identity.
Whether it is by trying to adopt failed european socialism,
Repaint the most diverse nation in the world as the most racist,
or erasing and rewriting history.
You do not seem to get – much of the country does nto see the left as american or part of the american identity.
Nor should that be surprising – because the left actively rejects the concept of an american identity.
The left and the media are not seen as fellow americans – because they do not wish to be seen as fellow americans.
Trump is merely taking you at your word.
I think that is correct, and it goes beyond the media.
The left as a whole does not grasp that their attacks on Trump either drive or dix his supporters too him. Which is part of why his approval rate appears to have bottomed.
It is still above the media and the rest of the body politic, and why he would beat Hillary today by a larger margin than a year ago.
The left is very successfully creating a core of about 1/4 of the country that is 100% behind them. But in doing so, they have lost everyone else.
And of the group that are neither Trump supporters nor on the left, no matter how much they dislike Trump and express it, they are going to hold their noses and pick Trump over the left.
I would also note to Ron, This country did not pick Kaisich or Higgenlooper or Bush or Rubio or any of myriads of more “moderate” voices.
And there are good reasons they did not.
I suspect many of those “moderates” could have won larger shares of the popular vote.
Just as I suspect Cruz who is not a moderate also would have won a larger share of the popular vote.
But none of these moderates were going to beat Clinton.
I noted in another post that Trump is deficating on the alter of the left
Trump has thoroughly pissed off people who were never voting for him.
Those moderates would not have pissed off those voters,
And in fact those moderates would have been acceptable to those voters.
They would have continued the left agenda – albeit in first gear.
But those moderates would still not have gotten any votes from the left.
Acceptable does not buy votes.
Trump was elected by people who want a change in direction.
The war against Trump is dangerous – because if Trump voters do not get a change in direction, they are not going away. They are just going to be more angry and energized the next time.
The MESSAGE of #TraitorTrump’s pardon:
More of this ouija board, clairvoyant mind reading nonsense.
I do not presume this means anything relative to Mueller.
At the same time, there will be no consequential political cost to issuing pardon’s in the Mueller investigation, for charges that are not perceived of as very serious or unrelated to Trump/Russia collusion.
The easiest ready example is that Flynn appears to have failed to file as a representative of a foreign government when he took lobbying fees from Turkey.
Trump can(and should) pardon Flynn of that – particularly as in 50 years no one has been charged of violating it.
More consensus on Trump’s attempt to undermine the Russian investigation
You want to cite Adam Schiff ?
Another of those words where you can tell someone on the left is trying to pull the wool over your eyes – “consensus”
There is very little of consequence in the world that is actually done by concensus.
Jay,
this is not even consensus – this is third party hearsay and nonsense even if the source is accurate.
This is more of your crap presuming that republicans communicate with each other in code.
Get a clue. Republicans are not going to send coded public messages to each other that democrats can read.
If democrats think they are reading coded messages – they are deluding themselves.
I would further note that Generally I let DT speak for himself. He does nto seem to have any trouble doing that. What others say he is going to say or means is so often wrong – even when it is people who actually should know, that it is just not worth trusting purported surogates.
Do we all presume that when Podesta’s lips move – Hillary is speaking ?
Was every democrat who assured us of Obama’s intentions to be taken litterally (or seriously)
Yes, more of this dog whistle, secret decoder ring we can read minds nonsense.
Pardoning Arpaio was morally wrong.
If there was a message in it my guess is that it was to Trump’s base and it was about immigration, nothing else.
But you are sure you know what is in Trump’s head.
In case you are clueless – I can think Trump’s pardon of Arpaio was morally wrong. and not conclude from that that Trump is 2mm away from creating a constitutional crisis by pardoning himself.
With respect to pardon’s for others – I think that is independent and will depend on circumstances.
I have zero problem with Trump pardoning many within his campaign – if they are charged with crap like Fitzgerald did with Scooter Libby.
Timing also matters.
I think that unless something new comes out on Flynn, that Trump should pardon Flynn – after Mueller has determined whether he will be prosecuted and what for.
I can see the same happening for other Trump campaign people.
Either Mueller comes up with something of substance tied directly to the matter he is supposed to be investigating – Trump/Russia collusion.
A story that appears to be totally completely dead at this point.
Or Trump should obliterate any ancillary charges that amount to little more than I had to come up with something to justify wasting lots of time and effort.
I can think of a long list of possible charges that Mueller could come up with.
If they look like the nonsense leveled at Scooter Libby – Trump is likely to issue pardon’s and no one outside the left is going to whigg out.
Trump: “Arpaio is a great guy”
“Arpaio, throughout his tenure, specialized in meting out theatrical punishments both petty and cruel. He required that detainees wear old-fashioned, black-and-white striped uniforms and pink underwear, presumably for the dollop of extra humiliation such costuming offered. He brought back chain gangs, including for women and juveniles. He housed detainees outdoors, under Army-surplus tents, in Phoenix temperatures that regularly soar well above a hundred degrees. “I put them up next to the dump, the dog pound, the waste-disposal plant,” Arpaio told my colleague William Finnegan, who wrote a Profile of Arpaio, in 2009. The sheriff called detainees “criminals” when they had not been convicted and once referred to his jail as “a concentration camp.” Finnegan described a federal investigation that found that
deputies had used stun guns on prisoners already strapped into a “restraint chair.” The family of one man who died after being forced into the restraint chair was awarded more than six million dollars as the result of a suit filed in federal court. The family of another man killed in the restraint chair got $8.25 million in a pre-trial settlement. (This deal was reached after the discovery of a surveillance video that showed fourteen guards beating, shocking, and suffocating the prisoner, and after the sheriff’s office was accused of discarding evidence, including the crushed larynx of the deceased.)”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-does-donald-trump-like-sheriff-joe
Arpaio is worse in reality than anything you have ever attributed to Trump.
But I would note that though he is likely the extreme, significant portions of law enforcement share the same problems as Arpaio.
Police officers shoot thousands of dogs per year. Many are leashed when they are shot, others are confined.
Most encounters between police and dogs end int he dogs death.
Postal workers encounter dogs all the time.
Only a tiny fraction end up harmed.
Dogs rarely end up dead.
Nor are dogs the only thing.
One vile aspect of Arpaio’s tent jails was how people got there.
Beyond that conditions were horrendous.
But most jails have horrendous or nearly as horrendous conditions.
More on donnie’s guy
Ryan not happy with the pardon
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/348129-ryan-breaks-with-trump-on-arpaio-pardon-report?amp
McCain says pardon undermines respect for the rule of law
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3B0E692D-FFEB-4F6C-ADF9-C3F598E94D2A
I do not need McCain to tell me that.
Outside the strong anti-immigrant protion of his base for whom Arapio is a hero and can do not wrong – most of the rest of us do not like this pardon.
I wish every president would do exactly as I wanted.
Not one has ever come close.
So long as you stick to Arapaio is a vile person that does not deserve to be pardoned, we are in agreement.
Arapio should be in far more trouble than violating a court order.
He and his crew are violent criminals operating under color of law.
They are possibly the penultamate example of what is wrong with militarized policing in the US today.
But you seem unable to stick to where you are right.
You have to pretend that something that is immoral, must somehow also be illegal or unconstitutional.
Or that it is some kind of dog whistle, or that if the rest of us do not agree with every idiotic claim you make trying to convert immoral into illegal, that we are “enabling”.
Sorry but the constitution “enabled” Trump.
If you do not like it – change it.
Trump is a piece of sh*t – to paraphrase a Trump cabinet secretary’s daughter.
This in the inevitable result of electing a divisive bumbling idiot like Douche Donnie. He percolates hate in the hearts and minds of otherwise reasonable people.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/zinke-s-veteran-daughter-excoriates-trump-in-response-to-transgender/article_0fb2413e-92fe-5db6-9be8-e4c17f0b9055.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
He needs to be driven out of office.
If his disapproval ratings plunge even deeper, the petulant punk will pack it in and resign.
Keep up the insults and sneers and BOOS America!
Trump can resign any time he wants for whatever reason he wants.
What he will do is up to him – not you or I.
Maybe ratings effect him – I doubt it.
And you continue this extended name calling nonsense.
You are free to do it, but as you do you confirm absolutely everything Trump voters – and some of the rest of us think about you.
This is no different from those calling Obama a monkey.
Except one important difference.
Those engaged in relentless ad hominem directed at Obama were extremely rare.
The ad hominem directed at Trump is coming from purportedly respectable people.
If calling Obama a monkey was hateful.
Why does calling Trump a douche get a pass ?
No one has a right to censor your speach – but we can judge you for it and find you intolerant and hateful.
If you wish to avoid moral repugnance yourself – do as most did during Obama’s tenure.
Oppose policies work inside the system to legitimately impede. –
You can not seem to grasp – I am your friend here.
When you call Trump a “sh_t” or a douche, you are calling everyone who voted for him the same thing.
That is not the way to win friends and influence people.
It is the way to get them to dig in and oppose you further.
You lost the house, the senate, most governerships and statehouses and now the presidency primarily by spewing hatred and vitriole at people.
Doubling down is not going to improve that.
“When you call Trump a “sh_t” or a douche, you are calling everyone who voted for him the same thing.”
False illogical assumption.
But there is guilt by association to those who continue to support/enable him after it has become apparent through his behavior the description fits him like a glove:
If the GLOVE FITS you must CONVICT.
Jay, didnt The Bitch cll Trump supporters “a basket if deplorables”Seems like she did exactly what Dave indicated.
Now be accurate, Ron. She said “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”
She was anticipating tRump, noting there were some good tRump supporters, north of deplorable.
What she said is not all that important.
What is important is what the left as a whole actually thinks.
What matters about remarks is not the words said, but how representative they are of what is true, or what is beleived to be true.
The significance of her deplorable remark is not the words, but that it made clear to much of the country – something that most of them already know.
That those on the left hate most of the rest of us, and think we are all racist, hateful hating haters.
You too say the same thing all the time – as does nearly all the left.
When you say it you usually target specific people,
But that does nto matter.
What matters is that you target people who are not sufficintly different from ourselves.
We see you tell joe doe that he is a hateful hating hater, and we see only small differnce between us and him and realize that whatever you say – you think we too are hateful hating haters – and that you hate us.
Not the way to win friends and influence people.
A HELL of a lot of Nazi-KKK types, armed and dangerous, showed up in Charlottesville
Man arrested for firing gun at Charlottesville rally
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/27/us/man-arrested-gun-charlottesville-rally/index.html
So it is acceptable to spray people with flames ?
And Ron, you do agree that Dufus Donald’s KKK & Neo-Nazi supporters are deplorables, right?
What /I know is that there are not enough KKK and Nazi’s in the country to win someone an election as city dog catcher ig they are voted in my town.
That means when the left talks about the KKK and Nazi’s they can not possibly be talking about a few thousand people nationwide.
It means they are talking about everyone who thinks that equal protection means race blind, not affirmative action.
Not only did the left do this.
They continue to.
It is not the specific remark that Clinton made that matters.
That remark is only important in that it makes visible something that was not visible – the hatred of the left for everyone no on the left.
There are myriads of editorials right now – most from democrats saying
Get a grip. You have lost the hearts and minds of the majority.
No “this election was stolen” meme works with the facts – not just the facts about Trump, but the facts about democrats overall lack of electoral success over the past decade.
The advice of most of the left wing pundits is that Democrats must fix their messaging,
they must stand for something rather than against.
But the problem is deeper than that. It is not that democrats do not stand for something.
It is that even if they can get back to their message – they stand for something that does nto work.
Trumpism has alot of flaws, but it appears near certain to be superior to what democrats have done for the last decade.
Democrats need to do more than stand for something.
They need to stand for something that the electorate actually beleives will work.
Oh is that irrational ?
Then it is even more irrational for blacks to be offended by Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forest statues.
Or by Christopher Columbus statues.
You are littlerally denying the very basis of all left grevances.
You are arguing that nothing is symbolic or representative.
And then after making your ludicrous claim you do a 180 and come back and argue the opposite.
Regardless, in this particular instance -we are not argument about logic.
I am making exactly the same argument the left makes all the time.
One rooted in emotion.
When you attack Trump – you attack those who voted for him.
But worse – the left – like you just now, goes beyond the emotional connection and you actually make it litteral.
You have just said if you do not “feel” as I do about Trump right now – then you are evil.
And you expect to win another election ever ?
I beleive Trump is being very well received at his rallies.
There are a number of people like you who hate him.
But you forget there are a larger number who do not.
An actual budget that would work.
And has zero chance.
atleast not until we actually fail
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending?utm_content=buffer593d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Dave, LOL….Why would anyone write fiction like this . Maybe in 2035 something like this will happen when financial debt forces the government to take action, but never now.
Just eliminating the 8000 medical billing codes to reduce improper payments ( by all payors, not just Medicare) would find massive resistance. How many coding jobs and jobs at CMS would be eliminated with that change?.
And what politician would even mention any of these other cuts?
Absolutely people who hold jobs that create no value oppose seeing the jobs ended.
But unless your job creates value – you are living off of others.
Hard work doing something non-productive has no value.
Regardless, this demonstrates what is possible.
I would note that it accomplished that without doing anything egregious to the largest entitlements. Still cuts of $1T.
While you are correct this is likely politically impossible.
It is not even close to actually draconian.
Even more evidence of Russian Collusion – with democrats.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-do-you-say-whoops-in-russian-podesta-group-retroactively-files-more-doj-disclosures-for-pro-putin-work/article/2632538
What not to do after Harvey
Accuse people of price gouging.
If you have the courage to load up with water, gasoline and batteries and charge INTO a storm in the hopes of helping others AND making a profit – you should be lionized not demonized. If you do not want the gasoline that someone else has gone to extraordinary measures to deliver to you – do not buy it.
Regardless, the one sure way of guaranteeing you have less is to punish people for delivering scarce goods.
Setup a central command for volunteers.
When government takes control – things do NOT get done.
One of the lessons of Katrina was volunteers waiting forever for govenrment approval to help.
Engage in fearmongering.
Yes, some people loot in tragedies, but it is extremely rare.
Regardless ratcheting up fear of looting makes people make poor choices with their lives.
Confiscate guns.
getting wet does not make law abiding citizens go crazy
Throttle entry and exit.
Such as Immigration checkpoints
Or Christies nonsense after Sandy.
Water damage to buildings can be minor or severe, depending on how quickly after the water has gone down people can start cleaning and drying their property.
Problems that can be easily corrected on day one with a bit of clorox require hundreds of thousands of dollars of mold removal a week later.
Insist on managing homes for the displaced.
It is amazing how well people – individuals and churches and other groups do with this on their own.
Impose bureacracy to control local communities efforts to solve their own problems.
Again people are very good at solving their own problems on their own.
They need less rad tape in emergencies not more.
Expand Federal Flood insurance programs.
Only the government would choose to incentivize people to repeatedly make bad decisions – like building in places with a high risk of flooding.
http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/after-the-storm/
A good explanation for why you can only easily determine ones character by looking at their unpopular views.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/05/virtue_conformi.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/roger-stone-threatens-mccain-for-criticizing-arpaio-pardon
Roger Stone, a close confidant to President Trump and a former adviser to his presidential campaign, threatened Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Saturday over the senator’s objection to the president’s decision to pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. “Karma about to get you, @SenJohnMcCain and you will burn in hell for all eternity,” Stone wrote on Twitter. Senator McCain is currently battling an aggressive form of brain cancer. Meanwhile, Stone will reportedly soon be interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee as part of that panel’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
http://theweek.com/articles/720428/things-are-going-much-much-worse
From the eloquent world of Trump to my little local paper:
To the Editor:
After listening to Fox News this morning, I would like to comment on what should be on the minds of every real American. By real American, I mean those who respect and love what was put in place by our Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution, the document which made us one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
One of the headlines this morning was, “Atheist war on White House Bible study.”
I thank the Lord that we now have a president who is trying to lead the country back to right and decency. I am as tired of hearing Russian interference in the election as the majority of the people are. Regardless of who, or what, defeated Hillary, it is one of the greatest blessing[s] that has ever come to this country. Hillary should stay home and bake cookies. If she can’t do a better job at it than she did in government, pray for Bill.
For years I have listened to heathen judges rule that there can be no Christian displays on public property. I have to wonder if those who are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution have ever read it! The First Amendment cannot be changed because it clearly forbids Congress to make any law prohibiting what it sets forth. In it we read, “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, speech, or to peaceably assemble.” Christians cannot freely exercise their religious faith unless they obey the Lord’s commandment to take it everywhere. My dictionary associates speech with voice. An audible sound, not action. There is an action clause in the amendment which says peaceable, something that is not seen in the demonstrations of today.
Public property belongs to the whole public, whether it’s the White House or a courthouse, not to any one part of it. Christians have as much right to use it to display their faith as heathens have to prove their lack of faith by not using it. There is a law prohibiting discrimination, and judging in favor of the heathen’s idea is discrimination.
Trump is our president for at least four years and in his first six months has proven he’s determined to lead the country the right way. It’s time to tell the heathens to go to hell where they are headed and let decency come back to America.
Sincerely, etc.
To the Editor:
If anyone had been paying attention, the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party has been to destroy the opposition, the Republican Party — I would daresay beginning nearly 40 years ago.
Throughout the country, Democrats posing as Republicans infiltrated the party.
Nationally, the so-called Republican Party had seven-plus years to repeal Obamacare, and it was repealed seven times in the House and Senate, knowing darn well it would be dead on arrival once it got to Obama’s desk. This was all smoke and mirrors so these phonies could go back to their voters and claim they tried, and the average voter fell for this charade.
Now we the people, “schmucks,” give them the House and the Senate but in reality they want us to believe that they are afraid of the “big bad Democrats,” but it’s obvious once you really understand their true identity and goal: total government control of health care.
Then came November 2016. The fraudulent Republicans felt very content with the prospects of a Clinton White House. Then came the miracle, Donald Trump.
This threw the proverbial wrench into everything. Trump ran on “draining the swamp,” but I truly believe he was caught off guard with the enemy within, “the established Republicans”; they will stop at nothing to make sure Trump fails on health care and especially on tax cuts that will help the American people.
If President Donald Trump wins, we win, and this would be the end of the established Republicans, truly “draining” the swamp, and they know it.
I am sure by now he can see their true identity, and only with the help of God will he/we prevail.
Sincerely, etc.
In another decade this group of dingbats will have gone extinct, tea bag hats will be a humorous nostalgic curiosity like bell bottoms and paisley shirts in wax museums and the 18-35 generation that watched the Trump years with disgust will be firmly in control. The half of the Republican party that is not nuts will have joined the half of the Democrats who are not nuts to govern. Enjoy your heyday Trumpies, such as it it. You reap what you sow.
Just one question, Anon…which half of the Democrats are not nuts?
We can start with the ones who never assaulted and tried to strangle a member of the press during their campaign for asking a rude question or tried to pass such an incident of as a minor matter not reflecting on one’s ability to serve in Congress? Ooops, there goes 99% of the Republican party out the window. I was being too kind to Republicans, a weakness of mine.
Asking rude questions is now a crime ?
Unless I misunderstand you – your comment claims that 99% of republicans do or have done all the things you listed.
You end essentially saying that your comment is understatement when clearly it is ridiculous overstatement.
“Unless I misunderstand you – your comment claims that 99% of republicans do or have done all the things you listed”
Misunderstanding is as natural to you as sucking blood to mosquitoes: haven’t you noticed how many conservative Republicans I link to?
This is what you posted.
“We can start with the ones who never assaulted and tried to strangle a member of the press during their campaign for asking a rude question or tried to pass such an incident of as a minor matter not reflecting on one’s ability to serve in Congress? Ooops, there goes 99% of the Republican party out the window. I was being too kind to Republicans, a weakness of mine.”
If you did not intend to say “that 99% of republicans do or have done all the things you listed.”
Insulting me does not change what you have said.
Dave Dave Dave…
I didn’t say what you’re quoting me as saying..
That was ‘anonymous’ (now Hieronamus).
“Dave Dave Dave…
I didn’t say what you’re quoting me as saying..
That was ‘anonymous’ (now Hieronamus).”
You replied. one way or the other you own the remarks you claim I am misrepresenting.
Priscilla, why respond to someone unwilling to identify themselves, even in a forum where we would not know them from Adam if we saw them. Not worth the time. To many to debate that do identify themselves.
Very true, Ron. Very true.
How are your remarks any less offensive and ill informed than those you criticize ?
Aside from the particularly religious flavor of the rhetoric and a few inconsequential technical errors, there is not much wrong with either letter to the editor.
Your offense as best as I can tell is to the evangelical style of the writers.
What part of the actual substance do you take issue with ?
Even his own Sec of State knows tRump is 💩💩💩
The word parsing is beyond beleif.
Do we get to treat every statement of anyone vaguely related to clinton or obama and either:
A). Attribute each remark precisely as made to clinton or obama ?
B). Assume that any remark that can in any possible interpretation be viewed as less than total congruence with Trump much mean disparagement and disdain ?
Dave, I’m sure you are happy to hear this about this reduction of government bureaucracy:
Trump revoked Obama’s executive order on higher standards for flood protection right before #Harvey took off columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/clim…
Jay, so you are saying all of the flooding that is happening in Texas is Trumps fault because he reversed an E.O. signed by Obama that had not taken effect yet.
My god, he IS ALL POWERFUL to be able to cause this much damage reversing something that did not exist yet.l
Please, your smarter than this or are you? Sounds like some more liberal BS that one might find on MSNBC or CNN.
Hurricanes have occurred in the Gulf and have hit Texas many times causing many deaths.
1900 Galveston ..8,000 estimated killed
1915 Galveston..11 killed
1957 Texas/La coast line Hurricane Audrey.. 12 ft Storm Surge
1961 Galveston Hurricane Carla 170 MPH winds 43 dead
1970 Aransus Pass (Just North of corpus Christi) Hurricane Celia 180MPH winds, 8000 homes destroyed, 15 dead.
And there have been more since then. What makes this one difference is two high pressure areas, one northwest and one southeast blocking it from moving.
Global warming has NOTHING TO DO WITH TWO HIGH PRESSURE AREAS LOCATED WHERE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Jay, so you are saying all of the flooding that is happening in Texas is Trumps fault because he reversed an E.O. signed by Obama that had not taken effect yet.”
No im not saying that; how’d you jump to that conclusion?
I’m suggesting he’s ill advisably cutting programs, because (A) he’s too blockheaded anti climate-change to evaluate the dire weather we surely are facing (the Texas storm may be an early result) and (B) Obama started them.
I’m sure you’ll agree you can be shrewd and stupid at the same time; sneaky Donald the real estate entrepreneur was shrewd enough to build hotels and golf courses; but too dumb to avoid bankrupting his casinos (in a short time), or from screwing up his university in a fiasco of misrepresentation. He’s not a deep thinker; shallow thinking for him is an optimistic appraisal. He has relied heavily on OTHERS to formulate his opinions (Hannity; Bannon, Preibus, Kushner, his daughter) because he lacks the mental depth to know good advice from bad.
Jay, I am one that does not accept global warming as a result of human activity for the most part like liberals. I accept the earth is warming, but I also look at historical data for millions of years and the world goes through cycles. And I believe the human activity that has destroyed millions of trees in the rain forests have contributed more to the small portion of global warming caused by humans than other activities if at all. I support withdrawal from the Paris accords since it placed to much responsibility on the USA when China was not required to do anything close to the USA. And there are many in climatology and weather professions that believe the same as I do.
And why are liberals worried about the future and global warming and they could care less about the debt and deficits that will have devastating impacts on future generations in the United States? Maybe when they begin to show some concern about the future when it comes to economic security for future generations, I might show some concerns for global warming.
Yes the planet has gone through severe warming and cooling in the past.
But that doesn’t preclude this one being tripped from the byproducts of the exponential expansion of human civilization and manufacturing. You cannot dismiss the basic law of cause and effect. Too many annonamolies are occurring in a very short geological time period. The melting permafrost, for instance. The increasing frequency of large storms. Etc.
In other words, we don’t know if the increasing size of human populations and industry are overloading the system or not. But better safe than sorry. If you’re driving at high speed on a freeway and the weather becomes threatening, you slow down. A HUGE number of scientists tell us there is a likely coefficient between humans and the severe weather fluctuations. They may be wrong; but if they’re right and we do nothing, that could prove disastrous.
I take warmists at their word – that CO2 is the threat.
CO2 has been increasing near linearly since the late 50’s the earliest we have direct measurements.
The physics dictates that linear increases in CO2 will produce logarithmic increases in temperate.
There is no “law of cause and effect”.
Cause and effect is what science seeks to find, not what it assumes.
No there are not “too many anomalies”
Current environmental behavior is not “unusual”.
Climate changes all the time. There are records set all the time.
But the rate of change and the frequency that records are broken is normal.
Sorry jay but there is no “global melting” of anything.
There are regions where things are melting and regions where they are freezing.
Antartica is near certainly gaining significant ice.
Greenland actually gained last year.
The summer/winner global sea ice extents are near constant – vertainly not negatively trending.
I just gave you the figures on Atlantic huricanes – they are decreasing not increasing.
The precaustionary principle – which is what you are articulating is bunkum.
It is no different from a childs fear of monsters in the closet.
No we should not fear what might happen absent credible reasons to beleive it will
Or do you think we should fear an ice age – as we are overdue ?
Again you need to be careful about your use of language.
No a huge number of scientists do NOT support your claim.
97% of scientists agree that the earth is warming.
I agree that the earth is warming. Every skeptical scientist I can think of agrees the earth is warming. Where they found 3% that think otherwise – who knows.
Most of those beleive that humans have made some contribution to that warming.
Again that includes every skeptical scientist I know.
But that leaves many unanswered questions.
What is the size of the human contribution – a plurality of scientists beleive that the human contribution is not large.
Are there positive feedbacks – that is absolute critical – because absent positive feedbacks, of which we have no evidence, CAGW is impossible. Warming will taper off.
What are the actual effects of warming ?
Again that is not that well known and much of what is claimed in the media is false.
The global climate models DO NOT predict warming will increase severe weather.
There is very strong evidence that it will decrease weather volatility and increase global rainfall. The Sahara has been shrinking as the earth warms. Historic evidence suggests this is actually normal. That contra the left wing nuts that actual warming will produce more rain a wetter planet and less deserts.
There are zillions of unrefuted critiques of CAGW.
Just one simple one the first I grasped was that temperatures increase with the square of energy. that is why climate sensitivity is expressed as degrees C/doubling.
Just the tiniest understanding of math and physics means that for linear increases in energy, temperature increases are logrithmatic.
The increase of atmospheric CO2 is nearly linear.
Energy capture is either linear or sublinearly tied to CO2 levels.
That means that absent any other factor linearly increasing CO2 will produce a sideways parabola as a graph.
Warmists presume they will get a vertical parabola – which is physically impossible.
Everytime I see a warmist projection of sustained increases I know I have found a scientific illiterate. There are alot of those.
Your upset because Trump cut a program that would have cost Trillions and had negligable effect on “climate change” even if it was not a hoax ?
Dire weather is not a “symptom of climate change”.
In the actual event that it were – then the climate must be cooling – because “dire weather” is actually on the decline.
I am not sure what Harry was when it made landfall.
The last Cat 5 to make landfall in the US was andrew in 1992.
The last cat 4 was Hugo in 1989.
In 2005 we had 3 Cat 3’s Rita, Wilma and Katrina.
Sandy was not even a Huricane when it made landfall.
“I’m sure you’ll agree” that you can drown in hyperbole.
It is my understanding that Trump’s business ventures are all sound.
I have no expectation – and I doubt he does either than all will reap enormous profits all of the time.
Trump has done well in very high risk ventures.
Doing well does not mean succeeding every year at everything.
So if I get my understanding of physics from Newton or Einstein, I am a shallow thinker ?
My sense is that Trump is more intuitive than deductive.
Regardless, he has done well.
He won an election no one thought was possible.
Every single day somewhere on the planet a 500 year weather record is broken.
That is not because of “climate change” that is because the planet is huge.
Your link is incomplete.
Regardless, I have zero problem with the elimination of any regulation.
I have already argued repeatedly that they are unnecescary. Which they obviously are.
“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
Edenhofer co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007
I do not want higher standards. I want the govenrment out of the insurance business.
Then standards and prices will come into line.
BTW there have been studies that post Andrew changes in building codes because of the hurricanes action resulted in less hurricane resistant buildings.
Without regulations owners requested and builders but strong buildings to resist huricanes.
After the regulations, they built buildings to meet the minimum requitements of the regulations, and the result was more damage to newer buildings.
Amid the flooding destruction and death in Texas, here’s what tRump is tweeting today:
He began his morning by promoting a book written by Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who has been an outspoken supporter of the president.
“A great book by a great guy, highly recommended!” Trump wrote, sharing a tweet from Clarke about his book, titled “Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America.”
And:
“I will also be going to a wonderful state, Missouri, that I won by a lot in ’16. Dem C.M. is opposed to big tax cuts. Republican will win S!”
And:
“With Mexico being one of the highest crime Nations in the world, we must have THE WALL. Mexico will pay for it through reimbursement/other.”
And:
“We are in the NAFTA (worst trade deal ever made) renegotiation process with Mexico & Canada.Both being very difficult,may have to terminate?”
He did tweet about the storm:
“Wow – Now experts are calling #Harvey a once in 500 year flood! We have an all out effort going, and going well!”
But no words of encouragement or sympathy for those killed or distressed.
And does he still think in light of the once in 500 year flood that Climate Change is a hoax?
DUMP THE LUMP!
I am not interested in defending Trump’s every word. I am not interested in parsing his every word. My life is not governed by Trump’s words – or anyone else’s.
Like most I watch the huricane with concern.
Unlike those on the left, I grasp that government is the biggest impediment to addressing the huricane.
After Sandy Christie shutdown the island of Atlantic City for a week.
This substantially made damages WORSE.
Prior to my lifetime all natural disasters were handled by people, not government.
Even today the primary factor for recovery is people not government.
Trump is less eloquent in his press preening.
Trump’s best wishes are of little benefit to those who have died or are greeving or need help.
I do not want the federal govenrment to do anything about this huricane.
Most everything the feds ever do makes things worse.
“I do not want the federal govenrment to do anything about this huricane”
Nothing else needs to be heard from you to prove you are a dunce.
The government has had such a stellar record dealing with emergencies!.
The SOLE responsibility in a natural disaster of government is to restore the rule of law quickly.
Real recovery is always the consequence of the actions of the people, not the government.
And again ad homimen is still not argument.
Just a tiny bit of information on one small portion of the private response to disasters.
http://www.aei.org/publication/louisiana-lawmaker-wants-to-subject-cajun-navy-volunteer-group-to-government-red-tape-regulations-fees/?utm_content=bufferd87c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Post Katrina there was an assessment of the response – both public and private.
The conclusions where one of the worst things that FEMA and the state did was impede private efforts.
Bussinesses like Walmat, Home Depot, … har prepositioned millions of tons of supplies
as close as possible to the disaster areas while still stored safely so that they could transport them in quickly.
They had truckers already lined up and ready.
Delivery of supplies was delayed by days and weeks because FEMA and state officials would not allow anything to be moved into the disaster area.
Denney’s has a decades old policy that its resturaunts will open as quickly as possible after a disaster. That the will be open 24×7, that they will provide people whatever is possible – shelter, food. They have a thorough contingency plan covering what they will offer depending on what utilities are still working.
The resturants are instructed to provide sandwhiches and coffee free in the event of a disaster.
Established businesses do not “gouge” in the face of a disaster – they typically do the opposite. The good will that can be earned in a natural disaster for a business is priceless.
But too many of you do not understand how critically important to a business public perception is.
If Walmart was there for you during the huricane tornado or flood, they will get your business later when things have recovered.
At the same time those who purportedly actually gouge – are performing a service.
People with station wagons and pickup trucks were driving distances in dangerous conditions to get batteries, coffee, and gasoline and bring them to people right in the center of the disaster area. This was often very difficult and dangerous work, and worth the premium that was being charged.
Sure the best and cheapest way to get all this would be from normal sources.
But when the gas stations are not opened – because they have no power or their fuel is contaiminated, and when normal supplies can not get through – because the state and FEMA is blocking major arteries and the only way to get supplies in is to sneak past government road blocks, to travel back roads.
Those on the left seem to think it is better to no have these supplies than to pay more because somebody worked hard to get them to you.
People like Jay most likely would be all for this because it would “insure proper training and certify these people know what they are doing”.
Now I do not live down in bayou country, but I think these people have been born and raise on the water and know a hell of a lot more about water rescue and water safety than any asshole in the La State legislature or in Washington D.C for that matter.
Just watching the news and seeing what these people and others with boats are doing is remarkable and if they are willing to spend their money, spend their time and get out helping people before the first federal agents gets their feet wet, more power to them.
And we do not need them paying hundreds, if not thousands, to get certified because these people most likely could teach the instructors from Washington or the state capital of LA more than they already know about water and safety.
I, for one, am linking to the legislators e-mail and telling him his idea is full of sh*&.
It is not so much about boats and water.
It is about letting the people who know how to do something do it,
help them if you can. Get out of the way otherwise.
These people who live on or near the water – know water.
Places like Walmart and HomeDepot know supply chain management and the rapid deployment of goods and services.
Just little bits of knowledge – like Walmart knows that in a disaster people what Strawberry poptarts. A little thing, but also a big thing.
Who do you think will have a better idea how to get 20,000 generators delivered and in use in TX ? Fema ? Or Home Depot ?
One of the articles I linked noted that FEMA is federalizing disaster response post Katrina. The feds dumped alot of money into FEMA. As a consequence local communities are REDUCING their disaster response efforts. If FEMA has all the money, local organizations direct their scarce resources elsewhere. Except that when a disaster actually comes, it is mostly local people with the knowledge needed deal with things as the unfold.
This is another thing that most here – even those not on the left do not grasp about free markets.
They are more about knowledge than money.
I can spray out terms like supply chain management and just in time delivery and all kinds of other corporate goobldey gook that is standard fare for a modern large business.
But that is just “code” for using knowledge to do the job better.
Sometimes that knowledge is in peoples heads.
Sometimes it is institutionalized into the culture of a business – deliverying what is needed rapidly accross the country and the world is what businesses like Home Depot and Walmart do everyday. Even if they are not that good at it – they are 1000 times better than FEMA.
Much of what I have linked is “big business” related.
But the things that happen in Walmart happen in littler businesses too – just with less fanfare.
Further both competition and cooperation remain,
After a disaster it is in everyone’s interest to do well, and to get back to normal is quickly as possible.
Businesses of all sizes are more likely to be saying how can I survive now. Not how do I profit. But they are saying what can I do now that will let my community know we are in this together – because in 5 years I want them to think of me as part of their community.
http://dailysignal.com/2010/08/11/home-depot-does-what-fema-dreams-about/
https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/home-depot-freezes-lumber-prices-in-katrina-hit-areas
http://www.ajc.com/business/ups-home-depot-provide-disaster-relief/ExkaxpdBAwS4Gmyg5QMEeO/
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/30/news/fortune500/katrina_retailers/index.htm
Click to access Wal-Mart_to_the_Rescue.pdf
What was it we did before FEMA ?
Disasters must have just left things to rot ?
What happened after the Chicago Fire – you know that burned down the whole city ?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-014-0175-1
It is not a once in 500 year flood. It is a once in 500 year flood for that part of Texas.
It has been something like 4300 days since the last major huricane made landfall in the US. I do not think that has occured in US recorded history before either.
The term “climate change” is a tautology. Change is the constant of the universe.
Anyone – including a scientist uttering the term “climate change” is just proving how stupid they are. The climate is ALWAYS changing.
What I beleive you are trying to refer to is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
And yes, that is a HOAX. It is just like every single other left wing nut and environmentalist doom and gloom prognostication since ….. Malthus.
ALL Hoaxes. The sky is not falling.
I do not think Trump is some genius. But he appears smart enough to grasp that global warming is not something that requires govenrment action.
That makes him smarter than thousands of left wing nut academics and scientists.
Like russia/trump “global warming” is circling the drain.
Do I need to go through all the failed predictions ?
Do I need to cover the fact that the Global Climate models – which are the foundation for this CAGW nonsense have been falsified by reality ?
2016 is the first in almost 2 decades that has been warmed than 1998 – by 0.02C +-0.2C
In otherwords the new record is not even outside the margin of error.
BTW at 0.01C/decade 2100 will be 0.073C warmer than today – not the 4C predicted.
Yes, CAGW is a HOAX.
Just to be clear – the Global climate models actually predict that a warmer planet has LESS violent weather. The formation of huricanes requires very very specific and rare conditions off the coast of africa. The warmer that area gets the less likely they are to form.
Please actually read the IPCC AR5 rather than spouting garbage that you hear on the news about “climate change”.
Didn’t Honest Don say he had no Russian business dealings, when he was campaigning?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348211-trump-organization-tried-to-open-trump-tower-in-moscow-during?amp
Try reading
“Developers first began discussing a deal in 2015, but it’s unclear if Trump was aware of the negotiations.”
and
“dropped the deal in January 2016”
The left bashes Trump for stupid remarks – and then proves them true.
Trump noted there was violence on both sides – which there was.
Not only in Charolottesville but everywhere.
In fact there appears to be a conspiracy with most cities not to protect anyone protesting who is to the right of bernie sanders.
In Charlottesville. the Unite the Right group was made to run a gaunlet of counter protestors.
The police setup barricades to keep counter protestors off the march route.
But did nothing to prevent counter protestors from scalling the barriers and attacking protestors.
Then the governor announced the event was cancelled – because now that the protestors had reached safety in the park – things were no longer safe.
So the event was canceled and the protestors had to march the gauntlet of counter protestors again.
In boston the coordinates canceled the event after threats, Some people showed up, some libertarians, some free speach people, some pro-trump people and a handful of Black Lives matters people. 30-40,000 people counter protested – the police arresting about two dozen antifa, primarily for assaulting police.
In Berkeley, a free speach protest was called off – because the berkeley police reniged on commitments to protect protestors. Antifa chased the few that did show through the streets beating them. Berkeley hard ordered that no one was allowed on the street with weapons of sticks or body armor or sheilds or helmets – but when has the left listened.
On the web what I am hearing from Antifa leaders as the message of Charlottesville ?
“Next time bring guns”
I am not sure what the group at Charlottesville really was. After pouring over hours of youtube video’s there were a few chants of “jews will not replace us” the night before, mostly by the small group associated with Cantwell who is an actual neo nazi.
Most of the protesters I heard interviewed, were angry white males convinced that they had been ordered to the back of the bus, and wanting nothing more than actual racial equality.
Trump is excoriated for condemning both sides – how could the counter protestors have been responsible for anything, that is despite the fact that nearly all the arrests were of antifa.
Trump then asks what comes after Robert E. Lee ? Washington and Jefferson ?
Talking heads tell us Trump is just being stupid.
So to reinforce this within days leaders on the left are demanding to end federal payment for the jefferson memorial – Washington somehow gets as pass.
And throughtout the rest of the country a long list of statues are demanded to be removed, including people no one ever heard of.
For good measure a bust of lincoln is burned and DeBlassio muses about removing grants tomb.
Christopher Columbus is toppled, the left might as well piss off italian americans.
Their are not an actual immigrant minority and were never discriminated against.
Meanwhile the Trump/Russia story is all but completely flushed down the drain.
A few on the left are starting to note – that democrats have a very serious problem.
And the answer proposed ? Better advertising! “If you can fake sincerity, you have it made!” The problem on the left is not bad candidates – thought is is possible one less horrible than clinton might have won. It is not an unfair media – the media could not have fawned over clinton more. We now learn that reporters had to be forced by their papers to cover the clinton/lynch airport meeting and then they just cribbed from DOJ talking points.
It is not messaging. Better words will not solve the problems of the left.
It is the failure of their ideas. We may not be able to repeal PPACA yet,
but it is a failure and absolutely everyone knows it. Fear of getting rid of it is not the same as strong support. It is nearly a decade of stagnant economy.
It is also because the left has exposed itself as the ideology of hatred.
Whether it is the french revolution or any of the myriads of governments that fixated on actual equality rather than liberty, the consequence has been hatred and bloodshed.
Antifa’s violence is not accidental. It is the natural consequence of villifying everyone you disagree with. Of dehumanizing them.
The media and the left feed us a never ending stream of pointless hysteria.
“See here – someone else condemned Trump!!!!”
“See here – Trump said something stupid again!!!”
“Nazi’s! Nazi’s! Nazi’s!”.
The ACLU makes the mistake of tweeting a photo of a white toddler with a flag,
and suddenly the ACLU is compelled into maoist public self criticism lest it be perceived as white supremacist.
WE are at an absolute nadir of actual racism. No it is not gone, but it is the lowest point in my life. less than 50% of Harvard Freshman are white. tens of thousands of minorities from the most exclusive and expensive schools in the country are running arround ranting about the great threat posed by the some 600 KKK members and maybe 1200 actual Nazi’s in the entire country.
Thousands are carrying baseball bats and mace and sticks with nails – because “Nazi’s! Nazi’s! Nazi’s!”
Don’t walk the streets in Berkeley with a MAGA hat or an american flag unless you want the crap beat out of you.
It matters not who I am. You don’t like Anonymous, call me Hieronymus then. Macabre and nightmarish depictions of hell are a suitable theme for American political life today. Montana political candidate Greg Gianaforte assaulted a brit reporter who got in his face. Not one Republican or conservative publically thought that this was anything very serious, too busy being hysterical about the media and the violent left. I have a hunch that many were secretly pleased. But it is something serious. This is a consequence of the war that is being waged by Trump on the media, a war you liberal hating conservatives have bought into 110%. Now, Ron, do not try to find some cheesy excuse to run from the meaning behind my words. All this anger about the idea of the violent left is so much hot air from hypocrites because you are all blind as you can be to violence on the part of the right or what fuels it. Its been here all along and its going to get worse. There is going to be an explosion from the armed right, something of Dylann Roof or Tim McVeigh proportions or larger, perhaps a media outlet this time, and all you right wing handwringers will come up with some weak crap like, Of course I don’t condone this, it was wrong to blow up the NYTimes and kill all those people, but that was not the action of the right, that was just pure evil, Trump did not feul it, you see, its all really the fault of the violent left.
Beat the press, the new Republican mantra. Along with “It’s time to tell the heathens to go to hell where they are headed and let decency come back to America.”
I stated above that in a decade the halves of the Democrats and Republicans who are not crazy will join to govern. All that idea received was a sarcastic right wing shot at the democrats and an phony attempt to dismiss it because I posted as Anonymous. What I said will happen all the same, and none of you right wing so-called moderates will be part of it. You will all be manning the barricades for whatever far right political party emerges from the heathen damning, liberal hating remnants of the Trump movement.
The right is now anti everything, anti FBI, anti-media, anti-government, anti-trade, anti-science, anti-rich, anti-poor. If you find my statement distasteful, objectionable, and far too broad but you do not find your beloved President Trumps equally broad condemnation of the values of the media, democrats, liberals, Mexicans, and the list goes on, to be dangerous demagoguery then you are enourmous brainwashed hypocrites! Guess what, I am going to tell you the truth in advance, You all qualified! Not every one of you right wingers is against every one of those things, but that is the platform of today’s Trump version of the Republican Party. Why, the right are the new counterculture, all you need is your own Abby Hoffman or Jerry Rubin to come along to lead your parade. You have Trump, you have Sherrifs Arpaio and Clarke, you have the likes of Roger Stone, these are your moral leaders. When you right wing nihlists have gotten done with your orgy of the 2017 version of bringing down “the man” will there be anything left of the country?
I say, Yes! and the middle will pick up the pieces. But its going to get ugly before that happens, very, very ugly and thanks very much for your help with that.
Lost of false assumptions.
Mr. Gianforte’s confrontation with a reporter disturbs me.
I expect better of congressmen.
Though you are still misrepresenting the known facts of the altercation.
The reporter was tresspassing at the time.
He had been repeatedly asked to leave.
He shoved Gianforte.
According to Hillary Trump “invading her space” during one of the debates was threatening and evil.
Gianforte plead to an appropriate charge under the circumstances.
I wish we could have a congress where all congressmen were law abiding and public serving. But that is not the case.
Regardless, I do not get to vote in Montana, and Montana voters made their choice knowing all the facts.
Trump was elected in substantial part because of his confrontation of the media.
That confrontation is perfectly appropriate.
The media has been left tilted my entire life – no one but left loons debate that.
But in the past decade much of the media has abandoned any pretense of objective reporting. Members of the media are open about the fact that they are political shills for the left or specific candidates.
They are facing a gigantic backlash against that. That backlash is of their own making and a consequence of their own actions. It is fully earned.
Trump is not the source of the backlash. He is the point of the spear, that is all.
Of all the problems I have with Trump – his attacks on the media are not among them.
The media asked for and deserve his attacks.
But ultimately I do not think the attacks on the press are all that important.
Various outlets have clearly identified their biases.
If you are on the left and you want the left narative instead of the facts, you know where to get it.
If you actually want objective information, that is harder to come by, but plenty of sources are out there.
This is a war of words. One the left and the media are losing, because the facts do not support the naratives of the left.
No one is being droned, there is no actual violence being directed at the left or the media.
Only the left seems to beleive that when it loses the battle of ideas that resorting to physical violence is acceptable.
Whatever the marchers in Charlestown – or anywhere else symbolized in the minds of left wing nuts, that symbolism and their legitimate presence were not justifications for actual violence. Just as Mr. Fields is responsible for the injury and death he caused,
So are those who beat on his car before and after, as well as those who jumped the police barricades – in Charlottesville and pretty much everywhere else to pummel with baseball bats or tear gas or sticks with nails people who they disliked.
The actual violence of the left is damning – even if they are attacking racist nazi’s.
It is far worse, because they are pretending that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist nazi who deserves to be beaten.
Do you want to debate all ideological violence of all time ?
If so – the left wins the violence trophy hands down.
McVeigh’s actions were egregious. They were over 20 years ago, and they were a direct consequence of left government warfare against people at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Though that did not justify McVeigh.
But if we are going into ancient history there would be the SLA, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the SDS, the red brigades, ….. the myriads of violent left groups of the past.
Dylann Roof was a mentally ill drug addict – which is pretty typical of these types of events.
Mentally ill people construct all kinds of bizarre views and justifications, are you claiming that Ted Kazynzki or Joseph Stack should be considered as representative of the left ?
No one blew up the New York Times. McVeigh blew up the Alfred Murrough building in OKC. McVeigh was targetting the AFT who had murdered most of Randy Weavers family at Ruby Ridge, shooting his dog, his son in the back, his unarmed wife and his infant son, over the sale of a shotgun with a shortened barrel, and over Waco where the government murdered 76 followers of David Koresch to “save” them.
McVeigh was executed for his crimes. No one has been punished for the murders at Ruby Ridge or Waco.
But you are correct – if all of this continues – there is going to be an explosion from the right.
As the left degenerates into lawlessness without consequence slowly people will take the law into their own hands.
The prohibition against violence only exists so long as the social contract is intact.
The left is in the process of destroying it. You fail to realize that violence is only illegitimate so long as government is legitimate and effective.
There are many possibilities for the future.
But the consequences of LEFT wing violence are unlikely to be good regardless.
At the root of the problem is the lefts perception that they are entitled to govern the rest of us as they please.
The left’s claims regarding the 2016 election are both false and irrelevant.
It should be crystal clear that a very large portion of the electorate is mad as hell about been told how to live their lives by washington. Had Clinton been elected that anger was not going away. We would have had 4 years like the last 8 followed by Clinton’s removal in 2020 and probably someone even more authoritarian and offensive than Trump.
Historically left failure leads to authoritarian government. Trump is the natural consequence of past left failure. The left should be rejoicing that as authoriatarians go Trump is benign.
The majority of the country has soundly rejected the left.
Trump is not the driving force, as I said before he is the tip of the spear.
That is something quite different.
Nor are our problems going to be fixed by electing “moderates” and advancing the nany state half as fast.
Yes, alot of us are anti-failure.
Our eyes are open to the abject failures of many of the things you have identified.
I have zero problems with condemning much of the media – it is failed and it is dying.
I think we are in the midst of a transformation of the media.
We are nearing the end of the era of a few large entities pretending to be abjective,
and well into an era where myriads of sources are available to all of us, and we are going to be individually responsible for determining who and what to trust.
I do not have a problem with that. The big problem with the mainstream media today is that while they wear their biases on their sleaves they are still pretending to be objective, and to have some institutional ownership and divine right to deliver the revealed truth.
You continuously try to make this about Trump.
Get a clue, he is merely the messenger.
The message is the left has failed.
Trump is the messenger we got. Not necessarily the one we want.
Regardless, as always the left fixates on words not actions.
It is Obama’s actions, not his words that let the country down.
Judged solely on his words Obama was a top tier president.
On his actions he was near the bottom.
Trump makes little pretense that he is an orator.
He did not seek election as our moral leader or spiritual leader, or rhetorical leader.
He ran promising to DO things, not say things.
My judgement of him in 2020 will be based on what he has done – not what he has said.
You spew of a long list of people, some worse than others.
None of whom are accepted as moral leaders.
You are just continuing this ludicrous left wing nut argument that absent moral perfection, it is unacceptable to confront the failures of the left.
I do not like Trump – or the other people you listed.
But when they are calling the left our for its failures – I still agree with what they say.
I do not need to like Trump to hope that he will prove a good president.
Just as even though I like Obama he was a failure.
You can not seem to separate emotion from reality.
Words, from actions.
You are right that the current conflict is over destruction.
The message of the 2016 election is to tear down the false ediface that the left has been pasting together for decades.
Trump was elected to “drain the swamp”
To downsize government
To tear out the cruft,
the failure
the inefficiency.
You had the chance to fix things yourself.
Trump was not elected with some mandate to positively transform government
to institute bold new programs.
Trump was elected to destroy many things you hold dear.
If you did not want that, then you needed to make those things work,
and you needed not to alienate the electorate.
You still do not understand – 2016 was about hate. It was a backlash against YOUR hatred of the rest of us.
Violence will continue – your violence as well as any backlash to it,
until you grasp that the politics of hatred no longer wins elections,
until you grasp that your laws and programs will be judged on their results, not their intentions.
Your not the middle.
Erudite Legal Justification To Initiate Impeachment Proceedings To Dump The tRump!
https://lawfareblog.com/its-time-congress-needs-open-formal-impeachment-inquiry
Impeachment is not legal it is political.
Congress can impeach for whatever reasons it pleases.
It does not require a crime.
The only “legal” scholarship or erudition involved is in the constitution.
Because impeachment is political, it has political consequences both for Trump and congress.
You are not going to see impeachment.
Because even many democrats are not going to want to face voters if they try.
President Donald Bunker
“Trump’s defenders point out that he has palled around with black celebrities such as Jay Z and Mike Tyson, and that his daughter converted to Judaism when she married Jared Kushner. But at most this shows that Trump is not a doctrinaire neo-Nazi. The evidence suggests he is a more casual bigot along the lines of Archie Bunker, the fictional “All in the Family” TV character from the New York borough of Queens, where Trump was born. That Trump may like particular individuals does not prevent him from stereotyping and stigmatizing entire minority groups.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-arpaio-pardon-20170827-story,amp.html
Yes, jay – we all get the point.
If we disagree with you – we are hateful, hating haters. We Nazi’s – just not “doctrinaire ones”.
Get a clue. This crap is boring and not persuading anyone.
If Trump thwacked a nazi with a baseball bat – you would still conclude he is some kind of secret nazi.
Under Obama Jews went from 71% democrat to 54%.
Older Jews still vote democrat. Younger ones are voting republican.
Orthodox jews are voting republican.
Kushner is busy trying to get a peace process moving in the mideast – with more hope than there has been in two decades.
Trump has strong ties to BOTH the arabs and jews.
I am reminded of something I read at mont pelier.
Southerners dislike negro’s as a whole but like them as individuals.
Northerners like negro’s as a whole but dislike them as individuals.
You still do not get it.
On election night Van Jones made some mangled rhetorical remark that Trump’s election was backlash.
While his mangled label was wrong, overall he was right.
Trump was elected as an in your face response to the left’s politics of hatred.
You can malign Trump all you please. True or false, it does not matter.
The left defined the turf of the election. Trump merely chose to wage that fight in a way that was unexpected. Trump grasped that the lefts politics of hate had alienated alot of the electorate and that cries of “racist” had been overused and have lost their meaning.
And yet you persist in making the the same argument that lost you the election.
American voters have looked at themselves in the mirror and decided that neither they nor Trump are racist.
You lost on that issue.
Coming back to it again and again is only going to increase anger towards you.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-the-left-cant-let-go-of-racism-1503868512
Even the National Review thinks Trump’s pardon BAD!!!
http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/450891/joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon-lawless-sheriff-premature-bad-decision
at first I thought this was an Alex Baldwin skit. But no, it’s President TurdBrain further demeaning the presidency.
Let the enabling rationalizations begin…
Not Kristol’s tongue in cheek; but Dufus explaining his timing for announcing the pardon
Jay;
I honestly get it. Not only are you going to criticize everything Trump does or says but in excruitiating detail HOW he says it.
Though I find it odd – on the one hand Trump is President Turdbrain and in the next he has meticulously planned out his evil deeds down to the moment of announcement.
I am very unhappy with the Arpaio pardon. “Sherrif Joe” is reprehensible.
But politicians issue stupid pardons. This is one.
And not nearly the worst.
If Trump beleives he can fire Mueller – then I think he should.
It is already self evident that the Trump/Russia meme has died, and Hillary is releasing her election memoir – what a gift for Trump.
Regardless, the gist of the attacks on Trump are political.
The forum for political conflict is congress.
I would note that the hysterical speculation of the left Helps Trump.
If Trump was going to fire Mueller – he would have done it.
But if democrats wish to speculate hysterically – that may make it more palletable for Trump to do so.
We have alot of this.
Trump says something that sounds a bit like overreach – such as asking whats Next statues of Washington ?
And the left obliges and instead of looking ridiculous for stupid speculation, Trump ends up looking clairvoyant for know what the left will do ahead.
The reverse also occurrs.
The left works itself to a lather over some evil thing that Trump is going to do, and either discredits itself because he does not, or makes whatever it is palletable by making it reality before it actually occurs.
Anyway, get a clue – what Trump says is not all that important.
Certainly not worth all the outrage you have directed at it
I am more concerned about what Trump does.
Ooops
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/trump-tweets-hoax-louise-mensch-claude-taylor
Imagine if people had described Obama the way you describe Trump!
All of these gains are the consequence of the expansion of economic freedom globally.
http://humanprogress.org/blog/five-graphs-that-will-change-your-mind-about-poverty?utm_content=buffer4f2e1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Confirmed: Lying Donnie knew about the Russian business proposal during th campaign:
https://apnews.com/7c9df42b1c5e4f47b4e1a460441ac0bb
Can you read ?
This story has been arround for several days.
It amounts to a few people in Trumps organization talked to a few people in Russia about the possibility of a Trump Tower in Russia – just as many of the same people talked to similar people all over the world.
Like nearly all these inquiries – nothing ever happened.
Like nearly all these inquiries – Trump never became aware of them.
There is no connection between this and the campaign.
This is arguably not even business – there was never an actual deal.
This is just inquiry into an investment opportunity.
While both Trump’s and Putin’s names are mentioned occasionally – nothing happened.
This is not a business deal. This is something that did not actually happen.
I can read fine: you have trouble with comprehension, or did you not see this part:
“Cohen also disclosed that Trump was personally aware of the deal, signing a letter of intent and discussing it with Cohen on two other occasions.”
nevertheless trump said he wasn’t involved in ANY Russian deals- that was a deceptive statement. He was KNOWINGLY trying to put that one together months before.
Still clueless.
Someone saying Cohen said Trump was aware is not the same as Trump being aware.
Not that it matters – you still have nothing.
Lets say you actually find this “letter of intent”.
That is not a Russian deal.
But lets say it was.
That is not collusion.
Regardless, it would still not contradict Trump’s tweets.
And that is presuming that Trump was tweeting under oath.
This gets borring.
Oh, My God!!!! Trump thought about a russian
Liar! Liar! pants on fire.
Do you have money changing hands ?
Do you have a contract ?
Was a building built ?
There is some hints that someone talked to designers.
Trump personally actually dealing with Russia would be a small problem.
Alot less of a problem than say – “The attack was over an internet video”
I made this argument long ago.
There is not there, there, and there can not be.
Even if you come up with actual business dealings with Russians – you do not have a crime.
Even if you come up with Putin personally providing OPO research on Clinton to Trump personally – you still do not have a crime.
This story is LESS significant than Trump Jr. Meeting Natilia.
But the other story out this week is that Podesta was working with Manefort on the Ukraine/Russia campaign.
That kicks everything Manefort did involving Russia prior to joining Trump’s campaign into Hillaries bailleywick.
It also Ties Clinton to Putin well before Trump. ‘
You keep dropping duds.
These weaken your case, not strengthen it.
If there was real collusion with Russia – Trump and the Russians would have gone through with the deal.
I wasn’t saying that was about collusion, you rationalizing ditz.
I was pointing out another instance of Dubious Donald LYING to the American public during his campaign.
A deceptive lying scumbag was elected President and you Keep defending the Liar in Chief, and a presidency that has DESTROYED MORAL INTEGRITY standards for that office, what part of that don’t you understand?
Jay I have to jump in on this one.
“Liar in Chief, and a presidency that has DESTROYED MORAL INTEGRITY standards for that office, what part of that don’t you understand?”
The “MORAL INTEGRITY standards for that office” was destroyed years ago. Remember Nixon? How about Clinton with his intern? And go back in history, with FDR and Lucy Rutherford? Moral integrity has long passed as a integral part of that office.
“what part of that don’t you understand?”
Amen.
Harding, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, apparently mondale,
Trump did not run, nor was he elected as our “moral leader”.
While I would prefer better moral conduct from the president than I typically get – I do think character matters, at the same time I do not see any president as our “moral leader”.
I see the presidency as a far smaller role than those on the left, and than most president in 150 years.
What I expect out of Trump is to perform that role well.
I do not really give a damn about most of what he says.
I do not care about what he says about local issues like Charlottesville.
I honestly think we should Kill FEMA as unnescary – but I am guessing that FEMA will be the core of the next couple weeks of Trump Hysteria.
Fine – then do we hold all presidents and public officials to your standard of what constitutes a lie ?
What should the consequence of the lies about Benghazi be ?
Those arguably altered the outcome of an election.
Regardless, they were an effort to avoid responsibility for a predictable terrorist attack immediately before an election ?
Further do we dissect 140 char tweets with legalistic precision ?
If Trump says I did no business with Russians – does that mean he needs to add a disclaimer to his tweet that that does not cover preliminaries that failed ?
Regardless, you are not credible until you hold everyone to the same standards.
Trump’s rhetoric has a different style than Obama’s.
It is no more or less accurate.
So lets look at the big picture.
Clinton had lots of dealings with Russia prior to Trump starting his campaign.
Including working with Trump’s future campaign manager to get a Russia freindly Ukrainian elected.
Clinton and Podesta had dealings with Russia through the campaign and to the present.
Podesta has had to refile paperwork noting numerous ACTUAL dealings with russians.
Clinton received the Steele Dossier – a farcical opo research paper on Trump using GRU operatives.
The early stories suggested this was started by a GOP PAC.
That story is now starting to crumble.
The DNC “hack” is now near certain an inside job, having nothing to do with the Russians.
But it does appear that the DNC was inflitrated by agents for Pakistani ISI.
So you only two ways left that Russia could have actually influenced the Election in favor of Trump.
1). Russia successfully hacked US voting machines, and Trump knew about this before hand.
2). Trump has some kind of quid pro quo with Putin for anti clinton stories in RT.
Otherwise you are looking for evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians to NOT influence the election.
Do you honestly think that if Russia provided useable OPO research on Clinton that Trump would not use it ?
Russia did provide Clinton OPO research on Trump and Clinton DID use it.
Lets as an example say that you actually find video of Trump and Putin together in 2016 cavorting with nubile russians.
That might drop Trumps approval rating a few points.
But it does not get you a crime.
I am trying to figure out how you are parsing this nonsense.
Trump’s campaign starting in June 2015
But the Iowa Caucus did not take place until Feb 1, 2016.
So there were abit more than 6 month’s during which very little happened.
I do not think the start of this non-deal is specified, but it died by January.
Thus far your only tie to Trump personally, is a claim that Cohen talked to him and a purported signed letter of intent.
So a deal that did not occur and died before the actual campaign started, but after Trump announced, that does not involve anyone political, and does not tie to the Russians in any way useful to a “collusion” claim is the keystone of WHAT ?
As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Four months into his campaign for President of the United States, Donald Trump signed a “letter of intent” to pursue a Trump Tower-style building development in Moscow, according to a statement from the then-Trump Organization chief counsel, Michael Cohen.
The proposal would have involved construction of the world’s tallest building in Moscow, according to developers of the project.
The involvement of then-candidate Trump in a proposed Russian skyscraper deal contradicts repeated statements Trump made during the campaign, including telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that his business had “no relationship to Russia whatsoever.”
Cohen specifically says in his statement that Trump was told three times about the Moscow proposal.”
Jay;
I know a great deal of what I am talking about.
It typically takes several years for a school district to go from
We need a new elementary school to we have a site and have hired an architect.
The design of an elementary school takes about 18months.
The construction of an elementary school takes about 18 months.
The planning for the World Trade Center started in 1946.
In 1960 the site was chosen.
In 1962 the port authority started taking the property by eminent domain.
By 1964 Yamasaki’s Twin tower design was in place.
Ground breaking was in 1966
The actual tower construction did not start until 1968
Construction was not complete until 1972
This “letter of intent” puts you somewhere equivalent to the 50’s with respect to the time line of the WTC.
It means there was contemplation of something that may or may not START for 5-10 years.
You can plan something gargantuan – the scale of your intentions do not make the thing you intend any more real.
Purportedly designers were consulted. – they were not hired.
Plans were not started.
At best their MIGHT have been some conceptual design work.
Architectural firms do that for free to get jobs.
No contracts were written or signed
No site was selected or acquired
No approvals were granted.
In otherwords this was just one of many ideas that may or may not turn into something.
I would also note that given that Trump had assorted dealings with Russians preivous to this, the answer to Stephanolois’s question can only mean Trump had no relationship with the Russian Government.
This proposal would not alter that.
I beleive that Trump owns properties arround the world. Almost certainly there is one in Russia somewhere.
Is that a “relations ship with Russia” ?
You are using an incredibly broad interpretation of remarks that can not possibly be construed that way.
Given that we have a news story, and not cohen’s statement,
and given the horrible inaccuracy of the media, I am not prepared at this time to accept that cohens statement actually says what the media says it says, much less that what it says is true.
But even if you take every purported fact in this and assume the most – you still do not get to Trump actually lying.
If Trump personally met with actual Russian private citizens regarding a possible project continuing until January 2016, you would still not have business dealings in Russia or relations with the Russian government.
And you clearly do not have what I have assumed above.
That is a point I keep trying to get through to you on all of this.
I do not think Mueller is going to come up with anything of consequence that we do not know.
I do think he will likely prosecute someone for something pointless.
And just like scooter libby Trump will pardon them.
But even in the unlikely event Mueller came up with something.
What is it you think he can come up with that will get the left what it needs ?
There is no such thing – because there can not be such a thing.
There is nothing sufficient to change the outcome of the election that involves Trump and Russia that is hiding.
People can “collude” secretly., but to have an actual effect they must act.
An action that alters the outcome of the election must alter votes.
There is no secret means by which the Russians could have altered 10’s of thousands of votes.
You are on a snipe hunt.
Blah blah blah.
Again you AVOIDED the issue: he lied about having no business involvements during the campaign.
Nothing you said has ANYTHING to do with that.